This TV-movie is truly remarkable. It's a remake of an undeniable classic, and that word usually brings tears to your eyes. Remakes normally are a lame excuse used by uninspired directors to make more money out of a good idea. You know the drill of the average remake: bigger, louder and as less tribute to the original as possible. William Friedkin's take on 12 Angry Men is the exact opposite of all this. It's a modest re-telling of the story but obviously made with endless amounts of professionalism and respect towards the original. Taken up to an even higher level by on of the best ensemble casts of the nineties! All members of the jury are familiar faces and some of them give away the best performances in their entire career. The acting level of the cast during some of the intense discussions and debates almost burns holes in the screens
it's that perfect. A very special word of respect and worship goes out to Jack Lemmon, Hume Cronym and George C. Scott. These 3 late legends of the big screen kept on giving amazing performances till they sadly passed away. May their souls rest in piece, cinema will never forget them. Of course, I can't give this version the honor of being better than the original masterpiece starring Henry Fonda, but nevertheless it's an intense and fascinating courtroom drama that'll leave no soul unharmed. Naturally, one could ask the question if it was really necessary to create an update of 12 Angry Men
the answer to that would be no' of course, but what the heck. Almost every remake, sequel or spin-off is unnecessary, but that doesn't mean they can't be enjoyable.
Add a Review
-
Coventry30 January 2004
-
If you have seen the original "12 Angry Men," it's hard not to classify this film as inferior. The acting was better, the cinematography was better, the pace was faster. The cast in the remake is talented, just not as talented. Even the great George C. Scott couldn't quite measure up to Lee J. Cobb. Even the great Jack Lemmon couldn't compare to Henry Fonda. The only actor I felt was an improvement was Mykelti Williamson, who delivers a powerful and disturbing speech towards the end. I see him in mostly small, supporting roles, where he doesn't really get to show off his talent. In this film, Williamson gets the chance to flaunt his overlooked acting chops. One actor who I felt was a big step down was Tony Danza, who doesn't measure up at all to Jack Warden. Danza does an OK job, but dramatic acting isn't his forte. Sitcom acting is his strongsuit. Edward James Olmos does a fine job, but it took time getting over his phony accent. That's right, he's been in this country so long that his Latino accent sounds phony.
Nevertheless, the acting is good and the film really muscles up during the third act. If the director sped up the pace and the camerawork wasn't as clumsy, this could've been a much more compelling film. But to be fair, it's a tough job measuring up to the original. We've all seen and heard much of the dialogue (which is almost word-for-word from the original script, only with a few obscenities, one racial slur and modern references like "Fat Albert" added), so hearing it again is like listening to a stand-up comedian using his old material. Funny stuff, but we've heard it before. Only a good comedian will usually maintain a good delivery of the joke, while the delivery of some of the old dialogue is limp this time around.
My score: 7 (out of 10) -
damianphelps5 March 2021There is no real reason for this movie to exist. The Henry Fonda original is a faultless classic and this movie is basically a scene for scene remake.
BUT.
What makes this redundant movie so unusual? Its brilliant!
This is a fantastic telling of the story.
I will always choose the original to watch but if this came on the tv I would be glued to it.
Perhaps its just the strength of the story. A movie that is essentially 100% character driven and the characters are fascinating.
Either version, you are in for a good time :) -
schappe16 March 2004Mild Spoilers)
I saw the 1997 remake of this famous play from the `Golden Age of Television'. I've never seen the 1954 original in which Bob Cummings played Juror #8, (The Fonda/Lemmon role). But I have admired the 1957 film for years. Inevitably, when one sees the new version some kind of verdict must be reached on which is better.
The story is the same, with a few minor updates. (The case against the defendant seems spectacularly weak and rather easy for the hero to take apart- how could anybody rely on witnesses who heard things over the roar of a passing train or who saw the crime through its windows?) The real comparison is of the characters as played by the different casts of actors, both of which represent an incredible confluence of thespian achievement.
