十二怒汉观后感英文版【通用4篇】

Reflection on "12 Angry Men" (Part 1)

As I sat in the theater, engrossed in the intense drama unfolding before me, I couldn't help but be captivated by the thought-provoking film "12 Angry Men". Directed by Sidney Lumet, this gripping courtroom drama explores the dynamics of a jury deliberating a murder case. With its powerful performances and thought-provoking themes, the film left a lasting impression on me.

First and foremost, the performances in "12 Angry Men" were exceptional. Each actor portrayed their respective character with such conviction and authenticity that it was impossible not to be drawn into the story. From the stubborn and opinionated Juror #3, played by Lee J. Cobb, to the calm and rational Juror #8, played by Henry Fonda, every character had their own unique personality and contributed to the tension and conflict within the jury room.

The film's exploration of prejudice and stereotypes was particularly thought-provoking. As the jurors debated the guilt or innocence of the defendant, it became evident that their own personal biases and preconceived notions were influencing their judgment. This raised important questions about the fairness of the justice system and the impact of societal prejudices on the lives of individuals. It made me reflect on my own biases and the need for unbiased decision-making in all aspects of life.

Furthermore, the film's examination of the power of persuasion was fascinating. Juror #8's ability to challenge the groupthink mentality and gradually convince his fellow jurors to re-evaluate the evidence was a testament to the persuasive power of logical reasoning and empathy. It reminded me of the importance of critical thinking and the need to question assumptions in order to arrive at fair and just conclusions.

The cinematography and set design also contributed to the film's impact. The claustrophobic jury room, with its close-ups and tight shots, effectively conveyed the sense of confinement and tension that the jurors experienced. The gradual transition from a hot and humid room to a rainy storm outside mirrored the rising tension and conflict within the jury. These artistic choices added depth and intensity to the already gripping narrative.

In conclusion, "12 Angry Men" is a thought-provoking film that explores themes of prejudice, power, and the importance of critical thinking. The exceptional performances, compelling storytelling, and relevant social commentary make it a timeless classic. It left me with a renewed appreciation for the power of empathy and the need for unbiased decision-making in our society. This film is a must-watch for anyone interested in the complexities of human behavior and the pursuit of justice.

Reflection on "12 Angry Men" (Part 2)

Continuing from my previous reflection on "12 Angry Men", I would like to delve deeper into the film's exploration of the dynamics within the jury room and the lessons it imparts on teamwork and collaboration.

Throughout the film, the jurors' initial reluctance to engage in meaningful discussion and their tendency to rely on stereotypes and personal biases hindered their ability to arrive at a fair verdict. However, as the story unfolded, it became clear that effective teamwork and collaboration were crucial in overcoming these obstacles.

Juror #8, played by Henry Fonda, served as a catalyst for change within the group. His willingness to listen, consider alternative viewpoints, and challenge the status quo encouraged others to do the same. This highlighted the importance of open-mindedness and the willingness to question one's own beliefs in order to facilitate meaningful discussions and arrive at informed decisions.

The film also highlighted the destructive nature of conflict and the importance of respectful communication. As tensions rose and disagreements escalated, the jurors' ability to communicate effectively deteriorated. It was only through the intervention of Juror #8, who encouraged respectful dialogue and active listening, that the group was able to overcome their differences and work towards a consensus. This emphasized the need for constructive conflict resolution and the detrimental effects of unchecked aggression and hostility.

Furthermore, "12 Angry Men" underscored the importance of individual courage and standing up for what is right. Juror #8's unwavering commitment to justice in the face of overwhelming opposition demonstrated the power of one person to make a difference. It reminded me of the importance of staying true to one's convictions and the impact that a single act of courage can have on a larger group.

Lastly, the film illustrated the significance of patience and perseverance in collaborative decision-making. The jurors' initial impatience and desire for a quick resolution blinded them to the complexities of the case. However, through the gradual process of deliberation and re-evaluation of evidence, they were able to uncover hidden truths and ultimately arrive at a just verdict. This taught me the importance of taking the time to consider all perspectives and gather all relevant information before reaching a conclusion.

