The Criterion Collection

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Confession and State of Siege are good too but definitely not on par with Z.

The Confession is pretty damn close, I think.
Not much is on par with Z though.

[Abdrewes]

For those of you that rely on TCM for watching Criterion releases and an assortment of other titles not on streaming, it seems a new AT&T TV streaming service includes the channel for a mere $15. The cheapest you can get it elsewhere is $30 with a sling package.


https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/21/1...tures-channels

[jshaide]

I wouldn't buy anything Bergman on DVD right now. This is not the time to pull that trigger if you prefer the Blu. I think things have the likelihood of being upgraded now or at least soonish.

[rognvaldr]

I added 2 more which makes 10 so far this month and maybe 2 more before it ends.

The Lure
Moonrise Kingdom

[Knaldskalle]

Originally Posted by jshaide

I wouldn't buy anything Bergman on DVD right now. This is not the time to pull that trigger if you prefer the Blu. I think things have the likelihood of being upgraded now or at least soonish.

You know, the cynic in me wouldn't be surprised if they give Bergman's 100th the same treatment they gave Welles' 100th in 2015: Nada. They didn't put out anything until the second half of 2016.

But you're probably right, Bergman's 100th will get the deluxe treatment and we'll finally get "The Film Trilogy" upgraded to blu and see a handful more on blu as well.

[demonknight]

Originally Posted by Knaldskalle

You know, the cynic in me wouldn't be surprised if they give Bergman's 100th the same treatment they gave Welles' 100th in 2015: Nada. They didn't put out anything until the second half of 2016.

But you're probably right, Bergman's 100th will get the deluxe treatment and we'll finally get "The Film Trilogy" upgraded to blu and see a handful more on blu as well.

Well, there have already been two Bergman upgrades (Virgin Spring, Scenes from a Marriage), so there’s already that on Welles

[CinemaBlu]

Originally Posted by captainron_howdy

You should totally be good to grab the Criterion & now is the best time. Also, I meant to say Gomorrah is one of my favorite films in the CC. Matteo Garrone is an amazing director and has a new film called Dogman coming out this year that looks great. Then, Roberto Saviano, the author of Gomorrah has a book all about drug trafficking that I really need to read.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eum93mpzpE0

https://www.amazon.com/ZeroZeroZero-Cocaine-Powder-Through-American/dp/0143109375/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1531063681&sr=8-3&keywords=roberto+saviano

Thanks for the heads up. I'll need to check those out.

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by evilive

I caught 12 Angry Men on TCM a couple days ago and loved it. Adding it to my list for the sale.

I love this movie and I own it. I watch it a few times a year and just watched it again a week or so ago.

***SPOILER ALERT***

Although I love this movie, I hate to say it, but the jury got it wrong. They let a guilty man go free. There is no doubt in my mind. If you do a Google search you'll find dozens of articles supporting that conclusion. This is not something I realized the first time I watched it. But after many rewatches it becomes very clear.

[gregmtl92]

Originally Posted by regeyer

I love this movie and I own it. I watch it a few times a year and just watched it again a week or so ago.

[Show spoiler]Although I love this movie, I hate to say it, but the jury got it wrong. They let a guilty man go free. There is no doubt in my mind. If you do a Google search you'll find dozens of articles supporting that conclusion. This is not something I realized the first time I watched it. But after many rewatches it becomes very clear.

I'm sure most people have seen it but still this post could use spoiler tags..

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by regeyer

I love this movie and I own it. I watch it a few times a year and just watched it again a week or so ago.

Although I love this movie, I hate to say it, but the jury got it wrong. They let a guilty man go free. There is no doubt in my mind. If you do a Google search you'll find dozens of articles supporting that conclusion. This is not something I realized the first time I watched it. But after many rewatches it becomes very clear.

Hmm. Can you explicate?
I'm not going to google it because my PC keeps freezing after a few minutes, but it sounds like something Sidney Lumet would think of.

I agree 12 Angry Men rewards repeated viewing, as do most of Lumet's films.

[MifuneFan]

They didn't get it wrong. You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. With each witness, or piece of evidence, there is enough doubt involved for the jury to proceed as not guilty.

