12 Angry Men Movie Quiz

The correct answer is switch-blade knife. A switch-blade knife is a type of folding knife with a blade that can be deployed automatically by pressing a button or lever. This type of knife is often associated with criminal activities due to its concealability and ease of use. In the context of the question, the fact that a switch-blade knife was used suggests that the murderer may have had malicious intent and wanted a weapon that could be easily concealed or used quickly.

The correct answer is "very close to the elevated railway system". This means that the location of the apartment where the murder was committed is in close proximity to the elevated railway system. This information suggests that the apartment is likely to be located in an area with easy access to public transportation and may be situated in an urban or city setting.

The correct answer is "stabbed downwards and into the chest". This answer suggests that the knife was forcefully thrust into the chest area in a downward motion. This implies a deliberate and aggressive act, possibly indicating an intention to cause harm or even kill the person. The other options mentioned, such as slashing across the throat, jabbing upwards into the stomach, or ramming into the back, do not accurately describe the specific manner in which the knife was inserted into the body.

The old man who lived downstairs had bad legs and used canes or a walker. This physical disability affected his ability to walk properly, hence the need for assistance from canes or a walker.

At the start of the jury deliberations, all but one juror votes "guilty." Juror #8 (played by Henry Fonda) casts the sole "not guilty" vote, initiating a tense and thought-provoking discussion that challenges the other jurors' assumptions and biases.

Juror number 10's personal prejudice is best described as racial prejudice. This means that he holds biased views and discriminates against individuals based on their race. This can negatively impact his ability to make fair and impartial judgments in the case at hand.

Juror number 8 became angry and exclaimed "This isn't a game!" because juror number 3 was playing tic-tac-toe with juror 12. This behavior was likely seen as disrespectful and inappropriate given the serious nature of the jury deliberation. Juror number 8 may have felt that juror number 3 was not taking the case seriously and was not fully engaged in the discussion.

In Act 2, number 3's attitude contrasts with number 4's attitude because number 3 has a closed mind, while number 4 is willing to listen and consider new possibilities. This is evident in their behavior and interactions throughout the act. Number 3 consistently dismisses and rejects any ideas or suggestions that differ from his own, showing a lack of openness and unwillingness to consider alternative perspectives. On the other hand, number 4 actively engages in dialogue, listens to others, and is open to exploring different possibilities, demonstrating a more receptive and open-minded attitude.

The entire case ultimately hangs on the fact that the alleged eyewitness has impaired vision, and may not have clearly seen what she thought she saw. This fact raises doubts about the accuracy and reliability of her testimony, which is crucial in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. If her vision impairment affected her ability to see the murder accurately, then her testimony may not be credible, casting doubt on the validity of the case against the defendant.

The correct answer is 75 because it is the only age mentioned in the options.

Juror number 8 gets the others to realize that the defendant might not have killed his father by asking them to consider how many times they have said similar words with no intention to kill. This prompts the jurors to reflect on their own experiences and understand that words spoken in anger or frustration do not always reflect one's true intentions. By making this comparison, juror number 8 challenges the assumption that the defendant's statement necessarily implies guilt, leading the others to reconsider their initial judgments.

The correct answer suggests that the fatal wound was likely made by someone holding the switchblade in an awkward manner. This implies that the person who inflicted the wound may not have been skilled or experienced in using a knife. The use of the term "awkward manner" suggests that the person may have been unfamiliar with how to properly handle a switchblade, resulting in a less precise and potentially more haphazard wound.

The jurors' voting episodes in "Twelve Angry Men" are significant points in the evolution of the plot. These episodes mark the progress of the deliberations and demonstrate the changing opinions and attitudes of the jurors. As the jurors vote and discuss the case, the audience witnesses the development of the plot and the gradual shift towards a unanimous decision. The voting episodes serve as key moments that drive the narrative forward and reveal the dynamics and conflicts within the jury room.

In the movie “12 Angry Men”, Juror number 3 asserts that the defendant must have meant it when he said “I’m going to kill you!” He justifies this by stating that nobody says such words without meaning them. This reflects his belief that people’s words, especially when spoken in anger or high emotion, are a direct reflection of their intentions. However, this perspective is challenged in the film, highlighting the importance of considering context and not jumping to conclusions.