It’s better a guilty man walk free than an innocent man hang. If you ever get false accusations you better pray one of the jury members have seen this movie.

"I think that it's much more dramatic that two men could be working out their feelings of anger -- much more dramatic than showing something of gunfire." --Mr. Rogers

I was 17 years old in 1987 when we watched this in high school law class. We all knew it was a brilliant film back then. Now watching it as a man in my 50s, it is amazing how self aware this film is, calling out the issues facing society. This is one of those rare films in which all the performances are riveting. And to think nearly the entire film takes place in one room, with a minimal soundtrack. Loved your reaction!

I also loved the scene of the jurors getting up and standing silently with their backs to the guy spewing hate. I think this is the way people dealt with blatant bias in a more civilized age. I can't imagine that happening today, when we are all trained by social media to attack each other. I think today the room would have degenerated into people yelling insults.

I like how the movie shows 12 people being witnesses to the same evidence, but seeing things that nobody else noticed...the knife - the eyeglasses notches - the old man's walk

The same director, Sideny Lumet, made the excellent 1982 film "The Verdict," one of Paul Newman's absolute best performances.

Hey, Courtney! This was originally a teleplay for a "Playhouse 90"-type show in the '50's which were basically filmed theatrical productions broadcast during the early days of American TV. Before formulaic sitcoms and dramas became TV staples, actual playwrights were tapped to provide original or adapted content of high quality. The story really works as a theatrical piece with 12 players in one setting. A few years later, the great Sidney Lumet (pronounced Loom-ET) directed it for film. Lumet is considered one of the quintessential New York directors like Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese and Spike Lee. The film is considered one of the greatest courtroom dramas ever made. It is my 11th favorite film of all time! I like how Fonda's chief antagonists are fire and ice: the bombastic Lee J. Cobb and the coolly logical E.G. Marshall. The cast was stacked with some of the best character actors of the day some of which had amazing careers like Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Jack Warden, Ed Begley and Robert Webber. However, it's live-wire Lee J. Cobb who steals the spotlight with his histrionics and rage! When he has his breakthrough and realizes why he's rushed to judgment, his collapse is shattering and brings me to tears every time. Henry Fonda's magnanimity as he helps him to his feet and gives him his coat is equally moving. Foreigner George Voskovec and the elderly Joseph Sweeney were holdovers from the TV production. A remake was made for cable TV with a black Mykelti Williamson portraying a reverse racist. Jack Lemmon had the Fonda role and George C. Scott had the Cobb role. Courtney B. Vance was the foreman, venerable Ossie Davis was the milquetoast, Armin Mueller-Stahl was the logical stockbroker, Dorian Harewood of "Hill Street Blues" was the slum escapee, James Gandolfini of "The Sopranos" was the blue collar guy, Tony Danza of "Who's the Boss?" was the sports guy, the legendary Hume Cronyn was the elderly gent, Edward James Olmos of "Battlestar Galactica" played the foreigner and William Petersen of "CSI" played the ad exec. Despite the heavy-hitters in the cast, it doesn't have the same power as the original. I feel some of the players would have been better served by being assigned different parts. The reverse racist angle was a clever one, though. Another remake was considered by adding women to the mix. The project was abandoned because the inclusion of female energy would change the dynamic of the story and the energy of the room.

I've seen several reactions to this movie and it's interesting how many of you young people note that the handwriting is in cursive. At 63 I still write in cursive (sometimes), so it's not unusual to me. Things change 😆. Anyway, nice reaction to a terrific movie.

Key question: What does the elderly juror know about what it's like to be elderly? And: the boy -- he is only a boy, regardless his chronological age -- appears to be Puerto Rican. Puerto Ricans are US citizens, not "immigrants". The juror with the moustache is an immigrant -- and better understands democracy and due process than does such as the "all-American" baseball fan.

Nice glasses! Great reaction. Thanks for watching this film. I got someone out of a tough sentence once as part of a jury. This kind of thing can actually happen. I had to convince people, and I did. It was an awesome feeling. Some people don't want to do jury duty. I feel it's the duty of a U.S. citizen to serve when called.

