Rate/rank the Sidney Lumet movies you have seen.

1. Dog Day Afternoon - 9/10
2. 12 Angry Men - 9/10
3. Network - 8.5/10
4. Serpico - 8/10
5. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead - 8/10
6. The Verdict - 8/10
7. Long Day's Journey Into Night - 8/10
8. Deathtrap - 7.5/10
9. Equus - 7.5/10
10. The Hill - 7.5/10
11. Th Anderson Tapes - 7/10
12. Family Business - 7/10
13. Fail-Safe - 7/10
14. Running on Empty - 7/10
15. The Pawnbroker - 7/10
16. The Offence - 6.5/10
17. Murder on the Orient Express - 6/10
18. The Fugitive Kind - 5.5/10
19. The Morning After - 5.5/10

Dog Day Afternoon
Serpico
12 Angry Men
Equus
Murder on the Orient Express
Before the Devil Knows You´re Dead
Fail Safe

8
12 angry men
the pawnbroker
long day's journey into night

7
the verdict
prince of the city
dog day afternoon
before the devil knows you're dead
serpico
fail-safe
network

6
the hill
running on empty
the offence
night falls on manhattan
Q & A
the deadly affair
murder on the orient express

5
the anderson tapes
daniel
equus

4 & less..
deathtrap
find me quilty
stage struck
the fugitive kind
power
guilty as sin
just tell me what you want
gloria
the morning after
a stranger among us

wanted - the group

Twelve Angry Men 10/10

Murder on the Orient Express 9.5/10

The Verdict 8/10

Deathtrap 7.5/10

Dog Day Afternoon 7/10

Serpico 7/10

The Anderson Tapes 6/10

Actually not a huge fan of his work, but here it goes:

8/10 - Fail Safe
7/10 - Network, The Verdict
6/10 - Serpico
5/10 - Dog Day Afternoon
3/10 - 12 Angry Men (I detest Henry Fonda's self righteousness and his character violates quite a few rules of criminal procedure and jury deliberations)

For example:

The film's 50th anniversary was in 2007, and the Chicago-Kent Law Review had a symposium to commemorate the event. One of the articles, Symposium: The 50th Anniversary of 12 Angry Men: Good Film, Bad Jury, 82 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 717 (2007)* identified no less than five examples of juror misconduct arguably serious enough to warrant a mistrial. They are:

- The knife (independent investigation);

- The assumption about the L taking ten seconds to pass (supplying testimony not in the record);

- The experiment about how long it took to get down the hall (independent experimentation)

- The assertion about how one handle's a switchblade (supplying testimony not in the record);

- The supposition about a witness's eyesight (supplying testimony not in the record).

To drive home how serious some of these things are, the author asks us to consider how we'd feel if the above had led to a conviction rather than an acquittal. The jury is making assumptions about the defendant which are completely unsupported by the record, and if it came out differently, Fonda's character would be a villain instead of a hero. The original play makes it pretty clear that the defendant is a racial minority, so imagine if the jury had used their assumptions about "those people" to reach a guilty verdict. Which is actually what one of the jurors in the play does. Thing is, if they can do the things they do in the movie which lead to an acquittal, they could just as easily have gone the other way, as they're no longer being controlled by the evidence but by their own suppositions, a priori and otherwise.