In conclusion, "12 Angry Men" serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of teamwork, effective communication, individual courage, and patience in collaborative decision-making. The film's exploration of these themes has broad implications beyond the jury room and can be applied to various aspects of life. It left me with a renewed appreciation for the power of collective intelligence and the potential for positive change when individuals come together with a shared goal.

十二怒汉观后感英文版 篇三

This Indoorsman empty and lonely months come out a fart, this essay is moving around the brain exercises, do not take it seriously.

"12 angry men", epee no front, delicate work

About the film itself

Of all the movies I've seen, "12 fury" is not my favorite top ten, but it's definitely the most boring I've ever seen in the top 10. The whole film is only one scene, 12 men, 1.5 hours of dialogue, or a black and white film. However, it is cattle, cattle cattle, with the most boring way, about the most exciting story.

The whole film is about a murder trial. A bad boy was charged with the murder of his father, hear the voice of the old man across the street downstairs, witnessed the process of women's murder knife, unconvincing alibi, seems to have been placed in the electric chair in front of the child will be. 12 members of the jury will determine the child's life and death, but they have to make a unified ruling, the results can be effective. At the beginning of the film, 11 people think that the child is guilty, only one out of respect for life, that the case pending. After 1.5 hours of hard work, all the evidence is classified as "reasonable doubt", that is to say, there is a reason why it cannot be fully established. The boy was acquitted.

The story itself does not have any complicated place, neither brain nor burning suspense. However, the film, there is a kind of good. This is a typical confined space film, but there is no usually confined space film repression. The plot is fascinating, as if an invisible hand, grabbed in the viewer's mind, to promote the development of the plot. Then the hand is hidden very deep, you can only cast a tepid performance, and the degree of relaxation rhythm to feel it. It is difficult to point out that it is in which point, the plot, so that the merits of a step forward. It makes a "mission impossible" completed, but does not show abrupt. Like warm boiled frog, unconsciously, has been the director of the road.

On the confined space of the film, you can take the "12 angry Han" and "sniper phone booth" to do a comparison.

The latter is my personal narrow viewing experience, in recent years considered very good confined space film. It is more intense than the "12 angry Han", more depressed, more popular. However, the latter of the wonderful, is the process of viewing the obvious exciting, the director deliberately for the tension (of course, it is not easy). It will be the hero and the audience, and placed under the gun, like a gun under the deer hunter. Every thought, every action, will determine your life and death. So it's hot, hormones are always high.

The former is different, the director will be shot, placed on the spectator's point of view, and without any emotional color. Group play is also very difficult to bring the audience into the sense. This kind of calm angle of view, can let a person look at the whole process more calmly. The former is like the slalom, the latter is watching the scenery is better, but also the reader's taste.

About humanity

The director cut the case in the form of a jury, but also brought another narrative convenience, no matter what kind of decisions made by the 12 angry men, will not have any impact on their own, they are bystanders. Moreover, the restriction of 12 people, a person's decision, the role of both large and small. This is like 100 thousand people pulling the hair of a person, everyone will think, he pulled out a hair of others will produce what kind of impact on the people, but when tenth million inpiduals pulled over the last hair, who is responsible for this thing? The inpidual in the collective judgment, are more likely to get a sense of security even moral, ah q would say, I feel the monk can not be touched? As a result, the only thing that can restrain the 12 anger is the moral of the inpidual, respect for life, the fear of the law, and the American dream of American pride. However, it is for the respect of other people's lives, the value of the personal status of citizens, can better reflect the reason why the "social man" noble.

On Jurisprudence

11:1, does not represent the overwhelming victory, the minority to the majority, also did not see so reasonable. Let a few people speak freely, is a fair basis.

