12 Angry Men (9/10) Movie CLIP - Nose Marks (1957) HD

Share
Embed
  • Published on Apr 23, 2015
  • 12 Angry Men movie clips: j.mp/1Jhh8JE
    BUY THE MOVIE: j.mp/1OLbbmK
    Don't miss the HOTTEST NEW TRAILERS: bit.ly/1u2y6pr
    CLIP DESCRIPTION:
    Juror #4 (E.G. Marshall) changes his vote when Juror #9 (Joseph Sweeney) convinces him that one of the witnesses wore eyeglasses, and most likely did not wear them while she was in bed, during the time of the murder.
    FILM DESCRIPTION:
    A Puerto Rican youth is on trial for murder, accused of knifing his father to death. The twelve jurors retire to the jury room, having been admonished that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Eleven of the jurors vote for conviction, each for reasons of his own. The sole holdout is Juror #8, played by Henry Fonda. As Fonda persuades the weary jurors to re-examine the evidence, we learn the backstory of each man. Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb), a bullying self-made man, has estranged himself from his own son. Juror #7 (Jack Warden) has an ingrained mistrust of foreigners; so, to a lesser extent, does Juror #6 (Edward Binns). Jurors #10 (Ed Begley) and #11 (George Voskovec), so certain of the infallibility of the Law, assume that if the boy was arrested, he must be guilty. Juror #4 (E.G. Marshall) is an advocate of dispassionate deductive reasoning. Juror #5 (Jack Klugman), like the defendant a product of "the streets," hopes that his guilty vote will distance himself from his past. Juror #12 (Robert Webber), an advertising man, doesn't understand anything that he can't package and market. And Jurors #1 (Martin Balsam), #2 (John Fiedler) and #9 (Joseph Sweeney), anxious not to make waves, "go with the flow." The excruciatingly hot day drags into an even hotter night; still, Fonda chips away at the guilty verdict, insisting that his fellow jurors bear in mind those words "reasonable doubt." A pet project of Henry Fonda's, Twelve Angry Men was his only foray into film production; the actor's partner in this venture was Reginald Rose, who wrote the 1954 television play on which the film was based. Carried over from the TV version was director Sidney Lumet, here making his feature-film debut. A flop when it first came out (surprisingly, since it cost almost nothing to make), Twelve Angry Men holds up beautifully when seen today. It was remade for television in 1997 by director William Friedkin with Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott.
    CREDITS:
    TM & © MGM (1957)
    Cast: Martin Balsam, Ed Begley, Ed Binns, Lee J. Cobb, John Fiedler, Henry Fonda, Jack Klugman, E.G. Marshall, Joseph Sweeney, George Voskovec, Jack Warden, Robert Webber
    Director: Sidney Lumet
    Producers: Henry Fonda, George Justin, Reginald Rose
    Screenwriter: Reginald Rose
    WHO ARE WE?
    The MOVIECLIPS channel is the largest collection of licensed movie clips on the web. Here you will find unforgettable moments, scenes and lines from all your favorite films. Made by movie fans, for movie fans.
    SUBSCRIBE TO OUR MOVIE CHANNELS:
    MOVIECLIPS: bit.ly/1u2yaWd
    ComingSoon: bit.ly/1DVpgtR
    Indie & Film Festivals: bit.ly/1wbkfYg
    Hero Central: bit.ly/1AMUZwv
    Extras: bit.ly/1u431fr
    Classic Trailers: bit.ly/1u43jDe
    Pop-Up Trailers: bit.ly/1z7EtZR
    Movie News: bit.ly/1C3Ncd2
    Movie Games: bit.ly/1ygDV13
    Fandango: bit.ly/1Bl79ye
    Fandango FrontRunners: bit.ly/1CggQfC
    HIT US UP:
    Facebook: on.fb.me/1y8M8ax
    Twitter: bit.ly/1ghOWmt
    Pinterest: bit.ly/14wL9De
    Tumblr: bit.ly/1vUwhH7
  • MoviesMovies

Comments • 60

  • Nerdy Tom
    Nerdy Tom 15 days ago

    Thing is the defendant was probably guilty. Each point of evidence was compromised in sequence, but doubt doesn't work that way. Juror 8 (Peter Fonda) erred in thinking that each point of evidence could be demolished in sequence. Even if doubt is sown the evidence remains unless the evidence is destroyed by a contrary fact.
    When all five points of evidence were analysed and doubt found in each one the correct way forward them would be to consider if all five make up a reasonable doubt, as all five doubts have to run consecutively. If each was a coin flip 50/50 then for all five points of evidence to be wrong is 1:32. If each was considered a 1:10 chance of being at fault the chance all five were at fault would be 1:100,000.
    Juror 8 helped sow doubt but the law doesn't deal in absolutes it deals in reasonable presentation, on balance all five pieces of evidence, while not one was certain were enough so that the doubt was not a reasonable doubt. I would have voted guilty.

