@@unstrung65 Henry fonda is clearly the most accomplsihed. Jack Kulgman the next most recognizable. Some other faces seem familiar. Can you break them all down?
@@mikesied Lee J Cobb - famous actor - in 'On The Waterfront' with Marlon Brando . Martin Balsam with a long movie and TV career - in ' All The Presidents Men ' . John Fiedler was in tons of TV shows , also was in the movie 'The Odd Couple' and the spin off TV series . E.G. Marshall had over 150 Film and TV appearances to his credit , also starred in Tora!Tora!Tora!. Jack Warden was in a ton of TV shows a also in 'All The Presidents Men' . Ed Begley - immediately recognizable in countless TV shows and movies - was in 'Sweet Bird of Youth' with Paul Newman . -- The rest of the actors were not as well known . But I saw the film when it came out and these 'character actors' I mentioned were immediately recognizable and all played their roles exceedingly well
GREAT supporting actors in this film - all of them guys who had made their bones in other great movies. Great writing + great talent = one great f'ng movie.
I'm an older American and have only been on a jury one time. This movie was a big influence on that experience. When we went to the jury room after the trial the first vote was 9 guilty and 3 not guilty. I was one of the 3. My attitude was, prove to me why this person should be sent to prison. All the other jurors seemed to be in a hurry to get home. I was thinking justice is the number one priority.
I had a similar experience (although I hadn't seen this movie yet) - and I was one of those who initially thought the defendant was guilty - though by the end we did find the defendant not guilty. When I finally saw this movie it rang so true.
I was on a jury where on two of the charges I was the only one thinking "guilty" and I thought of this movie at that time. The others did convince me and in the end I felt that Justice had been done. We considered five charges in total.
A jury of your peers is still the best method of judgment. It’s not perfect and It can be wrong but it’s much better than to be judged by one or a few professional judges whose goal is to run you through the court system as fast as possible so they can go home early. You act like a system giving government officials(judges) omnipotent power over its citizens would be more fair.
@@thewiseoldherper7047 Giving a tribunal of judges omnipotent power is more fair than a jury selected with lawyers present. It isn't more fair than a truly random jury. But you won't get that anymore, not ever, because of constant lawyer objections to any independent minded people.
I was about to comment much the same thing. Not only is it one of the best legal movies ever - “To Kill A Mockingbird” is my favorite movie of all time. A few other great “legal” movies, “Presumed Innocent”, “Witness For The Prosecution”, “My Cousin Vinnie”, and “The Rainmaker”.
You gotta include "Anatomy of a murder" if you're listing the greatest legal movies. There's a few more recent movies that could fit the category, Philadelphia, A Few Good Men and Erin Brockovich are all fantastic.
Excellent choice. Hard to believe this movie failed at the box office when it came out. I first saw this movie when I was a young teen in the early 90s and have love it since. The whole movie takes place in one room with 12 actors. It’s a testament to what a good script, good acting and good directing can do.
This was originally a CBS TV movie from 1954 , Robert Cummings played the role that Henry Fonda has in the movie . Henry Fonda produced this movie for silver screen , there are lot of actors in this movie that were not good enough for big movie studios , when they were TV actors .
@@pete_lind I'm sorry you're mistaken it was a stage play for a number of years before it was on t.v. also more than 3/4 of the actors were big movie stars at the time.
@@KngOfTheBlind written by Reginald Rose for CBS in 1954 , he and Henry Fonda produced it to silver screen movie , it came stage play after when , when it's perfect for a stage , it happens in one room .
@@gregorywilson1960 Were is they key word , there is Lee J Cobb , who played cops in several movies , like in Exorcist , Henry Fonda , who has only few TV shows in his credits , E G Marshall who has 8 credits for 1957 , most TV , Robert Webber its his first movie and after this not much in his credits than TV series , Then you have the older men their movie careers were over at this point , who cared if they were big in 1930s and 1940s Ed Begley did movies from 1946 to 1952 , after that nothing much more that TV shows . Entertainment business is ruthless and Opera still consider you to be a has been , if you go and sing in Phantom of the Opera , when thats a musical , so clearly your ability to sing has gone .
18:17 The juror that was second to last to flip was probably my favourite. He was no-nonsense about the affair and took it seriously. He acknowleged arguments from others even if he didn't think they were good enough to sway him. When the one point that in his mind was more important than all the others was credibly put into doubt he did not hesitate to reverse his position. It would be easy to to write a story with a sliding scale from innocent-nice guilty-jerk, and in many ways the movie did exactly that. I was happy that there was this one exception.
The actors name is E.G. Marshall. He was big on TV in the 1960s and 70s. Interestingly he plays one of the grandparents in National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation.
@@NemeanLion- I was checking out his bio and he’s credited with 150 appearances on TV shows or in movies. Not surprising as he had real talent. He really nails it in this movie.
@@thewiseoldherper7047 Great supporting actors have the best movie careers I think. They’re never burdened with the success or failure of a film, don’t usually get typecast and never have trouble finding work. This certainly was one of his best performances.
The amazing thing about the jury system is that 12 people with no legal training, with all their biases, prejudices, and emotional baggage can and do get it right most of the time. Certainly there are times when the innocent in convicted and the guilty set free but with all the re-examinations of disputed cases, remarkably few have been overturned. It is not even close to a perfect system but it is by far the best that has ever been devised.
No CGI, no explosions, no car chases, no cursing. It's amazing when you realize that it's a masterfully presented dramatic story that takes place within a single room (basically) by some of the finest actors that ever lived. A true classic and, as always, a great video by you.
@@rustincohle2135 or car chases or CGI but it is incrediable how engaging the film is being focused 95% in one room. A real display of characrer acting and writing.
My Cousin Vinny(1992) seems to be a movie that is almost universally liked by lawyers. If you have not seen it, it is worth a reaction. Also, 12 Angry Men was remade, and while I will always prefer the original, the remake also contains some great performances.
The fact that MCV is considered so highly by lawyers is fascinating to me. It's impressive that they could make hilarious movie that still took care with details that another film might've flubbed because "who would know?"
@@MravacKid It depends which you see first. For example as with Miracle on 34th Street many think that the original is superior, but I grew up watching the 90s Richard Attenborough remake and simply find it better, even though I appreciate the nuance of the original.
I am a Corrections Officer based in District/High courts where I live. I sit in trials and hear ALL the evidence, just like jurors. I've seen people go to jail that I totally believed innocent. It's fucking heartbreaking. Better 100 guilty men go free, than one innocent man goes to jail.
This film is easily in my top 10, it should be mandatory viewing before you're allowed to be on a jury in a trial lol. Not because it's super realistic, but to realize to know that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and to always question everything...
Instead of a film people should be taught in school how to actually analyze evidence and how eye witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence there is in science.
@@creaturecore13 I mean, a lot of “scientific evidence” isn’t as hard and fast as people think, some of it terrible. Likewise, certain circumstantial evidence that genuinely removes any reasonable doubt is sometimes dismissed because it’s not CSI “facts,” which don’t often exist. Im not anti science at all btw lol. But “eyewitness” testimony is not necessarily the least reliable, because it depends. Like someone saying another person did something to them isn’t the least reliable form of testimony, by any scientific measure. Someone seeing a stranger for a split second from far away, sure.
But even “innocent until proven guilty” is something that has to be questioned based on one’s biases. Some juries will let off people who have committed the most heinous crimes and all the evidence is against them because they think there’s a tiny possibility the person is innocent - and it’s no coincidence those I’m thinking of never fit certain stereotypes of that kind of criminal, or the jury seems to have other prejudices they’re dealing with.
I've seen other lawyers say that, too - that the workings of the case in the film, and Vinny's approach, are surprisingly accurate, behind all the laughs. Great film.
My Cousin Vinny is very entertaining but not all that accurate. You actually can watch some attorneys reacting to the movie on other channels. A Few Good Men is also very good with a great cast but having served in the JAG Corps it is not very accurate at all.
"Anatomy of a Murder" is considered a great trial movie. I remember watching "12 Angry Men" back in grade school over 40 years ago and it still holds a place in my heart as a fantastic court drama. Looking forward to your next reaction. ⚖
I was going to suggest "A Few Good Men" & "The Caine Mutiny" myself. I've not seen "Witness For The Prosecution" but since you have included it, I'm adding it to my to watch list.
Something along the same lines, although not set in a courtroom - "The Ox-Bow Incident". A western dealing with justice, trial by peers, prejudice, assumptions, morality of the death penalty, vigilantism and the difference between civilization and anarchy. Excellent film.
I'm just happy you reacted to it, because it's an awesome movie. One doesn't have to be in law to appreciate just how simple, yet powerful the entire thing is. Also, glasses don't ruin a thing. You needn't worry.
I'd really like to recommend 1982's THE VERDICT. It's topnotch with a fantastic performance by Paul Newman. He was nominated for an Oscar. I think je should have won.
The Verdict is one of Paul Newman's greatest performances, maybe his very greatest. If the movie had no other virtues (and it has many, many other virtues) it would still be worth watching just for Newman.
EXCELLENT reaction, Mary. You started with the best of the best. Kansas lawyer here with some suggestions: Anatomy of a Murder (1959, Jimmy Stewart), Inherit the Wind (1960, Gene Kelly & Spencer Tracy), To Kill a Mockingbird (1962, Gregory Peck), My Cousin Vinny (1992,Joe Pesci & Marisa Tomei), A Few Good Men (1993, Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Demi Moore, & Kevin Bacon), Philadelphia (1993, Denzel Washington & Tom Hanks).
@@davidchalk8883 I honestly think they forgot! There are just so many! Another one ..."The Verdict" '82 🎭Paul Newman and the list goes on. Gotta give to🎭Jodie though, a kick ass, oscar winning performance.🤩🤗
I will tell you a true story about "eyewitnesses". One day in college while in an Administration of Justice class, about half way through the class the professor stopped lecturing us. He said it was time for a test. The question was, "Describe the person that walked across the front of the classroom between myself and you students 5 minutes ago." Not a SINGLE person could describe anything about the person. I barely remember another person moving at the front of the class much less walking in front of the professor while he lectured. So, 60 out of 60 eyewitnesses who were LOOKING at the person as he/she walked in front of them, the ONLY person who walked in front of them for an hour, couldn't describe them 5 minutes later.
I thought so to until I learned about the massive fictional changes in inherit the wind from the real situation (the film had a prejudiced hate-filed side) Judgment at Nuremberg was a better more powerful film.