十二怒汉观后感英文版 篇四

"The twelve fury", a black and white film that was shot in the 50s of the last century, still holds the top spot in the list of legal films. The filming of the film is now still seems to be very good or even fresh, a jury of twelve people to discuss the scene occupies the vast majority of the film. The basic circumstances of the case is almost a convicted juvenile patricide after the trial requires twelve man jury made unanimous verdict. Finally, after a long and bitter debate, the kind of people in the aura of human nature under the leadership of the hero to the boy to freedom.

A movie is great, it must be that it allows everyone to find their own interpretation and indirect exposure to real life. What does the film say? The responsibility of the rights and obligations of unity, American judicial system, "would rather let ten thousand can not kill the wrong one" judicial policy on human, fine, deep dig of character psychology analysis, inference of life precious goodness of life, respect, in the face of adversity to find a breakthrough in the actual combat skills, logical reasoning method and so on. Among them, my most shocking is the jury in the system of human feelings and legal justice in the game between the precise performance of the game.

First of all, from the significance of the establishment of the jury system. As everyone knows, the jury system is a more common in the countries of Anglo American law system for the realization of democracy and set up the court ruling, but in this case is obviously that consisting of 6-12 people, a case of a group, decide whether the defendant guilty of petty jury. The task of the jury is to find the truth, to seek the defendant's heart, to judge whether the law is fair, and to fight against the dictatorship and oppression of the government. Judging from the case, twelve different personalities, different origins of the jury finally completed this sacred mission, although the process is full of hardships and disputes, although meager pay.

Obviously, the jury system establishment greatly to the "people" will have reflected the way, representative of the first throw to the "people" problems, from the set goal, one of the ways of expression also embody the will of the consciousness of law. This movie is a result to the satisfaction of all, "people's democracy" successful practice, worthy of praise.

It can be said that this kind of non professional, only the simple way to judge the feelings of law to a certain extent reflects the demographic characteristics and values of a society, naturally has a natural rationality and institutional affinity. This kind of justice can make the majority of the people in this society to be convinced, and not like the law of the general cold ruthless, the decision was also less likely to be overturned. This is also the system from the Anglo Saxon era has been widely used and today there are still many reference reasons.

The next step is to discuss whether the justice based on human judgment is the justice required on the legal balance.

In the movie "Twelve Angry Men", each juror all have some worry, anxious to help their own work and entertainment, because of some emotional problems naturally to the case of the boy off, some because of hot weather to escape from the narrow discussion room...... All these practical problems are unable to avoid or even to be taken into account when the jury system is set up. But this is real life. As the most common people, the jury will be influenced by all kinds of personal and environmental factors.

A great movie is that it takes all kinds of factors affecting the justice of Law -- or clear or vague to show in front of the audience, the audience from the heart to feel, if oneself is in jury, it is very difficult to guarantee that complete justice. Just one example, in seemingly irrefutable evidence, even lawyers are too lazy to defend for the boy, the judge is also a lazy way, that will make everyone believe: the child First impressions are strongest had killed his father and have to pay the price to be sent to the chair in the end has not yet started life. That is why there is a big gap between 11 and 1, which is likely to have an impact on the environment.

It is a little question although it is difficult to have a keen insight into matters but people-oriented "actor has been discussed by expanding, finally let more and more jurors tend to believe that the boy innocence. But this calm person in reality is very rare, if we depend on every case in each group the jury can have a "hero" to calm to control, it is not realistic! As one of the judges in the film said to himself, "it's a little bit of a heart attack" if it's a long time to change into another jury. Just imagine, as a result, the jury system has become a kind of terrible, if the jury random selection will lead to two completely different results for the case even for a young life and death, let the life in the legal system of the people and how to maintain adequate sense of security and justice of law faith?

So I think that any system has its own defects, the rationality of its existence and its inevitable, certainly not in personal feelings or political stance over highly or completely system, the disadvantages and system optimization is the right path of human progress. It may also be a more than half an hour to convey the meaning of the film more far-reaching.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that the opening and the end of the film is very interesting, with the film language