John Fiedler, who you recognized from Star Trek, was also the voice of Piglet in the Disney Winnie the Pooh cartoons.

E. G. Marshall puts on a masterclass, but Henry Fonda and the rest are awesome. The cinematography is unparalleled here. It starts out as an above shot... the heat and the rain are also characters. Then it goes into a mid-shot and then below. At the end the shot extends, as we all feel relief at being free from the claustrophobia of the jury room.

Many people put this movie in the top ten of all time. Yes, high voice guy with glasses was in Star Trek, the attorney who was Jack the Ripper. Been on two juries myself. Everyone should in their life.

Excellent movie! My favorite part is when the man is doing his bigoted rant and everyone gets up and turns their back on him. Very powerful!

You recognized Martin Balsam detective Arbogast in PSYCHO . I was hoping you would’ve caught John Fiedler as Mr. Hengist from the STAR TREK episode “Wolf in the Fold”

Joseph Sweeney, the eldest juror, was born in 1884. His father grew up during the Civil War and my parents grew up during Sweeney's final years. We are all just 3 or 4 generations away from the Civil War. Weird. Juror 2 was the voice of Piglet. The bigot was the father of Ed Begley Jr. Lumet locked the actors in a small room to run .Ines and amp up the tension and discomfort. A timeless classic that will be great in 100 years. 500. ❤

This is a fascinating movie for people of the younger generations to watch because of its historic relevance. Obviously it coming out in 1957 it was ONLY 3 years after the landmark Brown v Board of Education ruling that ended segregation. However it was ALSO about 30-40 years (one generation) after America's largest legal immigration period (1900-1920) where the majority of new immigrants from Southern Europe lived in big city slums (Little Italy, Little Odessa, Hells Kitchen Irish etc...), and the animosity between different cultures in those slums as well as the disdain socio-economically between peoples was vast. When you think about it, these actors not only lived through those periods but also may have experienced both sides of it. In fact the actor who played the old man (McCardle) was born in the 1800s (1878). Also, when Juror number 5 made those remarks about the immigrant watch maker juror this was a really great example of the disdain between a member of one European culture against another... especially since he still had his accent. Anyway, enjoyed your reaction!

So now we know that you appreciate a black and white, well-written, well-acted courtroom drama from this period. It's time to check out "Inherit the Wind." Fantastic film.

Switchblades were illegal; the store owner who sold it said it was the only one like it he'd seen -- but it turned out not to be. Was he lying, because it was illegal to possess and sell them?

A lot of famous faces that we who are older recognize easily, while young people don't: Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Matin Balsam, Jack Klugman, John Fiedler, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Ed Begley (Sr.) - incredible cast.

Also the loudmouth was the detective in the Exorcist. Every cast member was fairly huge. Like, all of them. Some serious talent in this movie. Ensemble indeed.

Would love for you to react to some Sydney Poitier movies. Here's a list of some of my favorites. 1. In the heat of the night 2. A patch of blue 3. A raisin in the sun 4. Guess who's coming to dinner 5. A piece of the action 6. Let's do it again You won't be disappointed.

One of Lee J. Cobb's (Juror #3) greatest performances (by one of the 20th Century's greatest actors), particularly the final scene in which he breaks down and ends the deadlock. Fun fact: When playwrite Arthur Miller wrote "Death of a Salesman," he wrote the character Willy Loman specifically with Lee J. Cobb in mind. If you ever get a chance, watch a performance of this play with Cobb in the lead, or check out the audio version. It's an incredible performance.

Good reaction. Great timing when you asked why the same time the juror asked the same thing to the baseball guy who changed his mind in order to get to the game.

Courtney, some of the best actors in the world did this movie. You might find it interesting to look up the cast. The man who voted not guilty to begin with and persuaded the others is Henry Fonda, a huge star on the order of Tom Hanks in his day. He often acted in, and produced, films of social significance. And reading his biography, I learned that when he was a child he saw a man lynched in the south. It was his father, he said, who taught him about injustice and how everyone must fight against it. He was also a producer on this film.

