The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
A black and white film about 12 jurors, 98% of which takes place in one room, and is one and a half hours long. Hardly sounds thrilling does it?
Well, I couldn't have been more wrong; it was one of the most enthralling, gripping films that I've seen in ages. I don't think I would ever have watched this had it no been for a Goatboy recommendation waaaaaay back. And I must admit that it's been sat on a shelf untouched for the past month because it still seemed to be boring.
Last night, or this morning, at about 1:30am there was finally such a lull in even half-interesting things to watch that I stuck it into the DVD player and settled down to watch the first twenty minutes. Twenty minutes turned into forty minutes turned into ninety minutes; and now I'm a bit knackered, but it was worth it. The film was brilliant.
Tomb Raider unfolded over hundreds of different locations and lets face it, if you're reading this post, it probably bored you stiff. This film takes place in one room, a jury room, where twelve men deliberate on the fate of a boy accused of stabbing his father. The film is all talk, a little action, and it is absolutely gripping. The plotting is incredibly tight, never allowing a dull moment to detract from the tension.
The plot is simple. An eighteen year old boy is accused of murdering is father and is on trial. The jury in the case has just listened to six days of evidence and we join them as the judge is summing up the case and reminding them of their duty. As they leave the room we see the boy for a total of four seconds and that is all. The rest of the film focuses on the twelve members of the jury. An opening ballot sees eleven men find the defendant guilty and one man alone find him innocent. That man is Henry "goody goody" Fonda, in yet another of his moral crusader roles. What transpires is an attempt by Fonda to convince the other men that room for reasonable doubt exists. He goes to great pains to point out that the boy might be guilty, but the prosecution has to reveal beyond any reasonable doubt that he did it, and Fonda does not believe that to be the case.
The film centres on the men of the jury, by the end of the film each has a clearly defined personality and is a distinct character from the rest. That is a remarkable achievement in a ninety minute film and partly explains why it is so gripping. Some people claim that the film has over-arching symbolism, and is meant to represent America on a small scale, but that's nonsense in my opinion. The film takes very basic elements and turns them into a masterpiece of storytelling.
If anything the film exposes how flawed the jury system can be. There are jurors with preconceived prejudices about the boy; jurors who let themselves be forced into voting with the majority and one particularly abhorrant man who really doesn't care either way and just wants to get out. The film shows a jury that doesn't care and doesn't think about its decision to condemn a boy to death. What transpires is essentially a series of revelations and discoveries that flow into each other very smoothly and make the film exciting to watch.
One of the best bits about the film is the growing tension, which is cranked up throughout the film. Firstly, it's the hottest day on record and th jurors can't get the fan to work. So they sit in the stifling heat, sweaty, fidgetty and annoyed, most of them wanting to get outside. As the heat increases, temperatures begin to rise literally and metaphorically. The atmosphere becomes taut. Allegedly, and this could be wrong, the director, Sidney Lumet, also had the walls of the room moved in as the deliberations progressed, to further heighten the sense of claustrophobia. And that is one thing that the film conveys excellently: tension and claustrophobia. In this respect I don't think I have seen another film to achieve the same effect without descending into melodrama.
"12 Angry Men" is one of the best films I have seen, without a doubt. And I wasn't even that keen to watch it at first. I watched some of ITV's, or was it BBC's, "the Jury", that was crap. It got critical from people who had never seen this film, because "12 Angry Men" is not just the daddy of courtroom dramas, it's the chips as well. I can see why you might not want to watch this because I was in the same boat, but I've jumped ship now. Please watch this film, simply because you have genuinely missed out on a classic film if you don't. "12 Angry Men" is utterly brilliant and thanks again to Goaty for recommending it.
Well, I couldn't have been more wrong; it was one of the most enthralling, gripping films that I've seen in ages. I don't think I would ever have watched this had it no been for a Goatboy recommendation waaaaaay back. And I must admit that it's been sat on a shelf untouched for the past month because it still seemed to be boring.
Last night, or this morning, at about 1:30am there was finally such a lull in even half-interesting things to watch that I stuck it into the DVD player and settled down to watch the first twenty minutes. Twenty minutes turned into forty minutes turned into ninety minutes; and now I'm a bit knackered, but it was worth it. The film was brilliant.
Tomb Raider unfolded over hundreds of different locations and lets face it, if you're reading this post, it probably bored you stiff. This film takes place in one room, a jury room, where twelve men deliberate on the fate of a boy accused of stabbing his father. The film is all talk, a little action, and it is absolutely gripping. The plotting is incredibly tight, never allowing a dull moment to detract from the tension.
The plot is simple. An eighteen year old boy is accused of murdering is father and is on trial. The jury in the case has just listened to six days of evidence and we join them as the judge is summing up the case and reminding them of their duty. As they leave the room we see the boy for a total of four seconds and that is all. The rest of the film focuses on the twelve members of the jury. An opening ballot sees eleven men find the defendant guilty and one man alone find him innocent. That man is Henry "goody goody" Fonda, in yet another of his moral crusader roles. What transpires is an attempt by Fonda to convince the other men that room for reasonable doubt exists. He goes to great pains to point out that the boy might be guilty, but the prosecution has to reveal beyond any reasonable doubt that he did it, and Fonda does not believe that to be the case.