The best moment in this film to me is the ending, when Henry Fonda's character helps Lee. J Cobb's character put on his coat as an olive branch. Now that's classy and how gentlemen should behave, even though we argued, disagreed, exchanged angry words I still respect you. He said all that just by helping the guy put his coat on. You just don't see that in films now, you know its to be expected though "kids these days" lol.
*My Cousin Vinny* should be on your short list. It is my favorite courtroom movie. It is a sweet and funny movie and every lawyer I know absolutely loves it. Another classic is *A Few Good Men*. Which is excellent. It is a military trial. There are some great older classics, too. But the two I listed are the two I find the most enjoyable to watch, and think you would, too. Both are about 30 years old and considered classics at this point, as well.
One of your best reactions, and it was to one of the best movies I've ever seen. So long as you have a great story, you don't need CGI out the wazoo and a $200 million budget. One room, 12 good actors, and a good script, and you have a classic. Henry Fonda -- the first juror who voted not guilty -- was outstanding in this movie. If you want another movie with him from this era, I highly recommend "Fail Safe." Very tense Cold War thriller that puts the world on the brink of nuclear war. Fonda plays the President in that one.
That's another great reaction, Mary!! This is one of my favorite films. Some other really good legal/courtroom dramas are: Witness for the Prosecution (1957), To Kill a Mockingbird (1962), A Man for All Seasons (1966), Anatomy of a Murder (1959), Inherit the Wind (1960), Judgement at Nuremberg (1961), and Paths of Glory (1957).
I feel sorry for anyone who would not give this movie a chance just because it is old and in black & white. It is a timeless masterpiece in every respect -- material, acting, directing. Thank you for featuring it on your channel, Mary.
I think him saying "he was an old man, how can he be sure about anything" is my favorite moment in the movie. Also, juror number nine sweating after being interrogated, after earlier saying he never sweats. Brilliant writing.
Lee J Cobb’s turn as Juror 3 is my favorite portrayal of any role, by any actor, ever. I first saw this when I was 14, and I remember thinking that I finally understood what people meant by saying that a supporting actor "stole the show".
Yeah, he really knocked it out of the park. Although I don’t know their names, most of the cast are well known character actors I recognize from other movies of that time
@@seanmcmurphy4744 What’s remarkable to me is that he did so as a normal, believable character. Christoph Waltz stole the show as Hans Landa. Alan Rickman stole the show as the Sheriff of Nottingham. However, both of them were playing over-the-top villains with varying degrees of caricature as part of their respective roles. Cobb, however, plays Juror 3 as a relatable (mostly), ordinary, and ultimately even sympathetic character. Being so understated yet impactful at the same time is a remarkable feat.
I agree, Lee J Cobb's performance in '12 Angry Men' is outstanding and probably his best ever. Although his performance as Johnny Friendly in 'On The Waterfront' has to be a close second and the cast of 'On The Waterfront' had to be every bit as good as the cast in this movie.
Other court room movies: Judgement at Nuremberg, Anatomy of A Murder, Witness for The Prosecution, La Passion de Jean d'Arc, Paths of Glory, Inherit The Wind, Billy Budd, The Crucible.
Outstanding reactions, comments, and observations, Mary. I saw this movie when it came out and as a 13 year old I loved it. I have since seen it about 4-5 times and even though I know how it goes and ends up, I still love it. I really felt good when you said it was probably the best movie you have seen and that's probably because you were so affected by it as you watched it. Enjoying this movie again while joining you in your reactions reminds me once again of how wonderful it is to see your reactions.
My Cousin Vinnie is well liked by lawyers for being pretty accurate to how court proceedings work and good use of arguments by the lawyers. A Few Good Men is about military law, similar but also very different from normal court proceedings. This movie is an outstanding piece of cinema, almost the entire film takes place in a single room, but it is still one of the most engrossing films of all time.
I can see how MCV would be their favourite. It has great performances, it's funny, it's memorable. More importantly, it also shows what not to do (though Vinny gets away with lot, I think), how an open-and-shut case can be anything but, how witnesses can be unreliable in multitude of ways, how knowing procedure and your (and your clients') rights is paramount, how expert witnesses work, how unrelated things can screw you in the court, how important it is to be prepared and to know the case and to gather your own evidence, how having a good rapport with the judge and the jury is important, how working with the police is important, how a judge can rule against you even if you are making a good argument, and so on. When you start thinking about it, there's a lot to unpack in that movie. AFGM is about drama. I don't know if it is accurate or not, but there doesn't seem to be much to learn there. Instead, it could make impressionable lawyers incriminate themselves by try to bluff high-ranking officers into confessing in court without any evidence to back you up. Trying to play a witness by bluffing them in court sounds like a bad idea generally, even if the judge doesn't step in to stop you. If they sidestep the attempt, what then? Are you going to try again?
@@blechtic Yeah, AFGM isn’t really accurate with the court procedure. It is very much about the drama… But man it’s good drama. A court martial can also vary in how it is conducted based on the offense. It is similar but has distinct differences from civilian courts. I am not an expert in such matters though, I only have the sparse info gleaned from being in the service and being aware of people who have had to go through them.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer." William Blackstone: Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4, Chapter 27 (1769).
Marij, the look on your face when the jury argued that some people don't wear glasses to improve their looks was like a punch top the gut. They stopped you in your tracks with this one. Damn such a great movie. Such amazing dialogue. They basically shot the movie in two rooms, with the outside window acting as another set. I hope you get around to watching a "A Few Good Men" and "Pelican Brief". Oh plus, "Erin Brockovich", "Flash of Genius", and "Three Billboards" All amazing legal movies.
I have loved this film from the first time I saw it (about 1968), but was surprised by the insights you offered. Great job! You might want to consider Inherit The Wind (1960) based on a stage play of the same name about the Scopes Trial. Inherit The Wind has been produced as a film four times (1960, 1965, 1988,1999) all are wonderful productions with stunning performances, though my preference is 1960 due to Spencer Tracy's performance as Clarence Darrow. The other three versions were made for TV and lack the budget of the 1960 film, and it is difficult to match Stanley Kramer's directorial vision.
My cousin Vinny! Also The Firm. This is a great movie! One of Nolans favourites I've heard. Mary, not in "just" in jail, death penalty was on the line here... Oh later, I saw that you knew that.... I'm writing during your reaction... Brilliant reaction as always! Thanks! I like "Damn this movie is so good, I forgot that it was a movie!" That's a true!
There are some very, very good trial/court-based movies. Off the top of my head, I recommend to you "Witness for the Prosecution", which is a 1957 movie taking place in England, and based on a novel by Agatha Christie; and "My Cousin Vinny", a comedy which has been called a nicely accurate depiction of courtroom procedure.
'A Few Good Men' - Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Demi Moore, Kevin Bacon, Kevin Pollack, Kiefer Sutherland etc. 'Primal Fear' - Edward Norton, Richard Gere, Laura Linney, etc. 'My Cousin Vinny' - Joe Pesci, Marisa Tomei, Ralph Macchio
Great freaking movie (and play!). One of the things I've always really enjoyed about this is that for the first quarter of the movie or so, they both bring up good points to the guilt/innocence. How they go back and forth is just masterful writing. And then I love how it ends... citizens walking back out as citizens. 12 strangers come together to see the merits of the case, then go back to being just every day people. Beautiful stuff.
Oh cool whats your background in law? Im currently finishing my masters degree in civil law in the Netherlands and im working at the belastingdienst. Also this movie is great, and its also a wonderful argument against the archaic use of jury's. EDIT: 6:26 not completely. The USA has different definitions. Youre thinking of the difference between doodslag and murder. But doodslag isnt a one to one synonym with manslaughter and certain versions of doodslag in the Netherlands/Belgium constitutes a form of murder in the USA. Example: vehicular manslaughter. Killing someone by accident (but with a high level of culpability) can count as a form of manslaughter. In the Netherlands and i think Belgium too doodslag requires opzet/intent and such a culpable deadly accident is very unlikely to be considered doodslag.
On the off chance you haven't seen A Few Good Men, that's an excellent courtroom drama - Jack Nicholson, Tom Cruise, Demi Moore and tons of other big names
This is the anti MCU movie. One set, twelve men just talking. Fascinating what the written word can do when properly crafted into a story. Would love to see you react to some Hitchcock movies. Read Window is a similar one room type movie. North by Northwest and Vertigo are classics and we all enjoyed your Psycho reaction.
Yeah, it was made on a budget of $337,000 and shot almost entirely in one room. I would suggest that the majority of the budget went to the payroll of the excellent cast and the rest of the crew. It was based on a television drama from an age when television was particularly constrained for space and time, and was also reworked as a stage play. You can see the play being performed today frequently by high school drama programs because it's fairly simple to produce. Usually today it's renamed _Twelve Angry Jurors,_ and has a more gender diverse cast.
i'm so glad you enjoyed this movie - it's one of my favourites. you are absolutely right about the dialogue - i know i'm biased (I'm 61) but i think good dialogue is hard to come by nowadays. there is a Hitchcock movie - witness for the prosecution - which is an excellent court room drama - you might also enjoy -the verdict and jagged edge.
Excellent movie. Be interesting to see your reaction to Mr Smith goes to Washington It's a jimmy stewart movie, where a regular joe gets elected to Congress and despite being made 50+ years ago it's remarkable how true it speaks to corporate corruption within the US government. Would love to see a Belgian's opinion on the flick and it's relevant themes to today.
Hey Mary, for other court movies do "The Verdict" (1982) one of Paul Newman's finest, Rob Reiner's "A Few Good Men" (1992) a good look at the military court, "Anatomy of a Murder" (1959), "Inherit the Wind" (1960), "Judgement At Nuremberg" (1961) and "Witness for the Prosecution" (1957). I'm sure you'll like these.
That's one of my favorite movies. Also, "Amistad" is about slavery, but mostly set in courtrooms. I also liked "The Caine Mutiny" and "Inherit the Wind".
In spite of several obvious plot holes, this has always been one of my favorite movies because of the acting and drama of a story that can be done on the stage
@@becausethemailneverstops9350 Starting with his violation of his oath and using only what is presented in court to formulate a decision. Judges have actually thrown out verdicts if they believe the jury hasn't done so. Then there is his bringing a weapon into the courthouse, courtroom and jury room. In real life he would be removed and even charged. An alternate brought in and a 12-1 chance for a guilty verdict. Also a hung jury would most likely end in both sides cutting a deal rather than the expense and time to do this all over again. The speed of a persons walk to the witness stand being indicative of how fast one can move in a situation. The incompetence of a person who has a record, carries a knife for protection and yet fails to notice when it falls through a hole in his pocket without making noise or hitting his leg or foot. And worse of all the glasses. They notice the marks on the woman's nose but fail to acknowledge that she does not need them in court. She is probably far sighted and they are reading glasses and so wouldn't need them to observe what she did. I myself use readers for work and have these marks but do not require them for daily life. I still like the movie and its ability to be portrayed in a one room setting for high school and colleges to reproduce!