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by gregmtl92

I'm sure most people have seen it but still this post could use spoiler tags..

You're right. Sorry about that.

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Hmm. Can you explicate?
I'm not going to google it because my PC keeps freezing after a few minutes, but it sounds like something Sidney Lumet would think of.

I agree 12 Angry Men rewards repeated viewing, as do most of Lumet's films.

***SPOILER ALERT***

First of all, there would have been an immediate mistrial when the switchblade was brought in by Henry Fonda's character and he left the knife on the jury table. When the bailiff cleans up the room and sees the knife, there's no doubt the judge would find a mistrial.

But, irregardless of that minor fact, here are a couple of articles that make it clear that justice was not served.

12 Agry Men Guilty Of The Wrong Verdict

Why The Kid Should Have Gone To The Chair

BTW, I am an attorney. And I can tell you right now that justice was not served. With that said, I really like this movie. The first time I watched it I was led to believe that the jury made the right decision. But after watching it many times, it became abundantly clear that the kid murdered his father. Certainly, the evidence taken as a whole, proves the kid is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

They didn't get it wrong. You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. With each witness, or piece of evidence, there is enough doubt involved for the jury to proceed as not guilty.

When I first saw 12 Angry Men when I was in my teens, I thought for sure that the jury got it right, but each time I see it now I'm more convinced that they got it wrong. I don't want to derail this thread debating the verdict of a fictional murder case. I just want to point out that different people could interpret the same evidence differently, which is one of the things that makes 12 Angry Men a great film and why it is often shown in law schools as an example of what can go on in a jury room.

Once more, I will put in a plug for the original TV version that is included with the Criterion release. In my opinion it is tighter than the film version, with a more ambiguous ending.

[CBHampson]

Originally Posted by witchmania

To add to this category: I'd say Elio Petri's Investigation Of A Citizen Above Suspicion is well worth seeking out.

Worth it for the Morricone score alone, honestly.

[jshaide]

I heard some Borzage movies just left FilmStruck. An Eclipse set of the lot would be terrific.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by belcherman

When I first saw 12 Angry Men when I was in my teens, I thought for sure that the jury got it right, but each time I see it now I'm more convinced that they got it wrong. I don't want to derail this thread debating the verdict of a fictional murder case. I just want to point out that different people could interpret the same evidence differently, which is one of the things that makes 12 Angry Men a great film and why it is often shown in law schools as an example of what can go on in a jury room.

Once more, I will put in a plug for the original TV version that is included with the Criterion release. In my opinion it is tighter than the film version, with a more ambiguous ending.

Originally Posted by regeyer

***SPOILER ALERT***

First of all, there would have been an immediate mistrial when the switchblade was brought in by Henry Fonda's character and he left the knife on the jury table. When the bailiff cleans up the room and sees the knife, there's no doubt the judge would find a mistrial.

But, irregardless of that minor fact, here are a couple of articles that make it clear that justice was not served.

12 Agry Men Guilty Of The Wrong Verdict

Why The Kid Should Have Gone To The Chair

BTW, I am an attorney. And I can tell you right now that justice was not served. With that said, I really like this movie. The first time I watched it I was led to believe that the jury made the right decision. But after watching it many times, it became abundantly clear that the kid murdered his father. Certainly, the evidence taken as a whole, proves the kid is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think you guys are somehow thinking this movie mirrors the justice system 1:1, and that's clearly not the case. Aside from the actual arguments made for/against the suspect, there are numerous facets of the case that are completely inaccurate to how the judicial system functions. That's why this is a movie, and we have to rely on the parameters within the movie to make an assessment of the verdict in the movie.

The parameters are given by the judge himself:

One man is dead, another man's life is at stake, if there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused, uh a reasonable doubt, then you must bring me a verdict of "Not Guilty". If, however, there's no reasonable doubt, then you must, in good conscience, find the accused "Guilty". However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous.

Can anyone here say truly that there is no reasonable doubt when it comes to:

1.) The lady seeing the murder happen from across the street through an elevated train system without her glasses on?