The film centres on the men of the jury, by the end of the film each has a clearly defined personality and is a distinct character from the rest. That is a remarkable achievement in a ninety minute film and partly explains why it is so gripping. Some people claim that the film has over-arching symbolism, and is meant to represent America on a small scale, but that's nonsense in my opinion. The film takes very basic elements and turns them into a masterpiece of storytelling.
If anything the film exposes how flawed the jury system can be. There are jurors with preconceived prejudices about the boy; jurors who let themselves be forced into voting with the majority and one particularly abhorrant man who really doesn't care either way and just wants to get out. The film shows a jury that doesn't care and doesn't think about its decision to condemn a boy to death. What transpires is essentially a series of revelations and discoveries that flow into each other very smoothly and make the film exciting to watch.
One of the best bits about the film is the growing tension, which is cranked up throughout the film. Firstly, it's the hottest day on record and th jurors can't get the fan to work. So they sit in the stifling heat, sweaty, fidgetty and annoyed, most of them wanting to get outside. As the heat increases, temperatures begin to rise literally and metaphorically. The atmosphere becomes taut. Allegedly, and this could be wrong, the director, Sidney Lumet, also had the walls of the room moved in as the deliberations progressed, to further heighten the sense of claustrophobia. And that is one thing that the film conveys excellently: tension and claustrophobia. In this respect I don't think I have seen another film to achieve the same effect without descending into melodrama.
"12 Angry Men" is one of the best films I have seen, without a doubt. And I wasn't even that keen to watch it at first. I watched some of ITV's, or was it BBC's, "the Jury", that was crap. It got critical from people who had never seen this film, because "12 Angry Men" is not just the daddy of courtroom dramas, it's the chips as well. I can see why you might not want to watch this because I was in the same boat, but I've jumped ship now. Please watch this film, simply because you have genuinely missed out on a classic film if you don't. "12 Angry Men" is utterly brilliant and thanks again to Goaty for recommending it.
Blimey, theres a movie I havn't watched for a LONG time!... although I must admit to being a sucker for Inherit the Wind myself...
(different kind of movie I know, but the courtroom link is solid! :) )
(different kind of movie I know, but the courtroom link is solid! :) )
From somewhere rhyming with gay.com it costs but £7.99... go on, you know you want to :-)
I'll check on my Copernic shopper thing once it's finished updating and see if I can find a lower price.
I'll check on my Copernic shopper thing once it's finished updating and see if I can find a lower price.
I'm going to have to stop reading your topics, I'm going to have no money left...
A black and white film about 12 jurors, 98% of which takes place in one room, and is one and a half hours long. Hardly sounds thrilling does it?
Well, I couldn't have been more wrong; it was one of the most enthralling, gripping films that I've seen in ages. I don't think I would ever have watched this had it no been for a Goatboy recommendation waaaaaay back. And I must admit that it's been sat on a shelf untouched for the past month because it still seemed to be boring.
Last night, or this morning, at about 1:30am there was finally such a lull in even half-interesting things to watch that I stuck it into the DVD player and settled down to watch the first twenty minutes. Twenty minutes turned into forty minutes turned into ninety minutes; and now I'm a bit knackered, but it was worth it. The film was brilliant.
Tomb Raider unfolded over hundreds of different locations and lets face it, if you're reading this post, it probably bored you stiff. This film takes place in one room, a jury room, where twelve men deliberate on the fate of a boy accused of stabbing his father. The film is all talk, a little action, and it is absolutely gripping. The plotting is incredibly tight, never allowing a dull moment to detract from the tension.
The plot is simple. An eighteen year old boy is accused of murdering is father and is on trial. The jury in the case has just listened to six days of evidence and we join them as the judge is summing up the case and reminding them of their duty. As they leave the room we see the boy for a total of four seconds and that is all. The rest of the film focuses on the twelve members of the jury. An opening ballot sees eleven men find the defendant guilty and one man alone find him innocent. That man is Henry "goody goody" Fonda, in yet another of his moral crusader roles. What transpires is an attempt by Fonda to convince the other men that room for reasonable doubt exists. He goes to great pains to point out that the boy might be guilty, but the prosecution has to reveal beyond any reasonable doubt that he did it, and Fonda does not believe that to be the case.
The film centres on the men of the jury, by the end of the film each has a clearly defined personality and is a distinct character from the rest. That is a remarkable achievement in a ninety minute film and partly explains why it is so gripping. Some people claim that the film has over-arching symbolism, and is meant to represent America on a small scale, but that's nonsense in my opinion. The film takes very basic elements and turns them into a masterpiece of storytelling.
