Summary12 Angry Men, by Sidney Lumet, is a behind-closed-doors look at the American legal system. This iconic adaptation of Reginald Rose’s teleplay stars Henry Fonda as the dissenting member on a jury of white men ready to pass judgment on a Puerto Rican teenager charged with murdering his father. The result is a saga of epic proportions that plays out... Read More
Directed By:Sidney Lumet
Written By:Reginald Rose
12 Angry Men
Metascore
Universal Acclaim
97
User score
Universal Acclaim
9.2
My Score
Drag or tap to give a rating
Hover and click to give a rating
Not available in your country?
ExpressVPN
Get 3 Extra months free
$6.67/mth
Top Cast
Metascore
Universal Acclaim
100% Positive
18 Reviews
18 Reviews
0% Mixed
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
0% Negative
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
100
Former TV director Sidney Lumet's solid success is achieved without even once resorting to flashbacks or other standard procedures of the film trade. The secret rests in spirited dialogue, realistic setting and, of course, the excellent cast of outstanding character actors that make up the jury. [21 Apr 1957, p.106]
100
Henry Fonda, Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, and Jack Warden lead a cast that glues you to the screen and never lets you go till the final verdict.
User score
Universal Acclaim
97% Positive
828 Ratings
828 Ratings
2% Mixed
15 Ratings
15 Ratings
1% Negative
12 Ratings
12 Ratings
Mar 8, 2026
10
In an iconic movie with tight writing, fascinatingly diverse characters and a stellar cast, I think Lee J Cobb is sometimes the unsung hero of this terrific story.
100
Too few films take on the art of arguing as a subject; we could certainly use more of them, but until then, Lumet’s window into strained civic duty will continue to serve mightily.
100
A penetrating, sensitive, and sometimes shocking dissection of the hearts and minds of men who obviously are something less than gods. It makes for taut, absorbing, and compelling drama that reaches far beyond the close confines of its jury room setting.
91
Though the jury in 12 Angry Men reaches a verdict, neither Rose nor Lumet definitively state whether they're "right." The point—as Lumet well knows—is that when it comes to making sense of a picture, a lot depends on the framing.
90
Perhaps the motivations of each juror are introduced too quickly and are repeated too often before each changes his vote. However, the film leaves a tremendous impact.
80
Mechanically written, but within its own middlebrow limitations, it delivers the goods.
Dec 5, 2025
10
A timeless classic of tension and debate Few films manage to stay as gripping and relevant after so many decades, and 12 Angry Men is one of the rare examples where time only strengthens its effect. The cinematography guides the tension with such precision that the film still feels fresh, and the black and white visuals together with the surprisingly clean sound create an atmosphere that would be difficult to reproduce with modern techniques unless the entire script were rebuilt from the ground up. The confined setting becomes a strength because the play-like structure turns the jury room into a concentrated stage on which every shift in tone or argument lands with full weight, and this also helps the film maintain a natural flow even when the characters become louder or more confrontational The cast gives the film its true power because every juror has a clear personality that emerges through gesture, voice, frustration or stubbornness, which allows the dynamics within the room to build gradually instead of feeling like isolated moments. Even the more exaggerated reactions work within the theatrical framing of the story, especially since the era of production made this kind of intensity a natural stylistic choice. The recurring use of weather supports this emotional progression as well because the heavy heat mirrors the pressure rising inside the room, and the arrival of rain marks a clear emotional turning point that settles the shifting balance among the jurors. Despite some elements that feel slightly heightened, the storytelling stays focused and sharp from beginning to end. The conflicts evolve with a rhythm that never loses momentum, and the film ultimately succeeds because the questions it raises remain painfully relevant. The way it exposes biases, social pressure and the fragility of justice still resonates today, which is why the film continues to feel essential rather than historical.
Apr 20, 2022
2
Pour un film de Sidney Lumet, c’est étonnamment regardable. Il faut dire que le réalisateur de somnifères s’est limité à une heure et demi, ce qui est déjà conséquent pour un tel huis-clos procédurier. Ici, on ne suit pas le procès mais on refait le procès en coulisses et on s’engueule… et surtout on assiste à un numéro de manipulation magistral ! Pensez donc, un homme seul retourne les 11 autres comme des crèpes ! au nom bien sûr de la lutte (finale) contre l’affreuse peine capitale et parce que cet homme seul est un bisounours à faire mourir de honte Jésus et potentiellement un communiste refoulé : on ne voit pas d’autre explication. Car les faits sont tout de même patents et ressassés, puis balayés au fur et à mesure par des interprétations sujettes à caution et particulièrement discutables. Il aurait fallu une affaire bien plus ambigüe pour rétablir la balance et partant, le doute. Ici, on a l’impression fort désagréable de s’être fait manipuler pendant une heure et demi : tout était écrit d’avance et les faits s’y sont pliés bien gentiment, ne nous laissant qu’une illusion de rebondissements qui n’en sont pas. Non, on avale pas de telles couleuvres : récusez ce film en définitive bien merdique qui se fout de notre gueule !
Sep 19, 2023
1
le film est long a la limite de l'ennuyant il reste statique dans une pièce ,il manque de rebondissement .Le seul point positif c'est l'enquête qui peut être intéressante a certains moments.
