12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet, 1957)
*pauses*
all your criticisms are valid.
Hold up.
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules
I seen this movie years ago and at the time really liked it. But when I watched it again with a critical eye, I found it to be heavy on propaganda
That damnable REASON propaganda.
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules
and pushing a pacifist ideology
Whut? When? Where? How did you get that? That we should reserve punishment in light of questionable evidence is pacifistic?
Did you not think that that was what the movie was about?
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules
The movie comes on like a sledge hammer with the 11 jurors who want to convict looking like utter fools, as they foam at the mouth.
Most of them seem are fairly reasonable people with the odd 2 or 3 characters who hedge at disagreement like in REAL LIFE.
The second to last person to be swayed defended his position on a purely rational basis. He gave reasons, his reasons were disputed, and he was convinced he had err'ed.
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules
Had the reasoning had solid logic behind them, this would have been a better film, but the reasons for a not guilty verdict have more holes than swiss cheese.
"THIS MOVIE IS GUILTY! GUILTY I TELL YOU, BURN THE MOVIE!"
"Whoa, hold on, we have to the hear reasons first."
"REASONS!? EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID HAS BEEN TWISTED!"
"Is my analogy brutal enough to make my point?"
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules
I found the acting way over the top...especially Lee J. Cobb who tore up the scenery. He was so audibly loud that he drowned out the other actors.
And he was 1 guy in a spectrum of 12. These kinds of people exist in reality.
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules
And they were yelling that with in minutes of getting into the jury room too, which is hard to believe.
Hyperbole.
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules
The 'antagonist jurors' didn't hold fast to their guilty verdicts, out of a belief in facts...and they didn't act or speak out of their convictions in those facts...(that would have been interesting).
That HAPPENED, would you think it more realistic if everyone was a lunatic or no one was a lunatic?
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules
Their function in the film was to yell and bully the other jurors to create tension, and that's lazy writing.
HANG UP, what's lazy writing? That we didn't take 2 hours to flesh out their car business on the side? That their personalities aren't applicable to the scenario more than they are? That's not lazy writing, that's pragmatism. If you're going to criticize this point, you better offer compelling alternatives.
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules
The film lays it on like a sledge hammer and lacks any subtly, which makes it hard for me to 'be in' the movie.
Yes, "It's our job to convince you you're wrong" is a particularly salient point to make.
GOOD THING THOSE KINDS OF PEOPLE DON'T EXIST IN REALITY ANYWHERE.
Originally Posted by Captain Steel
Despite the heavy-handed morality lesson,
It's not a morality lesson, it's a motion in favor of due process which is FREQUENTLY ignored in our society even today.
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules
did anyone bring up the idea that she could have been wearing reading glasses,
Okay, yes, reading glasses would dismiss that argument if reading glasses were worn long enough to leave those marks and not just during...
reading.
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules
Actually maybe 12 Angry Men is brilliant in a reverse way. It aims to show that the court system is stacked against the poor, who can't get a fair trial. But instead the film shows the court system is flawed in another way: any lame brain can make far fetched claims that evidence is not accurate with hyperbola and in that way derail the justices system.
You're making far-fetched claims with hyperbola in a way that DERAILS THIS MOVIE.
Is completely outside of your realm of consideration that 12 Angry Men can speak of the flaws inherent in a semi-democratic justice system in more ways than one?
Apathy?
Ignorance?
Competition?
Discrimination?
Confirmation Bias?
Authority Bias (attorney)?
Conservative Belief Revision? It goes on...
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules
I really dislike 12 Angry Men,
Well that's fine, but you've made a terrible case against it.
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules
it smacked of a PC, agenda movie.

WHUUUUUUUUUUU???
Yeah I have to disagree with Citizen about this one. The film, to me, was always just about appropriate skepticism and analyzing situations properly. I don't know how anyone can argue that the jury aside from Fonda, in the beginning, was too quick to judge the guilt of the kid. Not sure why it's being considered PC to simply question the validity of the quick, thoughtless decision, but okay.
Exactly.