  • goodguynow
    goodguynow 6 months ago

    So the woman was wearing glasses. It’s been a long time does that mean she was lying about seeing the killing?

    • goodguynow
      goodguynow 5 months ago

      Anime Central I see good point

    • Anime Gaming Central
      Anime Gaming Central 5 months ago

      She claimed to have seen the killing. However, she most likely had glasses. No one goes to bed with glasses on. So, when the “killing” happened, she didn’t have her glasses on. That means, she only thinks she saw the killing but isn’t sure. She does not think she lied, but there is no way to tell if that truly happened.

  • Chaotic Cinema
    Chaotic Cinema 8 months ago

    Pause at 1:42

  • hussein335
    hussein335 8 months ago

    The acting in this is so cringy.

    • ED FERNANDEZ
      ED FERNANDEZ 7 months ago +4

      Cringy? Let's have your whole family against the wall facing the end of 12 shot gun barrels...now that's cringy!

    • Blaise Evora
      Blaise Evora 7 months ago +3

      this is great acting

  • Freddy Richards
    Freddy Richards 9 months ago +1

    By default, the most detailed and insightful motion picture of the golden age of cinema.

  • Alexander
    Alexander 10 months ago +4

    Juror 4 reminds me of Bryan Cranston so much?

    • VIMaggotVIBrainzVI
      VIMaggotVIBrainzVI 7 months ago

      Kinda. I can see it in the stern-looking eyebrows and eyes.

  • trwent
    trwent 10 months ago

    Wow, Quincy served on a jury once.

  • Andrew Ma
    Andrew Ma Year ago +3

    One of the best movies ever made

  • Joe Smith
    Joe Smith Year ago +2

    This film is loaded with real actors. Every one of them becomes the character.

  • eoselan7
    eoselan7 Year ago +3

    This whole movie from beginning to end is one long and totally riveting clip.

  • Vegeta Solo
    Vegeta Solo Year ago +13

    AFI also named 12 Angry Men the 42nd most inspiring film, the 88th most heart-pounding film and the 87th best film of the past hundred years. The film was also nominated for the 100 movies list in 1998

  • JoeTheV
    JoeTheV Year ago +51

    You guys do realize Juror 9, not Juror 8, was the hero of the film? Juror 8 gets all the spotlight for being the lone dissenter at the start and starring Henry Fonda, but it is Juror 9 who moves the plot forward. If it weren't for Juror 9's "not guilty" vote during the secret ballot scene or him noticing Juror 4's nose marks, that boy likely would've died and Juror 8 would've definitely lost the debate. If anything, Juror 8 should at least feel grateful that Juror 9 saved his case multiple times.

    • Jessy Manuel
      Jessy Manuel Year ago +33

      I think that Juror 8 sort of did that when he touched Juror 9's arm and said "there are 12 of us focusing on this case and 11 of us did not think of it either." Then at the end of the film when the two shook hands that singled out them out to the audience as being the most significant in securing a "not guilty" verdict.

  • eoselan7
    eoselan7 Year ago +6

    So many great actors...! Those close-ups of E.G. Marshall where he appears almost expressionless and still you feel so clearly the intensity of his thinking and the depths of his emotion,...great acting.

  • goback3spaces
    goback3spaces Year ago +2

    We must never forget that the kid on trial is obviously guilty and that Reginald Rose's original title was "12 MORONS."

  • XxAtlas xX
    XxAtlas xX Year ago

    20 20

  • aenjgeal
    aenjgeal Year ago +85

    "WELL WADDYA MEAN-" -That one juror, every five seconds

  • trdidion
    trdidion Year ago

    i remember Klugman from a medical show called Qunicy M.E.

  • Suvir Sinha
    Suvir Sinha Year ago

    The man with glasses really looks like Robert De Niro.

    • Joseph G
      Joseph G Year ago +2

      I fail to see any resemblence to Mr. De Niro in the man's countenance.

  • Henchman Twenty1
    Henchman Twenty1 2 years ago +21

    Why do they even bother making remakes of this (aside from money)? They could never hope to even touch the performances given here by these men.

  • BuzzKill
    BuzzKill 2 years ago +174

    The stock broker (the 4th juror) is my favorite character in this whole movie. Because he's antagonistic to the very end, but at the same time unemotional and collected, unlike most of the other "villains". Only logic and facts are able to change his mind, and they do in the end. I wish people arguing would be more like him.

    • Josiah Araki
      Josiah Araki 5 months ago

      Well everyone is a potential menace to society in some way, but slums have a higher chance of being the violent type due to the harsher lifestyle people living there are forced to bear, often coupled with a deadbeat absentee father.
      People who have everything handed to them are more likely to become greedy jerks who manipulate the system to their benefit even if it's to everyone else's detriment.