If you like mysteries and court room dramas, Please consider Witness for the Prosecution from 1957, it’s a masterpiece. Also, it’s July 5th now, but 1776 (from 1972) is an incredible and fun movie about the founding fathers, starring Mr Feeney from Boy Meets World.

If every aspect of the justice system fails you, as it did here, having to rely on a jury to make an informed decision is scary.

They did that on the stage for, if I am correct, 2 years before the movie . Incredible performances. All those actors were great character actors in their own right, some like Fonda and Lee J Cobb were top shelf

Yes, Martin Balsam played Arbigast in PSYCHO.

Two of the jurors in this was in star trek episodes you reacted to. The first one you know about because he was the lawyer in wolf in the fold, but the old man was in the episode bread and circuses when kirk and spock and mccoy landed on a rome like plant and the old man was one of the rebels they met. He was explaining about the religion they followed which is why they became enemies of the state. His name was edward sweeny.

A brilliant masterpiece. More relevant than ever. A group of citizens coming together with their individual predjudices and being forced to examine them. 10/10.

Now you have to do Witness for the Prosecution. This movie is a bookend to this one. Different story Different characters, but a court room drama told from the view of the Defense.

Jurer the 8th is a true hero. The worst type of person for me is the Jurer 7th who seeks the ball game.

Many more classics await you, Courtney. From the days when well-written scripts were far more important than flashy special effects and frantic activity every 2.5 seconds. Since everyone cites _'Casablanca'_ at this point, I will instead recommend to you _'Harvey'_ starring Jimmy Stewart and _'The Bishop's Wife'_ starring Cary Grant.

I appreciate your videos always start with thanks to veterans. Thank you and God bless you, sis.

And.. besides the episode A Wolf in the Fold from Star Trek, Juror#2 was also the voice of Piglet in all the Disney Winnie the Pooh cartoons!

some of the best actors of their time and an acclaimed director … based on a play written of the author's own jury experience, and less than a decade after ww2 and around the korean 'war,' making race n prejudice issues very relevant.

I'm less than two minutes in and your reacting, quickly, and get the material more quickly and deeply than anyone I can remember. I don't give comments quick or often for want reactors, but i want to see more of you watching stuff. Subbed and cheers.

Lawyers always rip this movie apart, even though they might love it. Juror 8 re-tried the entire case in the jury room, appointing himself the boy's defense attorney. That would cause an immediate mistrial if discovered. Plus he convinced everyone that unless they had absolute certitude about every bit of evidence, they couldn't convict, repeating "I'm just saying it's possible!" But as Juror 4 pointed out, "It's not very probable." Thankfully, this isn't a movie about the law. It's a riveting study of human nature and 12 vivid characters.

"Maybe sunglasses, maybe she was farsighted..." He did not mean that she wore sunglasses in a room. He meant that marks on nose could have been made by other type of glasses. But that is not good argument, as those type of glasses are worn rarely. Could not make those deep impressions

Another amazing ensemble cast movie - also featuring Martin Balsam - is Murder on the Orient Express from the 1970s with Albert Finney as Hercules Poirot.

Great Reaction to this Classic...... I saw this Presented Muliple Times as a play in High School (Early 1980's)....... Shout out to the Legends in this Movie...... Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Klugman, Martin Balsam, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Ed Begley Director Lumet wrote in an article: "I shot the first third of the movie above eye level, shot the second third at eye level, and the last third from below eye level. In that way, toward the end, the ceiling began to appear. Not only were the walls closing in, the ceiling was as well. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last part of the movie." The kid not remembering the films is a believable statement. Movie houses weren't multi-screen when this movie was made. A cinema showed one or two movies so in the evening you could buy a double feature ticket without ever asking the name of the films. An angry kid wanting to get out of the summer heat buys a double feature ticket and spends the time stewing in anger paying no attention to the films is quite believable. The hand towel machine in the restroom doesn't reuse the same cloth. As you pull it down off the top reel, it wraps around another reel in the bottom. Eventually you pull all the towel off the top reel. At that point, all the used towel is wrapped on the bottom reel and can be removed to be laundered. These still exist today ion some places and there's usually a service company that supplies clean rolls and washes the dirty ones. The "Them" they are refering to in the original script were "Puerto Ricans" who had Immigrated...... Another Classic Movie that (mostly) takes place in one room, is "Arsenic and Old Lace"(1944), It had a long run on Broadway, and the movie was shot using most of the actors from the Broadway Production.....