@@TV-fv1ih None of those are plot holes. You don't understand what a plot hole is. A plot hole is an inconsistency based on what has been established in the story by the writers of the film. For example, at the halfway point of _The Dark Knight Rises,_ the villains exile Batman from Gotham City and then form a blockade around the city's perimeter stating that "no one can get in or out". But then at the beginning of the third act, Batman returns to Gotham City to defeat the villains. But wait, if there was a blockade around the city, then how did Batman get in? The movie offers no explanation for that. Now, ya see, THAT'S a plot hole, an inconsistency in the logic of what the film had previously established. All the issues you stated with _12 Angry Men_ from a juror not being able to bring a knife into court, that it would've triggered a mistrial in real life, that it's not realistic etc. Those are not plot holes cuz none of those rules were established in the story. That's just the typical "not-true-to-real-life" things that exists in literally every movie ever made. Not plot holes. And also, I've had my very large smart phone fall out of my jacket pocket multiple times in my driveway on my way to the car and didn't notice I had dropped it. That's not unrealistic. Those things do happen. And maybe the boy was wearing baggy shorts when the knife fell out, the murder happened in summertime after all, which is why he'd be wearing shorts and not long pants. Yes, not noticing a knife falling through long pants doesn't seem realistic, but you need to remember, the point is we don't know if the boy is innocent or not (and neither does the jury). He could very well be guilty but there is room for reasonable doubt in this case and you can't convict on that. That's the whole point of the movie. _"They notice the marks on the woman's nose but fail to acknowledge that she does not need them in court"_ How does that matter? Rewatch the opening scene. The courtroom isn't that big. The judge and witness stand is right next to the jury box and the table the defendant is sitting at is right next to the jury box. The woman testifying on the witness stand is literally only feet away from the defendant whom she would need to identify in court. Why would she need her glasses for that? The whole point is that she does wear glasses but we don't know WHAT she needs them for. Whether they're sunglasses, reading glasses, nearsightedness, whatever. The point being she's an eyewitness and her eyesight is in question now. It's not the jury's job to determine if she was farsighted or nearsighted, they don't know, they can't know. But since her eyesight is in question now, you can't convict on "not-so-solid" evidence like that. You're missing the point of the film. And lastly, if you haven't noticed, we're not watching a documentary. We're watching a movie with a fictional story. Movies are very very rarely 100% accurate representations of real life. They're not required to be realistic. Realism is not the point of movies. That's why the idea of "suspending your disbelief" exists. The point of a film like _12 Angry Men_ is the study of prejudices, assumptions, biases and the causes behind certain human behavior and also the message the film is trying to impart to the audience. The point is not whether it's a realistic depiction of the jury system. The fact it's not 100% realistic is not plot holes. Again, plot holes are when movies violate their own rules that they establish within their worlds.
@@becausethemailneverstops9350 Do you not understand what you just said? They are all plot holes! The character admits he broke the law! They acknowledge that in the hands of another jury, he is probably convicted. Given the time period this is set in, a young man with a record is wearing shorts? Just because you have no sense to see, hear or feel something drop out of your shorts is you projecting your own short comings on the character! You obviously don't know anything about glasses and they base that the woman is incapable to witness because of marks on her nose? You are even giving me courtroom dimensions! They have violated virtually everything about the Jury system. Even the main character admits upfront that he doesn't know if the boys guilty yet every action is him trying to help the accused! He sets a time limit but doesn't follow it! He then is willing to vote guilty if all the rest does again even though he is not sure. The old man then votes against what he believes to help him out. These are all plot holes since they have no base in reality or the movie! No its not a documentary, but you have to establish a believable baseline to have any credibility. I know what the film is about, since I have experienced most of it, but in typical Hollywood fashion they are preaching to those who more than they do and will suspend whatever they need to get there!
@@TV-fv1ih One, why are you thumbing up your own comments? _"Just because you have no sense to see, hear or feel something drop out of your shorts is you projecting your own short comings on the character"_ Yes, indeed, I'm the only person in the world to have something fall out of their pocket and not notice it. Yes, the fact that items have fallen out of both my jacket and shorts' pockets (pockets that were very shallow and not deep at all making it very easy for things to fall out, mind you) is indeed a shortcoming of my personality. Yes, it's certainly NOT something that just happens to virtually everyone on the planet at some (or even multiple points) in their life. Right. Thank you, Dr. Freud, for your psychiatric insight. I don't know what the world would do without it.🙄 _"Given the time period this is set in, a young man with a record is wearing shorts?"_ First off, what do you mean "given the time period"? People wore shorts in the 1950s, men, women AND children! I simply searched "men's shorts 1950s" and found multiple old pictures of young men and kids wearing shorts and young men walking around in shorts in NYC no less (where the movie takes place). And you can also find quora discussions with people also confirming this as a fact. And also, what do you mean "a young man with a record" wouldn't be wearing shorts? What does him having a record have anything to do with his fashion statements? You sound exactly like bigoted Juror #10 who's "lived among the slum people all his life" and claims to know everything about said people. Wow, the irony. Yes, cuz a young man wearing shorts in 1950s NYC did not exist. Thank god you personally knew every single person in 1950s NYC and their fashion sense to know this universal truth of the universe. What would the world do without your insight? _"Do you not understand what you just said?"_ Yes, I perfectly understand everything I've said. It is you that does not. _"They are all plot holes!"_ And again, you don't know the definition of a plot hole. AGAIN, a plot hole is when the story violates the rules and logic of what it previously established. Juror #8 violates his oath by buying and bringing in a knife into court (and admits he broke the law in the process). Well guess what? We never hear Juror #8 state once in the film that he would never break the law. This was not a rule that the film set up at any point during the movie and then violated later. So, no, it's NOT a plot hole. _"You obviously don't know anything about glasses and they base that the woman is incapable to witness because of marks on her nose"_ I've been wearing glasses since I was 8. I know quite a lot about the topic. And about the woman not wearing glasses at the time of the murder; she was in her bed, tired and trying to fall asleep, at nighttime, and looked out the window into another apartment building across the street through the windows of a passing elevated train. So, the witness is looking through her own window, through the window of one side of the train, through the window of the other side of the train, and finally through the window of the apartment building across the street at night without glasses AND we don't know if she was farsighted, nearsighted, wears prescription glasses, sunglasses, reading glasses etc. And she's what, like at least 50 feet away from the defendant during the night in question? And that's supposed to be the eyewitness account for the whole murder case. But in court when she would have to ID the defendant, she's literally like 5 feet away from the defendant looking at him directly (through no windows, mind you) in a brightly lit courtroom. Why would she need glasses in the courtroom? She knows the defendant in court is her neighbor from across the street. It'd be the same guy she identified to the police ON the very night of the crime. So, why would she need to wear her glasses in court to ID the defendant when he's sitting directly in front of her? You really haven't thought this through, have you? The world is a much better place that you're not employed in the legal system. And again, the whole point is that the witness wears glasses and she wasn't wearing them at the time of the murder. And we don't know what how good or bad her vision is. So, you can't convict on evidence like that. It's very reasonable doubt. If your witness wears glasses but wasn't wearing them at the crucial moment AND you don't know how good or bad her vision actually is, then you can't know for sure if her testimony is irrefutable. That's the whole point of reasonable doubt. He could very well be guilty, but you don't know for sure. Doesn't matter if the jurors then speculate as to why she may or not need glasses in the courtroom. If you're gonna convict, you need to be absolutely 100% sure in your guilty verdict. _"These are all plot holes since they have no base in reality or the movie"_ And again, movies not being 100% realistic to real life are not plot holes. Plot holes have nothing to do with the realism of the movie. Plot holes are about whether or not the movie violates its own rules and logic that it sets up in the story. The film never establishes that Juror #8 wouldn't violate the law. The film never promised to be 100% realistic or to be a completely accurate representation of the legal system. Look up the definition of a plot hole. This is the definition: "In fiction, a plot hole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot." The movie never did that once. A movie not being 100% accurate to real life is not a plot hole. NO movie is 100% true to real life. It's called suspension of disbelief, not a plot hole. It's not that hard a concept to grasp. _"Even the main character admits upfront that he doesn't know if the boys guilty yet every action is him trying to help the accused."_ That's exactly the point of the movie. That the main character doesn't know if the boy's guilty or not. He could very well be guilty but we don't know. A guilty verdict must be irrefutable. So, how can he vote to convict if he's not 100% sure if he's guilty? Any shred of doubt, you're obligated to vote non guilty. It was then Juror #8's duty to explain why he's unsure of the boy's guilt which then convinces one juror after another. Whether you swing towards guilty or not guilty, it's your job in the jury room to explain to the others why you feel the way you do. For someone who claims that this is one of their favorite movies, you sure act like the ending of the film was a total miscarriage of justice and that no one should embrace the message of the film. I don't believe for a second this is one of your favorite films. Never seen someone miss the point so hard about this film.
I agree with other's recommendation of "Witness for the Prosecution". Its been many years since I've seen it but I remember also enjoying "Judgment at Nuremberg". Just remembered Kubrick's "Paths of Glory" has great courtroom drama too.
So glad you reviewed this movie Mary, this is a rare gem from movie studios. I believe it should be a standard for high school students, both from a civic responsibility standpoint & an interpersonal communications learning tool. Great cast, great script & great film.
I recommend you to watch "Anatomy of a Murder" from 1959 with James Stewart, Ben Gazzara and George C. Scott directed by Otto Preminger. Similar in atmosphere, but with a much more perverse ending. These were the times when Hollywood knew how to write good scripts, and not just have a high budget. Well, of course, a movie classic about the film industry. "Sunset Boulevard" directed by Billy Wilder with William Holden and Gloria Swanson, and Eric Stroheim.