2.) The man hearing the boy yell "I'll Kill You" from across the street through an elevated train system with a passing train?

Let me remind you, this has absolutely nothing to do with your belief in whether or not he did it or not. The movie gives absolutely no definitive proof in this regard. The movie gives several pieces of evidence, and eyewitness material, much of which can be contested, as shown in the film.

So no, based on the movie, and the parameters laid out by the judge, there clearly exists some reasonable doubt, and if there is a reasonable doubt then the verdict must be "Not Guilty". In some regards, that's the beauty of the film. We never know truly whether he did it or not, but we see that even the most open and shut case can be broken down and dismissed with the right arguments, and by eliminating any pre-existing biases of the jurors. Articles have compared it to the OJ Simpson trial in that regard.

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Articles have compared it to the OJ Simpson trial in that regard.

I think you just proved my point.

Yes, there is certainly some reasonable doubt in relation to a couple of the facts. But when all of the facts are considered together, there is no reasonable doubt. You can't review each fact in isolation and consider whether "it's possible" that someone made a mistake, as Henry Fonda suggests. No. All of the evidence must be considered together.

To be honest, I think it was the movie's intent to show that one man made a difference and saved an innocent man's life. And that's how I felt after my first viewing. But after watching this movie multiple times over the years it becomes very clear that, under the facts as presented, this kid is guilty.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by belcherman

When I first saw 12 Angry Men when I was in my teens, I thought for sure that the jury got it right, but each time I see it now I'm more convinced that they got it wrong. I don't want to derail this thread debating the verdict of a fictional murder case. I just want to point out that different people could interpret the same evidence differently, which is one of the things that makes 12 Angry Men a great film and why it is often shown in law schools as an example of what can go on in a jury room.

Once more, I will put in a plug for the original TV version that is included with the Criterion release. In my opinion it is tighter than the film version, with a more ambiguous ending.

I guess I dropped out of law school end of my second year before they showed the film to my class.

Originally Posted by regeyer

***SPOILER ALERT***

[Show spoiler]

First of all, there would have been an immediate mistrial when the switchblade was brought in by Henry Fonda's character and he left the knife on the jury table. When the bailiff cleans up the room and sees the knife, there's no doubt the judge would find a mistrial.

But, irregardless of that minor fact, here are a couple of articles that make it clear that justice was not served.

12 Agry Men Guilty Of The Wrong Verdict

Why The Kid Should Have Gone To The Chair

[Show spoiler]
BTW, I am an attorney. And I can tell you right now that justice was not served. With that said, I really like this movie. The first time I watched it I was led to believe that the jury made the right decision. But after watching it many times, it became abundantly clear that the kid murdered his father. Certainly, the evidence taken as a whole, proves the kid is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Appreciate the links.
It's possible, isn't it?
I'll keep that argument in mind when I watch the film again. I've been meaning to watch it soon.

[Show spoiler] I thought it was a clever tactic to make the sole objector a crass and offensive bully. Henry Fonda and the other jurors may be retaliating against Lee J. Cobb's demeanor.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by regeyer

I think you just proved my point.

Yes, there is certainly some reasonable doubt in relation to a couple of the facts. But when all of the facts are considered together, there is no reasonable doubt. You can't review each fact in isolation and consider whether "it's possible" that someone made a mistake, as Henry Fonda suggests. No. All of the evidence must be considered together.

To be honest, I think it was the movie's intent to show that one man made a difference and saved an innocent man's life. And that's how I felt after my first viewing. But after watching this movie multiple times over the years it becomes very clear that, under the facts as presented, this kid is guilty.

I didn't prove any point by mentioning O.J.. Like I said, whether he actually did it or not is completely irrelevant to the verdict in this film. When you start to break down each "fact", then doubt begins to arise, and some "facts" can be outright thrown out, which completely weakens the overall strength of the prosecution.

Jurors are not infallible, emotionless beings, they have consciences and biases, and when doubt sets in, then it's that much harder for them to send a kid to his death. Just saying the kid is guilty makes it seem like you missed the entire point of the film, but agree to disagree I guess.