12 Angry Men 1957 720p XviD HD 4.2GB (moviesbyrizzo) multisub

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/

This movie was made in Black and White photography, however you'll be pleased
with the movie theater quality of this rich bitrate 720p movie file which even
has 256k audio included. Its not a long movie, so the bitrate is generous indeed.

We first put this movie up in 2GB and got "awesome" reviews of its quality
in both video and audio. We now bring it to you at double the bitrates and
yet within the size to fit on the cheapest sized dvd discs so that t is practical
to download and use and share. We tries this on our bluray disc player and it
works great even though it says DivX on the panel, it also does Xvid HD as
I'm told almost all these machines seem to be able to do along the way perhaps.

1280 X 720p 5998k video bitrate 256k audio bitrate - its lovely quality HDTV
sourced - yet I'd swear its even better than a 1080p version I checked out
in a much bigger file size - for whatever reason. This picture we bring you is
clearly richer looking quality and that is the reason for the nice comments we
received from the previous posting of a 2GB version which is also available if
you prefer - and its in DivX so check your disc player for compatibility -
either way.


12 Angry men is one of the most important courtroom/jury room dramas ever to
come out of the United states. The question presented to us in this great movie
offerings is this: Is there justice in the level of discourse that is being
offered. Is the articulation on the issues in fact valid or is it semantic like
argument on feigns of dubious validity. If a case appears as it should: "open and
shut" - is that reason enough to start to discount it? Should you decide that
everything that could go the other way hypothetically, no matter how remote the
possibility, that should be the order of the day of a particular brand of "more
pure" justice? Should the prejudices carried by members of the jury or testifying
witnesses be reason enough to negate and retard their testimony? should they be
required as jury members to vote the other side instead? The OJ Simpson criminal
trial contained all of these elements in the minds of those who assembled not too
long ago on a PBS panel inquiry headed by talk show host Mr. Charlie Rose. The
ownership of property in and of itself should never be sufficient qualification to
sit on a jury to decide the fate of members of the community. Instead, a sound
grounding in values that are humanistically pure and demonstrably so, combined
with sound reasoning skills and experience in the proper and right application of
legal principles that come from this sound philosophical basis should rule, and be
the requirement. So a panel of judges perhaps, appointed on more than their
connections within legal circles as it presently is comprised, rather on an open
contest in which real votes for merit may be clearly exercised in the protection
of all.

Otherwise, we could someday die for no other reason than a lack of restraint in
the environment caused by a complete breakdown in the expectation of justice based
on jury members that are nothing more than proxies for those that would inflict
their own brand of justice instead. The OJ Simspon affair should raise just such
alarm bells as the second trial rightly pointed out, however it came too late to
impose penalties to fit the crime - financial constraints that were imposed
subsequently on the defendant could hardly be deemed sane enough for anyone that
was looking in at the situation in objective fashion unable to do nothing but
"shake their heads" in amazement that this could go on without a public scream
that should never end until the righter outcome is seen through instead.


Michael Rizzo Chessman
moviesbyrizzo

We now have sourced for you the following subtitles which are finally included
here for all of the following:

Bulgarian
Croatian
Czech
Danish
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
French
German
Greek
Hungarian
Italian
Norwegian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Serbian
Slovenian
Spanish
Swedish