Regeder 12 Angry Men (1957) Film Complet Vf

12 Angry Men (1957)

• Genres: Crime, Drama
• Rating IMDb: 8.9
• Year: 1957
• Duration: 1:36

Summaries

A jury holdout attempts to prevent a miscarriage of justice by forcing his colleagues to reconsider the evidence.

The defense and the prosecution have rested and the jury is filing into the jury room to decide if a young man is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. What begins as an open-and-shut case of murder soon becomes a detective story that presents a succession of clues creating doubt, and a mini-drama of each of the jurors' prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused, and each other. Based on the play, all of the action takes place on the stage of the jury room.

When a young Puerto Rican boy is on trial for the alleged murder of his father, 11 of the 12 jurors are quick to voki tnje that he is guilty in an ostensibly straightforward case. The remaining juror, Juror #8, seems skeptical about the evidence at hand and demands a thorough deliberation of the facts from each juror befbyjore sentencing the boy to death, toiy prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The verdict of a seemingly open and shut case lies in the hands of twelve Jury members, the verdict is obvious, guilty. But to one, there's more than meets the eye. What else might be hiding in the details of the case? Will an innocent man be put to death? Or will a guilty man be spared?

"12 Angry Men" focuses on a jury's deliberations in a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year old Puerto Rican boy accused in the stabbing death of his father, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion; after all, the jurors must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. As the deliberations unfold, the story quickly becomes a study of the jurors' complex personalities (which range from wise, bright and empathetic to arrogant, prejudiced and merciless), preconceptions, backgrounds and interactions. That provides the backdrop to Mr. Davis' attempts in convincing the other jurors that a "not guilty" verdict might be appropriate.