This remake takes place entirely in the court room. This is a much harder challenge for an actor... you really can blow it with one line as everything that occurs and transpires on the ship is brought out under testimony only.
I actually like the fact that the remake took the more challenging route and tried to get the same point across using the court room. They did not fail, in fact, this is a great movie on its own and if no one knew about the 1954 version of this film, it still stands on its own merits as fine attempt of filmmaking that can easily hold itself up based entirely on its own volition.
As consumer of stories and entertainment, I felt I was being given a gift to watch both films and not have the same thing repeated in each movie. It felt like a package, that I got to enjoy for 4 hours, seeing the story from differing perspectives. Thank you to the creators for the original attempt, it really stands on its own and it adds to the original rather than trying to replace it. Those hungry for story get a treat to find out there is 2 more hours of the same storyline. This was great and I wish more filmmakers did this when remaking a classic as this is the best way to pay tribute to a well-made movie.
All the actors in the remake did a remarkable job, it is the good acting that holds up this picture and makes it stand on its own legs. In fact, I feel the new film was extremely ambitious and could have very easily ended in disaster. In the original, Jose Ferrer steals the show, followed by the villain, Fred MacMurray (defense lawyer, writer). It would have been very difficult to top these two.
Keifer Sutherland, and Monica Raymund both deserve the top prize for their performances, I can't tell which one I think is better... I think Sutherland's performances was more technical, the contrast really had to be shown and this could have gone disastrously wrong if not done properly, hell if done averagely, it would have subtracted from the entire experience as the entire movie only works by seeing the contrast.
Jayson Clarke did an amazing job, but how could he top Jose Ferrer from the original? Ferrer came in the last quarter of the classic with stage presence of the only adult in the room, he oozed nobility, honour and a strong sense of justice. There was no question about it. Clarke's role in this is a little different, in my opinion he can't overshadow the performance of the man playing Queeg. Quite the wire act for a defense lawyer. So, he has to be good but not too good, otherwise we do not get to feel the same impact when Queeg actually breaks down on the stand. In the classic, Ferrer can steal the show as we already saw Queeg's conduct during the telling of the story. The breakdown in the court room does not need to be as pivotal, and indeed it is not. This means you need a stage veteran to play this role.
I give this movie a 10 out of 10 just as I give all the movies I review, always a 10. The reason is that filmmaking is no joke. It is closer to the art of black magic than to some canned formula or a recipe. What worked once before may never work again. The effort and the commitment and dare I say it, luck, to pull it all together is often like throwing dice at a roulette table. Even the best of the best, when loaded with talent and money can easily make a stinker. The chemistry and connections between actors and the framing of that chemistry is quite the elusive and enduring goal; so easy to stumble before the finish line. So easy to make a mistake that erases existing progress. So, when I see any production that allows me to escape my own reality for 2 hours, I am as giddy as a schoolboy on graduation day. Thankful, and excited to see more.