My Cousin Vinny (1992) You will love this one Mary, a great courtroom comedy 😎 You really should do more old Hollywood Classics... The star in this movie Henry Fonda has dozens of films, two of my favorites are... The Grapes of Wrath (1940) The Ox-Bow Incident (1942) Yes.... give the 1940-1970 films a chance, so many amazing actors & stories ! Maybe you could do one a month ✌😎
So glad you really appreciated this movie. It is listed as one of the greatest movies of all time. My father born in the 30's introduced me, born in the '70's to this when I was 12. I watch this film once a year and love it every time. Your reaction was brilliant x
As a classic film fan, I am absolutely _thrilled_ that so many are reacting to this film! Exposing so many others to it. The first few films that popped into my head are _To Kill a Mockingbird, A Time to Kill,_ and _A Few Good Men._ Love the reaction!!
The beauty of a court room drama is that it can cover so many issues, Divorce (Kramer v Kramer), Pollution (Erin Brockavitch, A Civil Case), incitement (The Accused), Theft (Carrington VC), Racism (To Kill A Mockingbird), Defective Products (Class Action),
I’m 50 and have seen many, many movies throughout my life, but I have to admit my knowledge is more limited once you go before the 1970’s. After seeing this film only last year, it makes me wonder how many other superb movies I’ve still missed out on. The earlier films didn’t have our technology, so they had to rely on great acting, directing, writing, etc. One monster courtroom drama I haven’t seen yet is “Witness for the prosecution” with Tyrone Power. I have to check that out. Thanks Mary.
You've only missed out on thousands...lol....Check out the Caine Mutiny with Humphrey Bogart. An excellent film based on a play, with a tremendous court martial finale.
@@michaelwalsh1035 I’ve actually seen more black & white films than anyone I know that are near my age group. You won’t hear people talking about films anymore like Ikiru, North by Northwest, White Heat, etc. Problem is many of the films I haven’t seen are so old, it’s harder to find them anywhere. I actually had to purchase On The Waterfront on dvd because I had been searching for it for years and couldn’t take it anymore. I’ll be sure to keep an eye out for Canine Mutiny too thanks.
12 Angry Men is my "All Time" favorite movie, has been since I first saw it as a kid back in the early 80s. I'm a massive fan of character development in stories and this movie really focuses on that. There's also a version of this movie from 1997 which was well done but for me nothing compares to this version from 1957.
For me the 97 one is a pale imitation, if you hadnt seen the original it is a good film, but seeing the original just blows your mind, i found the remake had to have some tick boxes, but it was interesting as well.
@@Greenwood4727 I actually agree with you. I usually hate the idea of movie remakes as they frequently seem to end up worse than the original. Many times ideas like "This movie needs a car chase in it to spice things up!" get added. UGH! I should have clarified that they redid the movie and kept true to the original intention. I absolutely would NEVER suggest watching the newer version over the 1957 one.
@@Mr.Batsu12 it was a decent enough film in itself, the acting the 97 one, dont get me wrong i did enjoy it, just not to the level of the original. I like movies even remakes if they add something to the lore, to the story, psycho the remake was almost shot for shot it didnt add anything even a few scenes cheapened the movie, the obvious masturbation part.. halloween 2018 added something different to the story. the night mare on elm street remake it was more gritty, but i personally would have wanted that freddy was innocent and thats why he was killing the kids, adding something new to the story
"A few good men" would be a good one to react to. Its about military law but still damn good performances. "Rules of engagement" is another good military law film. My biggest recommendation though would be for "Erin Brockovich"
7:36 Wow, that's Los Angeles County medical examiner "Quincy" 👍😱 An old TV series from the '70s. In Denmark we saw it every Saturday, prime time. We only had one TV channel so there wasn't any choices Yeah, the good old days 👍👍😊😀
We were assigned to read the play in school around 1970. I really liked it. I first saw the movie about ten years later. This is one example of a movie that is better than the literature. As you said the actors were so perfect at bringing life to the characters. Well written and well performed, this really opened my mind to the ideals behind out jury system. I have twice served on juries and took the service very seriously.
You need to watch "My Cousin Vinny" Legal Eagle on his TH-cam channel actually said something about how law schools actually use this movie is teaching law students about courtroom proceedures.
Mari is really lining up these incredible films lately ; ) And she's one of the few reactors that I actually really consistently care to see a reaction from with that big, beautiful heart and perfect nose :D
It's one of the best movies of all time. The long (nearly 5 min) one shot open in the Jury room before they finally break for the juror at the window, just brilliant. Dialogue amazing. A whole movie shot in this simple 2 set room and amazing camera work, brilliant movie! Social commentary pretty fitting although I wish the world could disagree like these very varied men did without viewing the other as pure evil as the only explanation. I'm 48 so i wonder if others may have mentioned but I was shown this in school. around 7th grade or so. Super impactful movie for me. I love it.
Other good legal movies, some of which have already been mentioned. My Cousin Vinny (Legal comedy) Legally Blonde (Very silly Legal comedy) A Few Good Men (drama) The Rainmaker (drama) Others that don't take place in court but involve lawyers or legal battles. The Pelican Brief (Thriller) The Firm (Thriller) Erin Brochavich (drama base on a true story)
Every time I see a reactor see this film for the first time, it gives me a warm feeling inside knowing they have just watched a movie that was not only a great movie but one that would never be on your radar in real life. A friend, especially in the age group you are in, would never suggest, or possibly, know about this movie, today. Seeing another commenter say they saw this in school makes me wish I was given this gift during my school years. When I saw this the first time, I was floored. And it bugs me that everyone in the world hasn't seen this. But when they eventually do, I think the message of this film gives people a very good look into how easily the world is different for the wrong reasons. It gives me more understanding to deal with ornery people. You have definitely made this January a great one with the gems you've released. I hope your holiday was enjoyable and restful. Mary, keep up the good work.
There is a film you might be interested in. It's an HBO original movie from around 2001, it's called "Conspiracy". It's based on a true story and it's about a secret meeting to discuss "The Jewish question" and "The final solution". The reason why I bring this up is because it's the same format as this film. It's about 12 or so guys (quiet a few lawyers) sitting around a table arguing.
the gesture where he helps the other guy in his jacket in the end is something you dont find a lot anymore. honoring your opponent. a person can be very wrong about something... but that doesnt make them a bad human.
“The Verdict” @1980 and “Body Heat” (Nuevo film noir) are also great. The judge quoted a scene from Body Heat during my swearing in ceremony for the D.C. Bar.
I like what you said about valuing human life. The guy said “they” don’t have respect for human life and barely any feelings, when almost every one of them, at least outwardly, were jovially ready to have essentially a child executed and then go back to their lives. They didn’t value HIS human life. And it’s ironic that they viewed him as deserving of this penalty because he was a criminal and a “waste,” but him supposedly executing an extremely abusive criminal, who hurt him personally, meant he was an inveterate danger to mankind.
I love this movie for two main reasons. It shows us how a picture can be so clear, but once you start questioning bits and pieces it can get blurry real fast. The other part I love is actually the power of suggestion. When the old man is talking about the woman and the marks on her nose. He mentions it then another and another are like oh yeah she did have them. And I have had some work with robberies and it is why if a robbery occurs you are never to discuss it with other witnesses cause the power of suggestion can change what you think you saw. Like oh yeah the robber had glasses remember? and robber never had glasses, but after one suggestion everyone said he did.
I don't know if you see the comments on older uploads but I'd like to recommend "...And Justice for All" starring Al Pacino. It's a legal drama and a very good film. It has a very famous courtroom scene that you may have heard referenced. I think you'd enjoy it.
23:06 " yes, don't call us out" lmao❤
😄
"Why are these men so angr- oh right the title."
Got a good laugh out of me.
"You can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!" ―Beelzebot, Futurama
@@neil2444 "As a robot i cant feel emotions, and sometimes that makes me feel sad."- Bender B. Rodriguez
Juror #3's "not guilty" at the end really hits. I've always felt it was meant for his son, as well as his vote on the verdict.
This movie is a brilliant social commentary and the acting is world class.
Almost every actor there is a fairly well known character actor , or star.
@@unstrung65 I cant say i know all of these actors. but most of them have made a name
@@unstrung65 Henry fonda is clearly the most accomplsihed. Jack Kulgman the next most recognizable. Some other faces seem familiar. Can you break them all down?
@@mikesied Lee J Cobb - famous actor - in 'On The Waterfront' with Marlon Brando . Martin Balsam with a long movie and TV career - in ' All The Presidents Men ' . John Fiedler was in tons of TV shows , also was in the movie 'The Odd Couple' and the spin off TV series . E.G. Marshall had over 150 Film and TV appearances to his credit , also starred in Tora!Tora!Tora!. Jack Warden was in a ton of TV shows a also in 'All The Presidents Men' . Ed Begley - immediately recognizable in countless TV shows and movies - was in 'Sweet Bird of Youth' with Paul Newman . -- The rest of the actors were not as well known . But I saw the film when it came out and these 'character actors' I mentioned were immediately recognizable and all played their roles exceedingly well
GREAT supporting actors in this film - all of them guys who had made their bones in other great movies. Great writing + great talent = one great f'ng movie.
I'm an older American and have only been on a jury one time. This movie was a big influence on that experience. When we went to the jury room after the trial the first vote was 9 guilty and 3 not guilty. I was one of the 3. My attitude was, prove to me why this person should be sent to prison. All the other jurors seemed to be in a hurry to get home. I was thinking justice is the number one priority.
I had a similar experience (although I hadn't seen this movie yet) - and I was one of those who initially thought the defendant was guilty - though by the end we did find the defendant not guilty. When I finally saw this movie it rang so true.
Thank you for honoring the immense service it is to judge another
I was on a jury where on two of the charges I was the only one thinking "guilty" and I thought of this movie at that time. The others did convince me and in the end I felt that Justice had been done. We considered five charges in total.
A jury of your peers is still the best method of judgment. It’s not perfect and It can be wrong but it’s much better than to be judged by one or a few professional judges whose goal is to run you through the court system as fast as possible so they can go home early. You act like a system giving government officials(judges) omnipotent power over its citizens would be more fair.
@@thewiseoldherper7047 Giving a tribunal of judges omnipotent power is more fair than a jury selected with lawyers present. It isn't more fair than a truly random jury. But you won't get that anymore, not ever, because of constant lawyer objections to any independent minded people.
This movie really is a gem. The entire movie in one room, no action, no CGI, just a great script and 12 great actors. Glad you liked it so much!!
If you haven't seen it yet: "To kill a mockingbird" is, for me (and many others) one of the best trial/prosecution based movies...
Agree. Based on a Pulitzer prizewinning book, it’s one of the most beloved stories in America
And after that you need to watch Just Mercy, directed by Michael B. Jordan.
