https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSG38tk6TpI

12 Angry Men is one of best courtroom dramas in the history of cinema. Even though it is an older film, it is also a refreshing take on courtroom dramas. On the surface, this film is a pure drama about the courtroom, but it goes much, much deeper than that. I was discussing in an earlier review (Dial M for Murder) about the use of a single location. Well, this film inhabits that single location very much so, and the film is actually famous for that. Outside of three minutes, the film takes place in a single New York City courtroom. That works very well in this film takes to the expert directing by first-time director Sidney Lumet and veteran cinematographer Boris Kaufman. The film is expertly shot and the use of the focal length’s shots allow the audience to feel more of each character’s feelings. Lumet later discussed how a “lens plot” occurred to him. As the movie progressed, he changed the lenses to longer focal lengths, in order for the background to gradually close in on the characters. A very good technique I must point out.

Another thing that made this film an interesting addition to the courtroom dramas is we don’t know much about the case, only through secondhand evidence do we piece together what is going on. All we know is that a Spanish-American boy is accused of murdering his father. Other than a very bored-looking judge who assumes he knows the outcome of the case, we learn the case through the eyes of twelve jurors. In most courtroom movies, it’s clear they like to come to a final verdict. This movie is very different because we don’t know whether the boy is guilty or not, although we can assume based off the events of the movie. The movie is all about reasonable evidence, a very important study in criminal justice. Through the evidence depicted in the case, did the boy commit the murder or not?

In the first few minutes in the jury room, it’s clear that the majority of the jurors believe he is guilty. However, there must be an unanimous vote before they can issue their decision. The problem is that one juror, Juror #8 believes the boy is not guilty. This is where all the fun begins. The film is based on emotion, logic, and even prejudice to describe what is going on. This particular juror does not sway from his opinion, even though the other jurors are growing more angry, more restless. But as Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) describes why he believes the boy is not guilty, and he presents an admirable case why, people begin to agree with #8. There are a few arrogant jurors who refuse to move their votes for their own reasons. For example, Juror #10 (Ed Begley) is an extreme racist, as seen in a massive prejudiced rant in which the reaction of the other jurors proved to be one of the most powerful scenes of the movie. Then there is Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb), who is just a very angry man in general and he gradually becomes angrier as more people side with #8. Then there is Juror #4 (E.G Marshall), a man with wire-rimmed glasses who tries to avoid emotion in this thinking with only the use of logic. I think it was a wise movie not to give the character names. It makes each character much more powerful. I could actually remember the juror by their numbers, That’s a testament for how great and unique each character is.

In the 95 minutes the film runs, we become invested in each character very much so. Whether he is a racist bigot or whether he is a man who simply believes in what is right, we truly sympathize with them all. That is what you can attribute to a wonderful cast. It’s interesting, because there was only one bankable star here (at the time), and that was Henry Fonda who played Juror #8 very well. He presented his case as believable as he can be. The rest of the cast were some of the best actors of New York City at the time, such as Lee J. Cobb, Martin Balsam, Jack Warden, Ed Begley, Joseph Sweeney, Jack Klugman, E.G Marshall, John Fiedler, Edward Binns, Robert Webber, and George Voskovec. They all perform very well in their roles. They need to be angry, and they certainly did get angry.

Sidney Lumet is one of the best and influential American directors of all time. This was is first feature film, and he knocks it out of the park from the very first scene. In each film he does, he always has something to say-usually something controversial. Not so much in this film, but in subsequent films. He does talk about how emotions can cloud the thinking of people, and cause them to think and act irrationally. As some of the conversations and rants in this film will point out.

12 Angry Men, based off a television play, ended up being one of the greatest courtroom dramas ever made. It came out at a time where lavish productions were aplenty. Despite the critical acclaim of this film, the movie actually wasn’t a box-office hit when it originally opened. But enough people have seen this over the years and to see how great this film is. It spends 92 minutes in a room filled with a table and twelve men, and somehow we get incredibly tense moments that added up to be a very powerful, influential film.

My Grade: A

The 1950’s was a decade home to many epics. Perhaps one of the best ones produced was 1956’s The Ten Commandments. This film fits the definition of an epic very well. It will fill you up with awe, with amazement, and with wonder due to the use of gigantic set pieces, colorful costume designs, a bombastic score, and storytelling that many of us know about (especially if you’re from Christianity or Jewish heritage). The film runs at a lengthy three hours and forty minutes, which is common for epics during the golden age of epics. Despite the lengthy film, I felt the movie had a good pace to it. It did not seem like a long movie, and I was almost disappointed when the credits appeared. When that happens in a 3+ hour film, you know you have a good film on your hands.

This film is based off historical events or to be more specific, the tale of Moses from his birth to his death. In Ancient Egypt, Pharoah Ramses I decreed all newborn Hebrew males shall die. However, a newborn male named Moses (Charlton Heston) was cast away in the Nile in a reed basket. He was saved by pharaoh’s daughter, Bithiah (Nina Foch), and he grew up in court of the pharaoh’s brother, Seti (Cedric Hardwicke). Moses made a name to himself and became a favorite to take the throne after Seti. But once Moses’s heritage is revealed, everything changes. Moses is cast from Egypt, where he marries and raises a family. He is commanded by God to return to Egypt so he can free the Hebrew people from slavery. However, Seti’s son, Rameses (Yul Brynner) does all he can to stop Moses.

There are just many scenes in the movies to goggle at. I am very impressed on how the story was told, and I can understand why the movie became a classic. Some of my favorite scenes are the parting of the Red Sea, where Moses splits the Red Sea so his people can cross the sea and be saved from Rameses, who was chasing them down. Another powerful scene I loved was when Yahweh was speaking to Moses on the top of Mount Sinai, issuing Moses the Ten Commandments while all his people were sinning at the base of the mountain. Just seeing God as a ball of fire, speaking with a commanding holy voice gave me the chills. Despite this being a film released in 1956, I believe the special effects hold up fairly well. The parting of the Red Sea is incredible, and it is amazing how that scene was done without the use of any CGI.

I have previously reviewed a movie from Cecil B. DeMille, which was released nine years previously in 1947 called Unconquered. That movie showed DeMille had a good hand in making entertaining epics. He really succeeds on the grand scale, as proved by the success of this film. The acting was also consistent and everyone seemed to have a fun time. Sometimes the acting would be downright silly, but there is no denying the fun the cast had. Charlton Heston is no stranger to epics, and I loved his performance here as Moses. Maybe towards the end when he becomes a whole new person he got a little silly, but overall he did a good job. Yul Brynner is good as Moses’s fiercest rival, Rameses, He created a memorable villain, who feels betrayed by his father that he would give power to Moses and not him. Anne Baxter does a good job as Nefretiri who was Mose’s love interest. Baxter did good, but sometimes her seductiveness would feel out of place in the film. Finally, I must mention Edward G. Robinson as Dathan, the man who was in charge of the slaves. I felt he gave a light, comedic touch to a man in what otherwise would be a sinister character.

Overall, The Ten Commandments is a great epic that holds up very well, nearly sixty years after its original release. The film does justice to the story, as told in the Bible. It’s obvious the film takes a stance against slavery, and its fun to see Moses outdo Rameses, The special effects are pretty cool, but get ready to be blown away by the Red Sea scene. This sweeping epic is a grand, fun movie. Not only does it enlighten people on the story of Moses and what he did for his people, but it also is fun, silly, and entertaining. The movie does a little into stretching the imagination, but its fun to watch and one of the best epics of all time.

My Grade: A