Another great court room movie is "Primal Fear" with Edward Norton and Richard Gere.

Great reaction, Courtney! Now when you need something interesting to do, that'll take you out of yourself for a while, you can look at 12 Angry Men. Both my husband and I have seen it innumerable times since we were teenagers in the 1970s. It has so many layers because of the script and the actors that you'll always see something new.

@25:58 _Here's how: Underhanded._ This means *the alleged murder weapon is brought into doubt.* It is shown now that the murder weapon is highly improbable to be *a switchblade* because of the stab downward angle.Remember also that the switchblade found was *found clean of fingerprints.* It is just assumed to be the murder weapon with no proof or based clues.

I really enjoyed your reaction. I love this movie too. Another great classic movie I think you will like is "To Kill a Mockingbird" (1963) starring Gregory Peck.

Enjoyed your thoughtful cometary and your reaction. Subscribed.

One of the greatest, if not the greatest courtroom dramas of all time. Henry Fonda is always spectacular, and it was directed and shot masterfully. And, not for nothing, some of the greatest acting I’ve ever seen. Beats a lot of the slop you get these days. A real classic! Without hitting it right on the head, you have a few bigots in that room. Plain and simple.

This is such a great film. One of the all-time classics. Great reaction and commentary. Other great b/w films worth your time: "The MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE," "MODERN TMES," "FAIL SAFE," and "7 DAYS IN MAY." Other great, overlooked newer films: "PLEASANTVILLE," "STRANGER THAN FICTION," "GRAVITY," and "CHILDREN OF MEN" Cheers!

I love your reaction! I read comments loving your glasses but I saw none-thanks for confirming you were not wearing them in this program. 33:30 33:31

1:28 In _Do The Right Thing_ Spike Lee reminded us that hate is just heat handled poorly. Heat is oppressive and we react to it in the same way.

This is one of my all time favorite movies, probably top five!!! Good to see an African-American perspective on it. And always good to see your great beauty, with and without your glasses 😍 I was part of a jury once! Here in "Silicon Valley"... But we didn't get to deliberate, because the prosecution rested their case because they said they could not meet their burden of proof. But I would have voted not guilty. It was about an undocumented immigrant from Mexico being accused of exposing himself to two kids and their babysitter walking by his car. But he swore up and down he was just adjusting his pants. A big part of jury selection was them asking each of us if we could handle presuming someone to be innocent even though they were here "illegally". Of course, it's the San Francisco Bay Area, and we embrace multiculturalism and welcome immigrants, so all of us agreed that it wouldn't be a problem. The guy did run from the police....but I figured that was because he was undocumented. My opinion was that it was in the early evening, not much sunlight, and the lady probably just saw him adjusting his belt and thought he was adjusting something else...I thought there was a lot of reasonable doubt. But, the prosecution dropped their case. I hope the guy is doing ok these days and is on a track to becoming a US citizen.... 🙂

I'm pretty sure that jurors can not bring their own evidence or do any independent research. Him going to the neighborhood and buying a knife, and bringing it into the juror's room is very much a mistrial.

There are two more westerns with along the same lines The Ox Bow Incident with Henry Fonda where three cowboys were lynched w/o a trail the other is High'em High with Clint Eastwood. The were hung for rustling cattle and murder.

32:10 For those interested, adjusted for inflation, $5,000 in 1957 is the equivalent of over $55,000 today. EDIT: Reflections aside, the glasses suit you.

The man that was ranting was a actor doing his part in the movie

I think the kid was possibly Irish, they were attacked alot back then. Then, at the end, you find out the old man was also Irish, with that last name.