I was about to comment much the same thing. Not only is it one of the best legal movies ever - “To Kill A Mockingbird” is my favorite movie of all time. A few other great “legal” movies, “Presumed Innocent”, “Witness For The Prosecution”, “My Cousin Vinnie”, and “The Rainmaker”.
You gotta include "Anatomy of a murder" if you're listing the greatest legal movies.
There's a few more recent movies that could fit the category, Philadelphia, A Few Good Men and Erin Brockovich are all fantastic.
@@MravacKid I’m glad I wasn’t the first to think of “ Anatomy of a Murder”. I need to watch it again.
Excellent choice. Hard to believe this movie failed at the box office when it came out. I first saw this movie when I was a young teen in the early 90s and have love it since. The whole movie takes place in one room with 12 actors. It’s a testament to what a good script, good acting and good directing can do.
I believe this was originally a stage play which is why the screenplay works so well. I also believe this is the best screen version of it by far.
This was originally a CBS TV movie from 1954 , Robert Cummings played the role that Henry Fonda has in the movie .
Henry Fonda produced this movie for silver screen , there are lot of actors in this movie that were not good enough for big movie studios , when they were TV actors .
@@pete_lind I'm sorry you're mistaken it was a stage play for a number of years before it was on t.v. also more than 3/4 of the actors were big movie stars at the time.
@@KngOfTheBlind written by Reginald Rose for CBS in 1954 , he and Henry Fonda produced it to silver screen movie , it came stage play after when , when it's perfect for a stage , it happens in one room .
@@gregorywilson1960 Were is they key word , there is Lee J Cobb , who played cops in several movies , like in Exorcist , Henry Fonda , who has only few TV shows in his credits , E G Marshall who has 8 credits for 1957 , most TV , Robert Webber its his first movie and after this not much in his credits than TV series , Then you have the older men their movie careers were over at this point , who cared if they were big in 1930s and 1940s Ed Begley did movies from 1946 to 1952 , after that nothing much more that TV shows .
Entertainment business is ruthless and Opera still consider you to be a has been , if you go and sing in Phantom of the Opera , when thats a musical , so clearly your ability to sing has gone .
18:17 The juror that was second to last to flip was probably my favourite. He was no-nonsense about the affair and took it seriously. He acknowleged arguments from others even if he didn't think they were good enough to sway him. When the one point that in his mind was more important than all the others was credibly put into doubt he did not hesitate to reverse his position.
It would be easy to to write a story with a sliding scale from innocent-nice guilty-jerk, and in many ways the movie did exactly that. I was happy that there was this one exception.
Plus his takedown of the racist after his rant immediatly made me respect him even more
The actors name is E.G. Marshall. He was big on TV in the 1960s and 70s. Interestingly he plays one of the grandparents in National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation.
@@thewiseoldherper7047 As a kid, I actually remember him most from Superman 2. He played the President.
@@NemeanLion- I was checking out his bio and he’s credited with 150 appearances on TV shows or in movies. Not surprising as he had real talent. He really nails it in this movie.
@@thewiseoldherper7047 Great supporting actors have the best movie careers I think. They’re never burdened with the success or failure of a film, don’t usually get typecast and never have trouble finding work. This certainly was one of his best performances.
The amazing thing about the jury system is that 12 people with no legal training, with all their biases, prejudices, and emotional baggage can and do get it right most of the time. Certainly there are times when the innocent in convicted and the guilty set free but with all the re-examinations of disputed cases, remarkably few have been overturned. It is not even close to a perfect system but it is by far the best that has ever been devised.
No CGI, no explosions, no car chases, no cursing. It's amazing when you realize that it's a masterfully presented dramatic story that takes place within a single room (basically) by some of the finest actors that ever lived. A true classic and, as always, a great video by you.
@@rustincohle2135 or car chases or CGI but it is incrediable how engaging the film is being focused 95% in one room. A real display of characrer acting and writing.
My Cousin Vinny(1992) seems to be a movie that is almost universally liked by lawyers. If you have not seen it, it is worth a reaction.
Also, 12 Angry Men was remade, and while I will always prefer the original, the remake also contains some great performances.
The fact that MCV is considered so highly by lawyers is fascinating to me. It's impressive that they could make hilarious movie that still took care with details that another film might've flubbed because "who would know?"
Yeah, the remake is also very good, its only real problem is that it has to be compared to this masterpiece. :)
@@MravacKid It depends which you see first.
For example as with Miracle on 34th Street many think that the original is superior, but I grew up watching the 90s Richard Attenborough remake and simply find it better, even though I appreciate the nuance of the original.
I am a Corrections Officer based in District/High courts where I live. I sit in trials and hear ALL the evidence, just like jurors. I've seen people go to jail that I totally believed innocent. It's fucking heartbreaking. Better 100 guilty men go free, than one innocent man goes to jail.
This film is easily in my top 10, it should be mandatory viewing before you're allowed to be on a jury in a trial lol. Not because it's super realistic, but to realize to know that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and to always question everything...
Instead of a film people should be taught in school how to actually analyze evidence and how eye witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence there is in science.
@@creaturecore13 I mean, a lot of “scientific evidence” isn’t as hard and fast as people think, some of it terrible. Likewise, certain circumstantial evidence that genuinely removes any reasonable doubt is sometimes dismissed because it’s not CSI “facts,” which don’t often exist. Im not anti science at all btw lol. But “eyewitness” testimony is not necessarily the least reliable, because it depends. Like someone saying another person did something to them isn’t the least reliable form of testimony, by any scientific measure. Someone seeing a stranger for a split second from far away, sure.
But even “innocent until proven guilty” is something that has to be questioned based on one’s biases. Some juries will let off people who have committed the most heinous crimes and all the evidence is against them because they think there’s a tiny possibility the person is innocent - and it’s no coincidence those I’m thinking of never fit certain stereotypes of that kind of criminal, or the jury seems to have other prejudices they’re dealing with.
My Cousin Vinny is not only one of the more accurate lawyer/trail movies, it is also one of the funniest.
Absolutely a classic. And the first film I thought of for any lawyer to react to.
*A Few Good Men* would also be great.
I've seen other lawyers say that, too - that the workings of the case in the film, and Vinny's approach, are surprisingly accurate, behind all the laughs. Great film.
@@vercoda9997 "I got no more use for this one." Somehow, still one of my favorite lines and delivery...
My Cousin Vinny is very entertaining but not all that accurate. You actually can watch some attorneys reacting to the movie on other channels. A Few Good Men is also very good with a great cast but having served in the JAG Corps it is not very accurate at all.
@@jonhenry8268 Well,no way his girlfriend is approved as an expert witness lol. So some people keep saying it's accurate just confuses me.
"Anatomy of a Murder" is considered a great trial movie. I remember watching "12 Angry Men" back in grade school over 40 years ago and it still holds a place in my heart as a fantastic court drama. Looking forward to your next reaction. ⚖
Don't forget: one reason they're "angry" is because it's an incredibly hot day and there's no air conditioning.
Other courtroom drama recommendations:
"A Few Good Men"
"The Caine Mutiny"
"Witness For The Prosecution"
I love courtroom dramas too😊
I was going to suggest "A Few Good Men" & "The Caine Mutiny" myself. I've not seen "Witness For The Prosecution" but since you have included it, I'm adding it to my to watch list.
And Justice For All, two Oscars nominations for Best Actor and screenplay.
Something along the same lines, although not set in a courtroom - "The Ox-Bow Incident". A western dealing with justice, trial by peers, prejudice, assumptions, morality of the death penalty, vigilantism and the difference between civilization and anarchy. Excellent film.
Judgment at Nuremberg, another great courtroom drama.
I'm just happy you reacted to it, because it's an awesome movie. One doesn't have to be in law to appreciate just how simple, yet powerful the entire thing is. Also, glasses don't ruin a thing. You needn't worry.
It one of my favorite movies. Never a wasted moment, camera shot, or word of dialogue. It’s one of the greatest made so far. Love the glasses Mary.
I'd really like to recommend 1982's THE VERDICT. It's topnotch with a fantastic performance by Paul Newman. He was nominated for an Oscar. I think je should have won.
THE VERDICT is also directed by Sydney Lumet.
The Verdict is one of Paul Newman's greatest performances, maybe his very greatest. If the movie had no other virtues (and it has many, many other virtues) it would still be worth watching just for Newman.
The verdict is one of my favourite courtroom movies
The Verdict is outstanding, Newman was robbed of an Oscar that year. I think the only comparable performance by him was Cool Hand Luke.
And a return of Jack Warden.
2:28 Yes! This is the New York County Courthouse!
EXCELLENT reaction, Mary. You started with the best of the best. Kansas lawyer here with some suggestions: Anatomy of a Murder (1959, Jimmy Stewart), Inherit the Wind (1960, Gene Kelly & Spencer Tracy), To Kill a Mockingbird (1962, Gregory Peck), My Cousin Vinny (1992,Joe Pesci & Marisa Tomei), A Few Good Men (1993, Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Demi Moore, & Kevin Bacon), Philadelphia (1993, Denzel Washington & Tom Hanks).
NY lawyer here to second all of these!
What about "The Accused" Jodie Foster
@@davidchalk8883 I honestly think they forgot! There are just so many! Another one ..."The Verdict" '82 🎭Paul Newman and the list goes on. Gotta give to🎭Jodie though, a kick ass, oscar winning performance.🤩🤗
Another "lawyerly" type movie is "The Firm" with Tom Cruise
Mary says "emotional stress" twice and cat to the rescue.
I will tell you a true story about "eyewitnesses". One day in college while in an Administration of Justice class, about half way through the class the professor stopped lecturing us. He said it was time for a test. The question was, "Describe the person that walked across the front of the classroom between myself and you students 5 minutes ago." Not a SINGLE person could describe anything about the person. I barely remember another person moving at the front of the class much less walking in front of the professor while he lectured. So, 60 out of 60 eyewitnesses who were LOOKING at the person as he/she walked in front of them, the ONLY person who walked in front of them for an hour, couldn't describe them 5 minutes later.
Please do “inherit the wind” 1960 version! No else does it and it’s an amazing court room film!
Gene Kelly and SPENCER TRACY!
I thought so to until I learned about the massive fictional changes in inherit the wind from the real situation (the film had a prejudiced hate-filed side) Judgment at Nuremberg was a better more powerful film.
@@noirgatherer Didn't know that, Judgment at Nuremberg is a great movie too, Spancer Tracy, Judy Garland.... Great movie
Brilliant recommendation!
