Angry Men

Although the movie has a well written plot and moral, it is actually tedious and un eventidetful because of its setting, situation, and pace. In a gore room with twelve men with ranging personalities, eleven men want the Jury to be over as soon as possible so that they can continue on with their lives. The protagonist, jury slice 8, sets out to smorgasbord the presumed idea that the boy Is culpable and forces the careless eleven Jurors to discuss the evidence.All twelve men use up their own situation and knowledge that ties in with evidences, and numerous hours have been spent for the helve angry Jurors to finally agree that the boy Is not guilty. The entire film, having a running time of 96 minutes, took over one continuous period of time and in one place, the Jury room, which do It uneventful and dull. The movie was in addition extremely slow. Even though the twelve characters of the film intensely fought for and against their opinion, the result was predictable.The moral of the film, that the society Is like a cud of sheep, Is agreeable to the general creation today. The movie says a lot about hu globe nature and character. separately of the twelve Jurors Is forced to make Individual decisions, stating their own rationale and prompt thoughts, alternatively of Individuals being dominated by various people In a group. When each juror slowly changes his mind, early(a)s followed, one after an new(prenominal).This demonstrates that the society Is Like a flock of sheep, where people are too easily Influenced or led to following others In the flock. In other words, It shows that even the smallest things can affect our decisions (one against many). Also, even If this film might have been popular at the time It was released, (having an overall rate of 9 out of 10, as well as awarded and nominated for numerous awards) It Is too date to be popular today. Movie genres such as action and science fiction are becoming favored today, as opposed to classic movies In the past.In my pollen, despite the well written plot and moral, the film was electrostatic tedious and uneventful because of Its setting, situation, and pace. The pace of the movie Is very slow, also taking place In one continuous location. Although It Is time consuming, 12 Angry hands rigorously sets out to solve the conflict ND clearly points out whether the boy who killed his get under ones skin Is guilty or not. The moral of the story, that society Is Like a flock of sheep, expresses how society Is appears. 2 Angry Men By Yemeni out to change the presumed idea that the boy is culpable and forces the careless twelve angry Jurors to finally agree that the boy is not guilty. Of time and in one place, the Jury room, which made it uneventful and dull. The of the film, that the society is like a flock of sheep, is agreeable to the general public The movie says a lot about human nature and character. Each of the twelve Jurors is forced to make individual decisions, stating their own rationale and prompt thoughts, instead of individuals being dominated by various people in a group.When each that the society is like a flock of sheep, where people are too easily influenced or led to following others in the flock. In other words, it shows that even the smallest things can affect our decisions (one against many). Also, even if this film might have been popular at the time it was released, (having an overall rate of 9 out of 10, also warded and nominated for numerous awards) it is too dated to be popular today. Opposed to classic movies in the past.In my opinion, despite the well written plot and moral, the film was still tedious and uneventful because of its setting, situation, and pace. The pace of the movie is very slow, also taking place in one continuous location. Although it is time consuming, 12 Angry Men rigorously sets out to solve the conflict and clearly points out whether the boy who killed his father is guilty or not. The moral of the story, that so ciety is like a flock of sheep, expresses how society isAngry menI believe in the beginning the 2 main Jurors who were basing their decisions on prejudice were mainly Jurors 3 and 10. Juror 3 to a greater extent based on prejudices of young men, particularly because he had such a horrendous relationship with his own son, I olfactory perception like this circumstance unfeignedly hit him close to home and really affected him In a personal focusing. I believe he let his feelings got In the way of his logical thinking and was practically projecting the anger he had towards his son towards the young men on trial, who had been accused of a horrible crime against his father.Juror 10 was more prejudice of the young suspects race, making statements like You know how they are, and Theyre all the same, all born liars. I guess In a way he could have been using reverse discrimination because he wasnt at all prejudice about the Individual or what the witnesses said during their testimonies. B ut I really dont believe that Juror 8 was using reverse discrimination besides was possibly more interested and paid more attention to the small enlarge of the case then the other jurors.He simply brought up other points that some of the other jurors didnt catch ND just couldnt think of until brought up by Juror 8. I dont think it should have been a hung jury because its not like all of the Jurors made a decision and stuck to it, people were changing their votes, slowly but surely, therefore I dont think it should have been a hung jury. Some of the persuasive pieces of evidence are first and foremost the knife, the witness saying it was a rarefied knife that was one of a kind, and juror 8 went out and proved that.Another piece of evidence was the blueprint of the other mans apartment, which pretty much proved the onetime(a) gentlemen would eave been able to go out and check everything he said he did. Juror 1 aka the foreman was a pretty good leader and unploughed the Jury organ ized and as focused as possible when things got a bit too out of hand. Juror 2 was more of a diffident individual who would voice his opinion whenever he needed too. Juror 3 was a bit out spoken and was a very angry and very easily excitable person. Juror 4 was more of a quiet but confident person, and had a very serious demeanor.Juror 5 was a man who said he was from the slums but he spoke when he matte attacked or when he felt something regulatory was said about the young man on trial based on where he was raised. Juror 6 was a very respectful man, who stood up for the elderly man when he felt people were trying to intimidate the older gentlemen. Juror 7 seems Like he TLD really care about the case but more crazy about the ball game which he had tickets for. Juror 8 was the one who pretty much stood up against the rest of the Jurors based on his thoughts and beliefs. He stood up for the boy when everyone else thought he was guilty.It took a lot of courage to not only stand up ag ainst what everyone else was saying, but also to sway the vote of the Jury In the opposite direction. Juror 9 was the older gentleman, who was fairly quiet except for when he really wanted to get his opinion in. Juror 10 was a more racist individual and really didnt like the young man on trial from the get go, saying he was one of them and craving basing his vote on his dislike of them. I dont really recall too much or juror remember that Juror 12 was a market agent and he seemed rather distracted from the case.I dont really feel like any of them have my style of communication, and oneself I dont even feel like it would be close to any of them. But since I had to pick one I would more than likely say Juror 8 Just because I feel like I am pretty good and looking at the small details and usually pretty good at persuading people. Answering this header is tough, especially since I literally didnt see any part of the case. If I was on the Jury I would have probably voted along with ev ery other of the Jurors because it seems like to me the defense team didnt do a good Job in this case.But I loud have probably been persuaded along with the rest of them as Juror 8 would have pointed out facts that the defense wasnt able to point out. In a case like this I believe having a more than amazing defense team is way more important than if your truly guilty or not. A great defense attorney wouldnt have let any of the Jurors go into the Jury room thinking that boy had committed any type of crime, and if they thought he committed a crime correct from the get go, a good defense team would have put a doubt into their mind, and make them rethink those guilty thoughts.