The acting talent that's in this room likely won't ever be seen together again. After you finish your Stat trek journey, you should try the original "Twilight Zone" series.

court I would still love to see you react to "In the Heat of the Night".😃 It has Sidney Poitier as a detective from Philadelphia. He visits his mother (or maybe his grandmother, I always forget) in a very racist town in the deep south. They have a murder in the town, and one of the junior policemen is sent to look for suspicious people who might be the killer. He finds Sidney Poitier waiting for the train, and racially profiles him, and arrests him for Waiting For a Train While Black. The sheriff questions him and calls him the n-word and then figures out that Poitier is a detective, and is very embarrassed. Poitier eventually solves the murder, but it isn't who we thought it was! And the sheriff is less racist at the end, telling Poitier with a smile, "y'all take care" and Poitier says "yeah" and smiles. There's a famous scene in that movie where they are questioning a rich white plantation owner and the owner slaps Poitier for daring to suggest, as a black cop, that a white man could be involved with the murder, and Poitier slaps him right back, much harder, the first time a black guy slapped a white guy in a movie, apparently. 😲 They also made a series from the movie, in the 90s, I watched it all the time in high school. Unfortunately the guy who plays Poiter's character had a drug problem and ultimately had to be fired, and the series wasn't as good after that, but still good. 🙂

OK. Again. In the original stage play juror 3 was not hit by his son but the son tried to stab him with a knife. That is why he was that involved. Don't know why they changed it.

I like your glasses! Play with adding bright color like yellow orange or pink. Could be fun for u

What's interesting about this movie at the end we never find out if he's guilty or innocent

It is interesting that there were no ladies on the jury. If there had been, maybe tempers would not have been so high. I looked it up and the 1957 Civil Rights Act gave women the right to serve on Federal juries, but it wasn't until 1973 that all 50 states allowed women on state court juries.

Thank you for watching this great movie ⚖️👩🏽‍⚖️

When Juror 8 produces his knife, the case should have been dismissed as a mistrial. 11:42

I think this is my first time here. Well done. Thank you. I will be back.

I like you, so I'm a subscriber. This movie is one I rate right up there with Shawshank Redemption, and It's A Wonderful Life, These are movies that move you emotionally.

A strong script, but a "bottle" movie like this required the right cast to keep it compelling, with such a limited setting. Fortunately, they cast mostly accomplished stage actors, including many Broadway veterans, or else it could have been more static and less compelling. (Hitchcock's "Rope" and "Rear WIndow" also succeed despite basically taking place in one room and are worthy of future reactions. )

I love your insightful commentary.

Watch the 1997 remake! Not as good as the 1957 version but it’s still good!

I knew you wore glasses. I saw the marks on the side of your nose! 😃

I loved your reaction. This movie is indeed one of the greats.

Excellent film and noticing the private investigator from Psycho.

I wear John Lennon type, round, 'granny' glasses. Everyone I've said, here try these, let me see how they look on you, they suit. Male or female, they just work. Maybe consider an alt pair. I've always thought, thick black frames, no matter what the styling, always look a bit severe. Although the thick style Morrissey used to wear look cool. Just a thought. Have an alt pair in a different style.

Enjoy your Star Trek reactions, but this film in particular is quite perfect for ANY Trek fan. It's as if the creators of Trek made this film first before color came in. Just like Star Trek: Conversation, dialogue, moral truth, exploration of philosophy, character development, and normal human weakness.

Great reaction to this classic. I'm subscribed.

Great reaction / review. Spot on!! As we say in Texas; y'all be safe

Great choice : I hope you will comment more classics !

I enjoyed your reaction!👍👍

I really enjoyed your reaction and comments

Excellent review and commentary.

Love this movie and your reaction to it. Thank you for sharing. FYI....You look beautiful with or without your glasses.

I would suggest you watch the 1972 version of "The Taking Of Pelham 1,2,3", starring Walter Mathau and Robert Shaw, but it also co-stars Martin Balsom. Love, Hope, and Joy.

Beyond all the jurors turning away during the bigot diatribe the other visual was him then sitting at the smaller table. Similar to children seated at smaller tables at larger family gatherings at a larger dining table with holiday events.