The best moment in this film to me is the ending, when Henry Fonda's character helps Lee. J Cobb's character put on his coat as an olive branch. Now that's classy and how gentlemen should behave, even though we argued, disagreed, exchanged angry words I still respect you. He said all that just by helping the guy put his coat on. You just don't see that in films now, you know its to be expected though "kids these days" lol.
*My Cousin Vinny* should be on your short list. It is my favorite courtroom movie. It is a sweet and funny movie and every lawyer I know absolutely loves it.
Another classic is *A Few Good Men*. Which is excellent. It is a military trial.
There are some great older classics, too. But the two I listed are the two I find the most enjoyable to watch, and think you would, too. Both are about 30 years old and considered classics at this point, as well.
One of your best reactions, and it was to one of the best movies I've ever seen. So long as you have a great story, you don't need CGI out the wazoo and a $200 million budget. One room, 12 good actors, and a good script, and you have a classic.
Henry Fonda -- the first juror who voted not guilty -- was outstanding in this movie. If you want another movie with him from this era, I highly recommend "Fail Safe." Very tense Cold War thriller that puts the world on the brink of nuclear war. Fonda plays the President in that one.
This always makes me think of the saying 'Fools are full of confidence and geniuses are full of doubt.' I think we call it "Dunning Kruger" nowadays.
That's another great reaction, Mary!! This is one of my favorite films. Some other really good legal/courtroom dramas are: Witness for the Prosecution (1957), To Kill a Mockingbird (1962), A Man for All Seasons (1966), Anatomy of a Murder (1959), Inherit the Wind (1960), Judgement at Nuremberg (1961), and Paths of Glory (1957).
That's MY list! -- but I'll add "The Verdict".
One of the greatest films ever made. My recommendation for another 'courtroom film' is Murder in the First.
Anatomy of a Murder would be another good one.
I feel sorry for anyone who would not give this movie a chance just because it is old and in black & white. It is a timeless masterpiece in every respect -- material, acting, directing. Thank you for featuring it on your channel, Mary.
I think him saying "he was an old man, how can he be sure about anything" is my favorite moment in the movie. Also, juror number nine sweating after being interrogated, after earlier saying he never sweats. Brilliant writing.
Yeah -- what does an elderly man know about being elderly?
Lee J Cobb’s turn as Juror 3 is my favorite portrayal of any role, by any actor, ever. I first saw this when I was 14, and I remember thinking that I finally understood what people meant by saying that a supporting actor "stole the show".
Yeah, he really knocked it out of the park. Although I don’t know their names, most of the cast are well known character actors I recognize from other movies of that time
@@seanmcmurphy4744 What’s remarkable to me is that he did so as a normal, believable character.
Christoph Waltz stole the show as Hans Landa. Alan Rickman stole the show as the Sheriff of Nottingham. However, both of them were playing over-the-top villains with varying degrees of caricature as part of their respective roles.
Cobb, however, plays Juror 3 as a relatable (mostly), ordinary, and ultimately even sympathetic character. Being so understated yet impactful at the same time is a remarkable feat.
I agree, Lee J Cobb's performance in '12 Angry Men' is outstanding and probably his best ever. Although his performance as Johnny Friendly in 'On The Waterfront' has to be a close second and the cast of 'On The Waterfront' had to be every bit as good as the cast in this movie.
Hiya. I agree with several others - 'Inherit The Wind' and 'To Kill A Mockingbird'. Stay safe. All the best to you.
"A time to kill" is a great court movie.... also "the rainmaker" both amazing 👏
Other court room movies: Judgement at Nuremberg, Anatomy of A Murder, Witness for The Prosecution, La Passion de Jean d'Arc, Paths of Glory, Inherit The Wind, Billy Budd, The Crucible.
All of these men have had distinguished acting careers.I've seen them in hundreds of movies.
My favourite is MY COUSIN VINNY. Excellent Oscar winning comedy. Steve
Outstanding reactions, comments, and observations, Mary. I saw this movie when it came out and as a 13 year old I loved it. I have since seen it about 4-5 times and even though I know how it goes and ends up, I still love it. I really felt good when you said it was probably the best movie you have seen and that's probably because you were so affected by it as you watched it. Enjoying this movie again while joining you in your reactions reminds me once again of how wonderful it is to see your reactions.
I second that 'My Cousin Vinny' movie. Not only will Mary like the courtroom we will get to hear her laugh as there are many, many funny parts.
My Cousin Vinnie is well liked by lawyers for being pretty accurate to how court proceedings work and good use of arguments by the lawyers.
A Few Good Men is about military law, similar but also very different from normal court proceedings.
This movie is an outstanding piece of cinema, almost the entire film takes place in a single room, but it is still one of the most engrossing films of all time.
I can see how MCV would be their favourite. It has great performances, it's funny, it's memorable. More importantly, it also shows what not to do (though Vinny gets away with lot, I think), how an open-and-shut case can be anything but, how witnesses can be unreliable in multitude of ways, how knowing procedure and your (and your clients') rights is paramount, how expert witnesses work, how unrelated things can screw you in the court, how important it is to be prepared and to know the case and to gather your own evidence, how having a good rapport with the judge and the jury is important, how working with the police is important, how a judge can rule against you even if you are making a good argument, and so on. When you start thinking about it, there's a lot to unpack in that movie.
AFGM is about drama. I don't know if it is accurate or not, but there doesn't seem to be much to learn there. Instead, it could make impressionable lawyers incriminate themselves by try to bluff high-ranking officers into confessing in court without any evidence to back you up. Trying to play a witness by bluffing them in court sounds like a bad idea generally, even if the judge doesn't step in to stop you. If they sidestep the attempt, what then? Are you going to try again?
@@blechtic Yeah, AFGM isn’t really accurate with the court procedure. It is very much about the drama… But man it’s good drama.
A court martial can also vary in how it is conducted based on the offense. It is similar but has distinct differences from civilian courts. I am not an expert in such matters though, I only have the sparse info gleaned from being in the service and being aware of people who have had to go through them.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer."
William Blackstone: Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4, Chapter 27 (1769).
Marij, the look on your face when the jury argued that some people don't wear glasses to improve their looks was like a punch top the gut. They stopped you in your tracks with this one. Damn such a great movie. Such amazing dialogue. They basically shot the movie in two rooms, with the outside window acting as another set. I hope you get around to watching a "A Few Good Men" and "Pelican Brief". Oh plus, "Erin Brockovich", "Flash of Genius", and "Three Billboards" All amazing legal movies.
I have loved this film from the first time I saw it (about 1968), but was surprised by the insights you offered. Great job!
You might want to consider Inherit The Wind (1960) based on a stage play of the same name about the Scopes Trial. Inherit The Wind has been produced as a film four times (1960, 1965, 1988,1999) all are wonderful productions with stunning performances, though my preference is 1960 due to Spencer Tracy's performance as Clarence Darrow. The other three versions were made for TV and lack the budget of the 1960 film, and it is difficult to match Stanley Kramer's directorial vision.
"A Few Good Men", "To Kill a Mockingbird," and this movie are three of my favorite courtroom dramas.
My cousin Vinny! Also The Firm. This is a great movie! One of Nolans favourites I've heard. Mary, not in "just" in jail, death penalty was on the line here... Oh later, I saw that you knew that.... I'm writing during your reaction... Brilliant reaction as always! Thanks! I like "Damn this movie is so good, I forgot that it was a movie!" That's a true!
There are some very, very good trial/court-based movies. Off the top of my head, I recommend to you "Witness for the Prosecution", which is a 1957 movie taking place in England, and based on a novel by Agatha Christie; and "My Cousin Vinny", a comedy which has been called a nicely accurate depiction of courtroom procedure.
'A Few Good Men' - Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Demi Moore, Kevin Bacon, Kevin Pollack, Kiefer Sutherland etc.
'Primal Fear' - Edward Norton, Richard Gere, Laura Linney, etc.
'My Cousin Vinny' - Joe Pesci, Marisa Tomei, Ralph Macchio
Great freaking movie (and play!). One of the things I've always really enjoyed about this is that for the first quarter of the movie or so, they both bring up good points to the guilt/innocence. How they go back and forth is just masterful writing. And then I love how it ends... citizens walking back out as citizens. 12 strangers come together to see the merits of the case, then go back to being just every day people. Beautiful stuff.
Oh cool whats your background in law? Im currently finishing my masters degree in civil law in the Netherlands and im working at the belastingdienst. Also this movie is great, and its also a wonderful argument against the archaic use of jury's.
EDIT: 6:26 not completely. The USA has different definitions. Youre thinking of the difference between doodslag and murder. But doodslag isnt a one to one synonym with manslaughter and certain versions of doodslag in the Netherlands/Belgium constitutes a form of murder in the USA. Example: vehicular manslaughter. Killing someone by accident (but with a high level of culpability) can count as a form of manslaughter. In the Netherlands and i think Belgium too doodslag requires opzet/intent and such a culpable deadly accident is very unlikely to be considered doodslag.
You should watch To kill a mocking bird and inherit the Wind two top class courtroom dramas. Both classic films
On the off chance you haven't seen A Few Good Men, that's an excellent courtroom drama - Jack Nicholson, Tom Cruise, Demi Moore and tons of other big names
This is the anti MCU movie. One set, twelve men just talking. Fascinating what the written word can do when properly crafted into a story. Would love to see you react to some Hitchcock movies. Read Window is a similar one room type movie. North by Northwest and Vertigo are classics and we all enjoyed your Psycho reaction.
Yeah, it was made on a budget of $337,000 and shot almost entirely in one room. I would suggest that the majority of the budget went to the payroll of the excellent cast and the rest of the crew. It was based on a television drama from an age when television was particularly constrained for space and time, and was also reworked as a stage play. You can see the play being performed today frequently by high school drama programs because it's fairly simple to produce. Usually today it's renamed _Twelve Angry Jurors,_ and has a more gender diverse cast.
15:40 Thank you, editor. That gave me a great laugh. 🤣
i'm so glad you enjoyed this movie - it's one of my favourites. you are absolutely right about the dialogue - i know i'm biased (I'm 61) but i think good dialogue is hard to come by nowadays. there is a Hitchcock movie - witness for the prosecution - which is an excellent court room drama - you might also enjoy -the verdict and jagged edge.
I love Mary's reaction at 13:30 she's about to say something and got caught by the guy correcting the other guy's english
I have to make my biggest recommendation for My Cousin Vinny. It’s acclaimed as a court room movie and it’s absolutely hilarious.