    • Jay Rosen
      Jay Rosen 7 months ago +3

      J.G Productions
      Key word being potential. And he is not wrong. He'd also started to say "now I think" which to my own interpretation led me to believe he was gonna say something along the lines of "now I think anybody can make their lives better if they truly sought to"

    • J.G Productions
      J.G Productions 7 months ago +10

      He wasn't really a villain, he just seems like the most logical of all the jurors. Even though he himself was kinda prejudice when he said all people from slums were potential menaces to society

    • Jay Rosen
      Jay Rosen 9 months ago +15

      BuzzKill
      He wasn't a villain in the traditional sense because he was focused on doing what was right. He sided with where the logic lead him. I also admired when he told the bigot to sit down and shut up.

    • Siray
      Siray Year ago +13

      yeah it was E.G. Marshall

  • ZukoHalliwell
    ZukoHalliwell 2 years ago +43

    The first time I saw the movie, during this scene at around 0:40, that was the moment when I became convinced the boy isn't guilty. I've worn glasses for years, and I can tell you that, if the woman was lying in bed trying to fall asleep, I guarantee she was not wearing her glasses.

    • Humbers
      Humbers 2 years ago +1

      +ZukoHalliwell Fair point. I'm still not sure about whether he did it either. I'd lean towards thinking he did commit the crime, but obviously there wasn't enough evidence to condemn him

    • ZukoHalliwell
      ZukoHalliwell 2 years ago +6

      +Humbers I know. You're absolutely right. I didn't realize that at the time, but I do now.
      I would like to point out, though, that I didn't say I was convinced at that moment that he was "innocent", I said I was convinced he was "not guilty". That being said, I do believe he was innocent, but it is possible he wasn't.

    • Humbers
      Humbers 2 years ago +23

      ZukoHalliwell It's not a case of this point making him 'Innocent', but giving the jury reasonable doubt as it voids the witnesses testimony.
      Even at the end, it's still possible the boy had committed the murder, however it's about only convicting them if the case is 100% certain

  • Michael Daly
    Michael Daly 2 years ago +19

    Damn, it missed the best part of the scene - when John Fiedler realizes, "You can't send a man to die on evidence like that!"

    • SliceOfDog
      SliceOfDog Year ago

      I was about to complain that they'd cut off "so people'd think she's GORGEOUS", because I love the actor's delivery of that. But... yeah. Yours is better.

  • cyberwolfy37
    cyberwolfy37 2 years ago +77

    my favorite part about this scene was how number 4 knew he was wrong, but did not try to raise his voice and protest like number 3. he's cold but very wise.

    • SliceOfDog
      SliceOfDog Year ago +4

      I love this film as a character study - every character has such a distinct behaviour. If you watch Juror 4 throughout the film, he so obviously doesn't like the bullishness of Juror 3, even though they agree on most of the issues for the vast majority of the film. One of my favourite moments is where they're both at the watercooler.
      Juror 3: I mean, where does he come off calling me a public avenger, sadist and everything? Anyone in his right mind would blow his stack. He was just trying to bait me.
      Juror 4: He did an excellent job.
      He holds onto his opinion until he's convinced otherwise, and then he unemotionally alters his view to the one he believes has the most proof.
      And performed excellently! 2:06 in this video is fantastic, you can practically see his opinion shifting in his head, as he finally changes his mind to not-guilty.

    • Sergio Navarro
      Sergio Navarro 2 years ago

      cool

    • Brotherhood
      Brotherhood 2 years ago +25

      "I have. Now sit down and do not open your mouth again."

  • Sam G
    Sam G 2 years ago +12

    juror number 4 and 12 are my favourites dunno why

    • Eric Burns
      Eric Burns 6 months ago +2

      Nick Kurtz Mine are 2, 5,6,8,9, and 11.

    • Matthew Greer
      Matthew Greer 11 months ago

      #4 - “Hmmmmmm”
      #12 - “huh waddya know”

    • Nick Kurtz
      Nick Kurtz Year ago

      Sam Goodall Jurors 4, 7, 8, 9 and 11 are my favorites.

    • matthew david jarvis
      matthew david jarvis Year ago +13

      Number 4 was quite cold, but analytical, fair, and polite. And above all, he allowed the others to disagree with him without shouting or losing his temper. And at the end of it all, he realised his mistake and accepted that he was wrong, like a proper man.Number 12 was a bit of a joker, like number 7. He was also one of the weaker ones, changing his mind the most times. But unlike number 7, he cared about the outcome of the trial, and was willing to stay there for as long as it took. He was also quite respectful towards the others, despite disagreeing with them for quite a long time. Yes, he played noughts and crosses with number 3 near the beginning, which was pretty stupid and very disrespectful towards number 8 (Davis), but I think he knew that he was in the wrong, and he improved from that point on.

  • steven franklin
    steven franklin 3 years ago +51

    A great moment in a remarkable film.

  • TheLastOfTheFinest80
    TheLastOfTheFinest80 3 years ago +56

    0:43
    Jury number 4 realized exactly where was all of this leading up to.