If anything the film exposes how flawed the jury system can be. There are jurors with preconceived prejudices about the boy; jurors who let themselves be forced into voting with the majority and one particularly abhorrant man who really doesn't care either way and just wants to get out. The film shows a jury that doesn't care and doesn't think about its decision to condemn a boy to death. What transpires is essentially a series of revelations and discoveries that flow into each other very smoothly and make the film exciting to watch.
One of the best bits about the film is the growing tension, which is cranked up throughout the film. Firstly, it's the hottest day on record and th jurors can't get the fan to work. So they sit in the stifling heat, sweaty, fidgetty and annoyed, most of them wanting to get outside. As the heat increases, temperatures begin to rise literally and metaphorically. The atmosphere becomes taut. Allegedly, and this could be wrong, the director, Sidney Lumet, also had the walls of the room moved in as the deliberations progressed, to further heighten the sense of claustrophobia. And that is one thing that the film conveys excellently: tension and claustrophobia. In this respect I don't think I have seen another film to achieve the same effect without descending into melodrama.
"12 Angry Men" is one of the best films I have seen, without a doubt. And I wasn't even that keen to watch it at first. I watched some of ITV's, or was it BBC's, "the Jury", that was crap. It got critical from people who had never seen this film, because "12 Angry Men" is not just the daddy of courtroom dramas, it's the chips as well. I can see why you might not want to watch this because I was in the same boat, but I've jumped ship now. Please watch this film, simply because you have genuinely missed out on a classic film if you don't. "12 Angry Men" is utterly brilliant and thanks again to Goaty for recommending it.
Well, I couldn't have been more wrong; it was one of the most enthralling, gripping films that I've seen in ages. I don't think I would ever have watched this had it no been for a Goatboy recommendation waaaaaay back. And I must admit that it's been sat on a shelf untouched for the past month because it still seemed to be boring.
Last night, or this morning, at about 1:30am there was finally such a lull in even half-interesting things to watch that I stuck it into the DVD player and settled down to watch the first twenty minutes. Twenty minutes turned into forty minutes turned into ninety minutes; and now I'm a bit knackered, but it was worth it. The film was brilliant.
Tomb Raider unfolded over hundreds of different locations and lets face it, if you're reading this post, it probably bored you stiff. This film takes place in one room, a jury room, where twelve men deliberate on the fate of a boy accused of stabbing his father. The film is all talk, a little action, and it is absolutely gripping. The plotting is incredibly tight, never allowing a dull moment to detract from the tension.
The plot is simple. An eighteen year old boy is accused of murdering is father and is on trial. The jury in the case has just listened to six days of evidence and we join them as the judge is summing up the case and reminding them of their duty. As they leave the room we see the boy for a total of four seconds and that is all. The rest of the film focuses on the twelve members of the jury. An opening ballot sees eleven men find the defendant guilty and one man alone find him innocent. That man is Henry "goody goody" Fonda, in yet another of his moral crusader roles. What transpires is an attempt by Fonda to convince the other men that room for reasonable doubt exists. He goes to great pains to point out that the boy might be guilty, but the prosecution has to reveal beyond any reasonable doubt that he did it, and Fonda does not believe that to be the case.
The film centres on the men of the jury, by the end of the film each has a clearly defined personality and is a distinct character from the rest. That is a remarkable achievement in a ninety minute film and partly explains why it is so gripping. Some people claim that the film has over-arching symbolism, and is meant to represent America on a small scale, but that's nonsense in my opinion. The film takes very basic elements and turns them into a masterpiece of storytelling.
If anything the film exposes how flawed the jury system can be. There are jurors with preconceived prejudices about the boy; jurors who let themselves be forced into voting with the majority and one particularly abhorrant man who really doesn't care either way and just wants to get out. The film shows a jury that doesn't care and doesn't think about its decision to condemn a boy to death. What transpires is essentially a series of revelations and discoveries that flow into each other very smoothly and make the film exciting to watch.
One of the best bits about the film is the growing tension, which is cranked up throughout the film. Firstly, it's the hottest day on record and th jurors can't get the fan to work. So they sit in the stifling heat, sweaty, fidgetty and annoyed, most of them wanting to get outside. As the heat increases, temperatures begin to rise literally and metaphorically. The atmosphere becomes taut. Allegedly, and this could be wrong, the director, Sidney Lumet, also had the walls of the room moved in as the deliberations progressed, to further heighten the sense of claustrophobia. And that is one thing that the film conveys excellently: tension and claustrophobia. In this respect I don't think I have seen another film to achieve the same effect without descending into melodrama.
"12 Angry Men" is one of the best films I have seen, without a doubt. And I wasn't even that keen to watch it at first. I watched some of ITV's, or was it BBC's, "the Jury", that was crap. It got critical from people who had never seen this film, because "12 Angry Men" is not just the daddy of courtroom dramas, it's the chips as well. I can see why you might not want to watch this because I was in the same boat, but I've jumped ship now. Please watch this film, simply because you have genuinely missed out on a classic film if you don't. "12 Angry Men" is utterly brilliant and thanks again to Goaty for recommending it.