Excellent movie.
Be interesting to see your reaction to Mr Smith goes to Washington
It's a jimmy stewart movie, where a regular joe gets elected to Congress and despite being made 50+ years ago it's remarkable how true it speaks to corporate corruption within the US government.
Would love to see a Belgian's opinion on the flick and it's relevant themes to today.
Hey Mary, for other court movies do "The Verdict" (1982) one of Paul Newman's finest, Rob Reiner's "A Few Good Men" (1992) a good look at the military court, "Anatomy of a Murder" (1959), "Inherit the Wind" (1960), "Judgement At Nuremberg" (1961) and "Witness for the Prosecution" (1957). I'm sure you'll like these.
That's one of my favorite movies. Also, "Amistad" is about slavery, but mostly set in courtrooms. I also liked "The Caine Mutiny" and "Inherit the Wind".
In spite of several obvious plot holes, this has always been one of my favorite movies because of the acting and drama of a story that can be done on the stage
Plot holes?
@@becausethemailneverstops9350 Starting with his violation of his oath and using only what is presented in court to formulate a decision. Judges have actually thrown out verdicts if they believe the jury hasn't done so. Then there is his bringing a weapon into the courthouse, courtroom and jury room. In real life he would be removed and even charged. An alternate brought in and a 12-1 chance for a guilty verdict. Also a hung jury would most likely end in both sides cutting a deal rather than the expense and time to do this all over again. The speed of a persons walk to the witness stand being indicative of how fast one can move in a situation. The incompetence of a person who has a record, carries a knife for protection and yet fails to notice when it falls through a hole in his pocket without making noise or hitting his leg or foot. And worse of all the glasses. They notice the marks on the woman's nose but fail to acknowledge that she does not need them in court. She is probably far sighted and they are reading glasses and so wouldn't need them to observe what she did. I myself use readers for work and have these marks but do not require them for daily life. I still like the movie and its ability to be portrayed in a one room setting for high school and colleges to reproduce!
@@TV-fv1ih None of those are plot holes. You don't understand what a plot hole is. A plot hole is an inconsistency based on what has been established in the story by the writers of the film. For example, at the halfway point of _The Dark Knight Rises,_ the villains exile Batman from Gotham City and then form a blockade around the city's perimeter stating that "no one can get in or out". But then at the beginning of the third act, Batman returns to Gotham City to defeat the villains. But wait, if there was a blockade around the city, then how did Batman get in? The movie offers no explanation for that. Now, ya see, THAT'S a plot hole, an inconsistency in the logic of what the film had previously established.
All the issues you stated with _12 Angry Men_ from a juror not being able to bring a knife into court, that it would've triggered a mistrial in real life, that it's not realistic etc. Those are not plot holes cuz none of those rules were established in the story. That's just the typical "not-true-to-real-life" things that exists in literally every movie ever made. Not plot holes.
And also, I've had my very large smart phone fall out of my jacket pocket multiple times in my driveway on my way to the car and didn't notice I had dropped it. That's not unrealistic. Those things do happen. And maybe the boy was wearing baggy shorts when the knife fell out, the murder happened in summertime after all, which is why he'd be wearing shorts and not long pants. Yes, not noticing a knife falling through long pants doesn't seem realistic, but you need to remember, the point is we don't know if the boy is innocent or not (and neither does the jury). He could very well be guilty but there is room for reasonable doubt in this case and you can't convict on that. That's the whole point of the movie.
_"They notice the marks on the woman's nose but fail to acknowledge that she does not need them in court"_
How does that matter? Rewatch the opening scene. The courtroom isn't that big. The judge and witness stand is right next to the jury box and the table the defendant is sitting at is right next to the jury box. The woman testifying on the witness stand is literally only feet away from the defendant whom she would need to identify in court. Why would she need her glasses for that? The whole point is that she does wear glasses but we don't know WHAT she needs them for. Whether they're sunglasses, reading glasses, nearsightedness, whatever. The point being she's an eyewitness and her eyesight is in question now. It's not the jury's job to determine if she was farsighted or nearsighted, they don't know, they can't know. But since her eyesight is in question now, you can't convict on "not-so-solid" evidence like that. You're missing the point of the film.
And lastly, if you haven't noticed, we're not watching a documentary. We're watching a movie with a fictional story. Movies are very very rarely 100% accurate representations of real life. They're not required to be realistic. Realism is not the point of movies. That's why the idea of "suspending your disbelief" exists. The point of a film like _12 Angry Men_ is the study of prejudices, assumptions, biases and the causes behind certain human behavior and also the message the film is trying to impart to the audience. The point is not whether it's a realistic depiction of the jury system. The fact it's not 100% realistic is not plot holes. Again, plot holes are when movies violate their own rules that they establish within their worlds.
@@becausethemailneverstops9350 Do you not understand what you just said? They are all plot holes! The character admits he broke the law! They acknowledge that in the hands of another jury, he is probably convicted. Given the time period this is set in, a young man with a record is wearing shorts? Just because you have no sense to see, hear or feel something drop out of your shorts is you projecting your own short comings on the character! You obviously don't know anything about glasses and they base that the woman is incapable to witness because of marks on her nose? You are even giving me courtroom dimensions! They have violated virtually everything about the Jury system. Even the main character admits upfront that he doesn't know if the boys guilty yet every action is him trying to help the accused! He sets a time limit but doesn't follow it! He then is willing to vote guilty if all the rest does again even though he is not sure. The old man then votes against what he believes to help him out. These are all plot holes since they have no base in reality or the movie! No its not a documentary, but you have to establish a believable baseline to have any credibility. I know what the film is about, since I have experienced most of it, but in typical Hollywood fashion they are preaching to those who more than they do and will suspend whatever they need to get there!
@@TV-fv1ih One, why are you thumbing up your own comments?
_"Just because you have no sense to see, hear or feel something drop out of your shorts is you projecting your own short comings on the character"_
Yes, indeed, I'm the only person in the world to have something fall out of their pocket and not notice it. Yes, the fact that items have fallen out of both my jacket and shorts' pockets (pockets that were very shallow and not deep at all making it very easy for things to fall out, mind you) is indeed a shortcoming of my personality. Yes, it's certainly NOT something that just happens to virtually everyone on the planet at some (or even multiple points) in their life. Right. Thank you, Dr. Freud, for your psychiatric insight. I don't know what the world would do without it.🙄
_"Given the time period this is set in, a young man with a record is wearing shorts?"_
First off, what do you mean "given the time period"? People wore shorts in the 1950s, men, women AND children! I simply searched "men's shorts 1950s" and found multiple old pictures of young men and kids wearing shorts and young men walking around in shorts in NYC no less (where the movie takes place). And you can also find quora discussions with people also confirming this as a fact. And also, what do you mean "a young man with a record" wouldn't be wearing shorts? What does him having a record have anything to do with his fashion statements? You sound exactly like bigoted Juror #10 who's "lived among the slum people all his life" and claims to know everything about said people. Wow, the irony. Yes, cuz a young man wearing shorts in 1950s NYC did not exist. Thank god you personally knew every single person in 1950s NYC and their fashion sense to know this universal truth of the universe. What would the world do without your insight?
_"Do you not understand what you just said?"_
Yes, I perfectly understand everything I've said. It is you that does not.
_"They are all plot holes!"_
And again, you don't know the definition of a plot hole. AGAIN, a plot hole is when the story violates the rules and logic of what it previously established. Juror #8 violates his oath by buying and bringing in a knife into court (and admits he broke the law in the process). Well guess what? We never hear Juror #8 state once in the film that he would never break the law. This was not a rule that the film set up at any point during the movie and then violated later. So, no, it's NOT a plot hole.
_"You obviously don't know anything about glasses and they base that the woman is incapable to witness because of marks on her nose"_
I've been wearing glasses since I was 8. I know quite a lot about the topic. And about the woman not wearing glasses at the time of the murder; she was in her bed, tired and trying to fall asleep, at nighttime, and looked out the window into another apartment building across the street through the windows of a passing elevated train. So, the witness is looking through her own window, through the window of one side of the train, through the window of the other side of the train, and finally through the window of the apartment building across the street at night without glasses AND we don't know if she was farsighted, nearsighted, wears prescription glasses, sunglasses, reading glasses etc. And she's what, like at least 50 feet away from the defendant during the night in question? And that's supposed to be the eyewitness account for the whole murder case. But in court when she would have to ID the defendant, she's literally like 5 feet away from the defendant looking at him directly (through no windows, mind you) in a brightly lit courtroom. Why would she need glasses in the courtroom? She knows the defendant in court is her neighbor from across the street. It'd be the same guy she identified to the police ON the very night of the crime. So, why would she need to wear her glasses in court to ID the defendant when he's sitting directly in front of her? You really haven't thought this through, have you? The world is a much better place that you're not employed in the legal system. And again, the whole point is that the witness wears glasses and she wasn't wearing them at the time of the murder. And we don't know what how good or bad her vision is. So, you can't convict on evidence like that. It's very reasonable doubt. If your witness wears glasses but wasn't wearing them at the crucial moment AND you don't know how good or bad her vision actually is, then you can't know for sure if her testimony is irrefutable. That's the whole point of reasonable doubt. He could very well be guilty, but you don't know for sure. Doesn't matter if the jurors then speculate as to why she may or not need glasses in the courtroom. If you're gonna convict, you need to be absolutely 100% sure in your guilty verdict.
_"These are all plot holes since they have no base in reality or the movie"_
And again, movies not being 100% realistic to real life are not plot holes. Plot holes have nothing to do with the realism of the movie. Plot holes are about whether or not the movie violates its own rules and logic that it sets up in the story. The film never establishes that Juror #8 wouldn't violate the law. The film never promised to be 100% realistic or to be a completely accurate representation of the legal system. Look up the definition of a plot hole. This is the definition: "In fiction, a plot hole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot." The movie never did that once. A movie not being 100% accurate to real life is not a plot hole. NO movie is 100% true to real life. It's called suspension of disbelief, not a plot hole. It's not that hard a concept to grasp.
_"Even the main character admits upfront that he doesn't know if the boys guilty yet every action is him trying to help the accused."_
That's exactly the point of the movie. That the main character doesn't know if the boy's guilty or not. He could very well be guilty but we don't know. A guilty verdict must be irrefutable. So, how can he vote to convict if he's not 100% sure if he's guilty? Any shred of doubt, you're obligated to vote non guilty. It was then Juror #8's duty to explain why he's unsure of the boy's guilt which then convinces one juror after another. Whether you swing towards guilty or not guilty, it's your job in the jury room to explain to the others why you feel the way you do. For someone who claims that this is one of their favorite movies, you sure act like the ending of the film was a total miscarriage of justice and that no one should embrace the message of the film. I don't believe for a second this is one of your favorite films. Never seen someone miss the point so hard about this film.
