How the hell did hollywood lose their plot of making good movies
Title: 12 Angry Men (1957)
Director: Sidney Lumet
Writing Credits: Reginald Rose
Alrighty, I promised kaushik that I would do a review of my favorite edward norton movie, but it has to hold for another of my favorite movies.
How exciting can a movie of 12 men deliberating about a case inside the jury room get? More exciting than you can imagine. Logic and reasoning never got more gripping than this. 12 men, 12 chairs, one long table, windows and a fan; no really Im not kidding. Often overlooked as just another classic, this movie defines the meaning of the word classic.
Henry Fonda, the protagonist, happens to be on the jury for what looks like an open and shut case of a teen killing his father after an argument. Eleven others are convinced that the kid is guilty based on what they think is conclusive evidence. Henry Fonda, though wants to go over the evidence, not because he thinks the boy is innocent but only to clear himself of any doubt. This does not go down too well with the others and the tension among the jurors is palpable and gripping. Fonda has to contend with antagonism, indignation, ridicule and disrespect from the others. How he breaks down the evidence and whether his arguments win over the jurists form the rest of the story.
The strong point of the movie as you would have garnered by now is not slick direction, multimillion dollar sets, special effects or wonderful soundtracks instead it relies on the core aspects of the movie viz dialogue and acting. The screenplay is simple yet intelligent and makes the viewer think. Makes you think how movie production houses and directors fail to make such movies. This is one movie I would watch over and over again, and force my friends to watch them along with me.
Director: Sidney Lumet
Writing Credits: Reginald Rose
Alrighty, I promised kaushik that I would do a review of my favorite edward norton movie, but it has to hold for another of my favorite movies.
How exciting can a movie of 12 men deliberating about a case inside the jury room get? More exciting than you can imagine. Logic and reasoning never got more gripping than this. 12 men, 12 chairs, one long table, windows and a fan; no really Im not kidding. Often overlooked as just another classic, this movie defines the meaning of the word classic.
Henry Fonda, the protagonist, happens to be on the jury for what looks like an open and shut case of a teen killing his father after an argument. Eleven others are convinced that the kid is guilty based on what they think is conclusive evidence. Henry Fonda, though wants to go over the evidence, not because he thinks the boy is innocent but only to clear himself of any doubt. This does not go down too well with the others and the tension among the jurors is palpable and gripping. Fonda has to contend with antagonism, indignation, ridicule and disrespect from the others. How he breaks down the evidence and whether his arguments win over the jurists form the rest of the story.
The strong point of the movie as you would have garnered by now is not slick direction, multimillion dollar sets, special effects or wonderful soundtracks instead it relies on the core aspects of the movie viz dialogue and acting. The screenplay is simple yet intelligent and makes the viewer think. Makes you think how movie production houses and directors fail to make such movies. This is one movie I would watch over and over again, and force my friends to watch them along with me.
posted by sensiblystoned at
1:47 AM
|
4 comments