Great reaction to a classic masterpiece!! 👏👍🎉🤗

U look ADORABLE in your glasses, mama! Chic, studious - yet not nerdy & somehow make your big beautiful eyes even bigger. Gorgeous! Lol And your reaction to this was excellent, of course!😘

The father was a convicted criminal -- did time for forgery. Did he have enemies?

the guy from star trek tos is from wolf in the fold, he played the killer

I like your approach. Thanks.

Remember the title

2) THE EYEWITNESS The woman who lived directly across from where the father and son lived claims to be able to positively identify the killer, even though she witnessed the stabbing from 60 feet away, at midnight, while lying in bed trying to get to sleep, without wearing her glasses, while having to see through the windows of a passing elevated train, with only a three-second or so glance. Any rational person would have a reasonable doubt about her ability to do so. But what about the woman saying she saw the son do the stabbing? "JUROR 10: Anyway, she looks out the window, and right across the street she sees the kid stick the knife into his father. The time is 12:10 on the nose. Everything fits. Look, she's known the kid all his life. His window is right opposite hers across the el tracks, and she swore she saw him do it." The brain can be primed to see or hear things differently than they actually are. There is a KZfaq video (titled, "Why people believe weird things | Michael Shermer", on the channel TED, and the segment mentioned above starts at the 9:03 mark. An even better source on how fallible the human brain is an entire series by National Geographic called "Brain Games") where a guy on stage plays a portion of a song backwards for an audience and asks the people what they heard. Some people made out one word: Satan. Then he plays the same portion of the same song backwards, but this time he shows words on a screen: the words people are "supposed" to hear. That primes the people's brains to hear what they are "supposed" to hear and now they hear every word, clear as day. But those words aren't actually there: the mind is tricked. Similarly, the woman eyewitness could have been "mentally primed" to see the boy. Every time she looked across the way into that apartment she saw the father and/or the boy. So that night, she saw a stabbing, but not totally clearly, and her brain was primed to tell her that the shorter person, who did the stabbing, was the son. She could believe she saw the boy do the stabbing, even if it was actually someone else. Here is a snippet of a recent paper that touches on the misidentifying strangers as familiar people: "The questionnaires revealed that the participants misidentified both known and unknown persons as familiar persons approximately six (traditional questionnaire) or 19 (diary method) times a year on average, regardless of whether they expected the persons to be there. They were more likely to misidentify a person as a familiar than as a less familiar person. It was also shown that the similarity of the faces of the person actually seen and the person they were mistaken for was not as high as the similarities of build and clothing." (Itoh Y, Miura H, Shimane D. A descriptive study on misidentifications of a person as a familiar person in an everyday situation. Sci Rep. 2023 May 26;13(1):8530. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-35094-8. PMID: 37237029; PMCID: PMC10220049). Notice that the misidentifications occurred mostly due to similarity in build and clothing, not on the person's face. So if the woman saw a shorter person stab the father - especially seeing that occur in the apartment where she is primed to see the son - that could potentially lead to a misidentification. I am not saying she is lying, just that she is convinced of something that she shouldn't be convinced of.

Good show!

Trivia question: Two actors reprised the movie roles of Walter Matheau for TV.

Possible does not mean reasonable.

The actors were extremely talented people! Most were character actors, but Henry Fonda, E.G Marshall, Lee J Cobb were superior & stared in fameous movies

❤❤😍😍

Hey nice reaction! Can you please react to the movie Edmond (2005)? Its classic and underrated. Subscribed!.....

This film is timeless, and can't be bettered. Don't bother with the remake.

This movie shows why America was great. And now All of these are beeing thrown away by "strange" beliefs and ideological nonsense.

A tremendous script, that is definitely left liberal slanted. Nothing wrong with having a point of view. It's just that the story is told through the eyes of Juror 8, and his worldview, which the story by inference sees as correct. Any others who don't hold his point of view, are painted negatively, or even worse, as cartoonishly ignorant. The middle ground in the deliberation, is given perfunctory mention, merely in passing. As if, the flashier, more rage-inducing commentary of the buffoons, couldn't wait to be spoken. Sidney Lumet was a genius for extracting so much drama, and tension, from just one set. It didn't hurt to have possibly, the greatest collection of acting talent in film history, at his command.