I agree with other's recommendation of "Witness for the Prosecution". Its been many years since I've seen it but I remember also enjoying "Judgment at Nuremberg". Just remembered Kubrick's "Paths of Glory" has great courtroom drama too.
I echo the call for "To Kill a Mokingbird" if you haven't seen it. I would add "Inherit the Wind"..
So glad you reviewed this movie Mary, this is a rare gem from movie studios. I believe it should be a standard for high school students, both from a civic responsibility standpoint & an interpersonal communications learning tool. Great cast, great script & great film.
I can remember this movie being used as a teaching model decades ago. Great review as always.
13:30 That is a fantastic line. I love when an ESL corrects a native speakers bad English.
I recommend you to watch "Anatomy of a Murder" from 1959 with James Stewart, Ben Gazzara and George C. Scott directed by Otto Preminger. Similar in atmosphere, but with a much more perverse ending. These were the times when Hollywood knew how to write good scripts, and not just have a high budget. Well, of course, a movie classic about the film industry. "Sunset Boulevard" directed by Billy Wilder with William Holden and Gloria Swanson, and Eric Stroheim.
My Cousin Vinny (1992)
You will love this one Mary, a great courtroom comedy 😎
You really should do more old Hollywood Classics...
The star in this movie Henry Fonda has dozens of films, two of my favorites are...
The Grapes of Wrath (1940)
The Ox-Bow Incident (1942)
Yes.... give the 1940-1970 films a chance, so many amazing actors & stories !
Maybe you could do one a month ✌😎
I first watched this for a high school class, and I still love it and recommend it!
So glad you really appreciated this movie. It is listed as one of the greatest movies of all time. My father born in the 30's introduced me, born in the '70's to this when I was 12. I watch this film once a year and love it every time. Your reaction was brilliant x
As a classic film fan, I am absolutely _thrilled_ that so many are reacting to this film! Exposing so many others to it.
The first few films that popped into my head are _To Kill a Mockingbird, A Time to Kill,_ and _A Few Good Men._
Love the reaction!!
As an American lawyer, we tend to forget how important the jury is. But they a really are the core of criminal law.
Especially in our system, one of the few legal systems in advanced countries which still has the death penalty.
The beauty of a court room drama is that it can cover so many issues, Divorce (Kramer v Kramer), Pollution (Erin Brockavitch, A Civil Case), incitement (The Accused), Theft (Carrington VC), Racism (To Kill A Mockingbird), Defective Products (Class Action),
We read this in class together (as in, the roles were distributed amongst us). I got Juror 2, and to be honest, he fit me perfectly 😂
I’m 50 and have seen many, many movies throughout my life, but I have to admit my knowledge is more limited once you go before the 1970’s. After seeing this film only last year, it makes me wonder how many other superb movies I’ve still missed out on. The earlier films didn’t have our technology, so they had to rely on great acting, directing, writing, etc. One monster courtroom drama I haven’t seen yet is “Witness for the prosecution” with Tyrone Power. I have to check that out. Thanks Mary.
You've only missed out on thousands...lol....Check out the Caine Mutiny with Humphrey Bogart. An excellent film based on a play, with a tremendous court martial finale.
@@michaelwalsh1035 I’ve actually seen more black & white films than anyone I know that are near my age group. You won’t hear people talking about films anymore like Ikiru, North by Northwest, White Heat, etc. Problem is many of the films I haven’t seen are so old, it’s harder to find them anywhere. I actually had to purchase On The Waterfront on dvd because I had been searching for it for years and couldn’t take it anymore. I’ll be sure to keep an eye out for Canine Mutiny too thanks.
12 Angry Men is my "All Time" favorite movie, has been since I first saw it as a kid back in the early 80s. I'm a massive fan of character development in stories and this movie really focuses on that.
There's also a version of this movie from 1997 which was well done but for me nothing compares to this version from 1957.
For me the 97 one is a pale imitation, if you hadnt seen the original it is a good film, but seeing the original just blows your mind, i found the remake had to have some tick boxes, but it was interesting as well.
@@Greenwood4727 I actually agree with you. I usually hate the idea of movie remakes as they frequently seem to end up worse than the original. Many times ideas like "This movie needs a car chase in it to spice things up!" get added. UGH! I should have clarified that they redid the movie and kept true to the original intention. I absolutely would NEVER suggest watching the newer version over the 1957 one.
@@Mr.Batsu12 it was a decent enough film in itself, the acting the 97 one, dont get me wrong i did enjoy it, just not to the level of the original. I like movies even remakes if they add something to the lore, to the story, psycho the remake was almost shot for shot it didnt add anything even a few scenes cheapened the movie, the obvious masturbation part.. halloween 2018 added something different to the story. the night mare on elm street remake it was more gritty, but i personally would have wanted that freddy was innocent and thats why he was killing the kids, adding something new to the story
"A few good men" would be a good one to react to. Its about military law but still damn good performances. "Rules of engagement" is another good military law film. My biggest recommendation though would be for "Erin Brockovich"
7:36 Wow, that's Los Angeles County medical examiner "Quincy" 👍😱
An old TV series from the '70s. In Denmark we saw it every Saturday, prime time. We only had one TV channel so there wasn't any choices
Yeah, the good old days 👍👍😊😀
Great reaction, Mary! I'm so glad you are willing to delve into older films. There are so many great ones available.
We were assigned to read the play in school around 1970. I really liked it. I first saw the movie about ten years later. This is one example of a movie that is better than the literature. As you said the actors were so perfect at bringing life to the characters. Well written and well performed, this really opened my mind to the ideals behind out jury system. I have twice served on juries and took the service very seriously.
I think the play was published after the movie. It just fits perfectly on a stage with its one-location setting.
One of the best dramas ever mad. No gunshots. No car chase scenes. No explosions. Just human frailty and interaction.
Watching this was part of a psychology class I took when I was in college some decades ago :) group dynamics, influence, persuasion.. great choice
You need to watch "My Cousin Vinny" Legal Eagle on his TH-cam channel actually said something about how law schools actually use this movie is teaching law students about courtroom proceedures.
Mari is really lining up these incredible films lately ; ) And she's one of the few reactors that I actually really consistently care to see a reaction from with that big, beautiful heart and perfect nose :D
It's one of the best movies of all time. The long (nearly 5 min) one shot open in the Jury room before they finally break for the juror at the window, just brilliant. Dialogue amazing. A whole movie shot in this simple 2 set room and amazing camera work, brilliant movie! Social commentary pretty fitting although I wish the world could disagree like these very varied men did without viewing the other as pure evil as the only explanation. I'm 48 so i wonder if others may have mentioned but I was shown this in school. around 7th grade or so. Super impactful movie for me. I love it.
Other good legal movies, some of which have already been mentioned.
My Cousin Vinny (Legal comedy)
Legally Blonde (Very silly Legal comedy)
A Few Good Men (drama)
The Rainmaker (drama)
Others that don't take place in court but involve lawyers or legal battles.
The Pelican Brief (Thriller)
The Firm (Thriller)
Erin Brochavich (drama base on a true story)
Every time I see a reactor see this film for the first time, it gives me a warm feeling inside knowing they have just watched a movie that was not only a great movie but one that would never be on your radar in real life. A friend, especially in the age group you are in, would never suggest, or possibly, know about this movie, today. Seeing another commenter say they saw this in school makes me wish I was given this gift during my school years. When I saw this the first time, I was floored. And it bugs me that everyone in the world hasn't seen this. But when they eventually do, I think the message of this film gives people a very good look into how easily the world is different for the wrong reasons. It gives me more understanding to deal with ornery people. You have definitely made this January a great one with the gems you've released. I hope your holiday was enjoyable and restful. Mary, keep up the good work.
There is a film you might be interested in. It's an HBO original movie from around 2001, it's called "Conspiracy".
It's based on a true story and it's about a secret meeting to discuss "The Jewish question" and "The final solution".
The reason why I bring this up is because it's the same format as this film. It's about 12 or so guys (quiet a few lawyers) sitting around a table arguing.
the gesture where he helps the other guy in his jacket in the end is something you dont find a lot anymore. honoring your opponent. a person can be very wrong about something... but that doesnt make them a bad human.
Great film, one of my favourites. The black and white somehow accentuates the atmosphere in the room.
“The Verdict” @1980 and “Body Heat” (Nuevo film noir) are also great. The judge quoted a scene from Body Heat during my swearing in ceremony for the D.C. Bar.
“Too Kill A Mockingbird” my own personal favorite and definitely one of the greatest movies ever made. Seriously…give it a watch!
This is what we like to call an oldie but a goodie. And boy howdy is this a good one. Still utterly engrossing to this day.
This movie is one of my all time favorite movies. There is a Russian adaptation from 2007, titled 12, that is really good as well.
I highly recommend these legal movies: A Few Good Men, A Civil Action, The Rainmaker, The Verdict, Erin Brockovich, And Justice for All.
I'm glad, even as a millennial, I got to grow up watching movies like this with great acting/writing. This is one of my favorites personally.
I like what you said about valuing human life. The guy said “they” don’t have respect for human life and barely any feelings, when almost every one of them, at least outwardly, were jovially ready to have essentially a child executed and then go back to their lives. They didn’t value HIS human life. And it’s ironic that they viewed him as deserving of this penalty because he was a criminal and a “waste,” but him supposedly executing an extremely abusive criminal, who hurt him personally, meant he was an inveterate danger to mankind.
I love this movie for two main reasons. It shows us how a picture can be so clear, but once you start questioning bits and pieces it can get blurry real fast. The other part I love is actually the power of suggestion. When the old man is talking about the woman and the marks on her nose. He mentions it then another and another are like oh yeah she did have them. And I have had some work with robberies and it is why if a robbery occurs you are never to discuss it with other witnesses cause the power of suggestion can change what you think you saw. Like oh yeah the robber had glasses remember? and robber never had glasses, but after one suggestion everyone said he did.
I don't know if you see the comments on older uploads but I'd like to recommend "...And Justice for All" starring Al Pacino. It's a legal drama and a very good film. It has a very famous courtroom scene that you may have heard referenced. I think you'd enjoy it.