Juror #1: This is the jury foreman. He's played by Martin Balsam in the original as a nice guy who just wants everybody to get along. Courtney Vance seems a little more intense while retaining the strong desire for fairness and teamwork Balsam conveyed. In the new one, Vance is a football coach and one can sense that he views himself as the `coach' of this team. My vote goes to Vance.
Juror #2: John Fiedler, a short bald-headed actor with a squeaky voice and mild manner played #2 as a guy who just wanted to be helpful and not impose himself on the others. Ossie Davis is a very different actor and his juror #2 is a very different character, a common working man who remembers wise things others have told him and has an instinct for what's right and wrong, even if an uncomplicated one. He could hardly have led the battle for a not guilty finding as #8 does but he recognizes when the man is right. Davis is clearly the more interesting performer here.
Juror #3: This is the villain of the piece, who in the end becomes a pathetic figure. He wants to `get this kid' not so much because he's guilty but, it turns out, because he reminds him of his estranged son. He starts out as the garrulously arrogant leader of the wolfpack and, as he loses one ally after another, he seems, (to himself), as the last man at the Alamo until the real reason for his position is revealed to him. It's hard to think of two actors more similar than Lee J Cobb and George C. Scott, both of them lions not just in winter but for all seasons. Scott not only played this role that Cobb had made a meal of- he also played Cobb's most famous role- Willy Loman in `Death of a Salesman'. You could also picture Scott playing Johnny Friendly in `On the Waterfront' or Cobb playing the prosecutor in `Anatomy of a Murder, the manager in `The Hustler' or even `Patton'. The difference here is simply their ages and their states of health. Lee J. Cobb was 46 in 1957 and 19 years away from death and George Scott was 70 in 1997 and only two years from meeting his maker. He's fat, jowly and pretty pathetic looking from the beginning. Cobb is robust and intimidating until he collapses from within. He wins this one big and it's a big win for the old film.
Juror #4: In the original this man is played by the wonderful EG Marshall, who would go on to star in Rose's `The Defenders'. He is a man who possesses relentless logic but little imagination. He is able to see what is put in front of him and fit it together but not to view something from multiple perspectives, as could an architect, (Juror #8's profession). Only when the evidence from which he has assembled his point of view is methodically destroyed by #8 does he come to realize he is wrong. As good as Marshall is, I believe Armin Mueller Stahl tops him in the new version. Marshall's #4 is machine-like. Mueller-Stahl is just a regular man whose greatest skill happens to be logical thought, which is admirable but not enough.
Juror #5: Jack Klugman could be a powerful actor when he kept him mouth shut. When he talked too much, (as in `Quincy)', he was a little, (maybe a lot), too much. But his understatement in 12 Angry Men serves him much better. Still, I'll take Dorian Harwood's more intense and troubled #5. He seems to be wondering how his fellow jurors would grade him for things he's done.
Juror #6: James Gandolfini, several years before `The Sopranos' made him a star, plays a simple hulk of a man who is incapable of complicated thought but has a basic sense of honor. He hates it when anybody tries to push around `the old man', (juror #9). One wonders how the fact that the murder victim was a father played on his mind. (Rose updates his play by having #8 point out the many faults of the father: he drank, pushed around women, etc.,- this seems an unnecessary attempt to create sympathy for the defendant.). The 1957 character is much the same but the underrated Edward Binns plays him much better.
Juror #7: Jack Warden was much praised as the guy who just wants to finish in time to go to the ball game. He's always been one of my favorite character actors. Tony Danza is singled out for the most criticism because he's `a sitcom actor'. That said, Danza is quite as good as Warden. By the way, Jack Lemmon was also a `sitcom actor' in 1952's `Heaven for Betsy'.
Juror #8: The conscience of us all. Jack Lemmon would at one time have made a meal of this. He's pretty good here, but, like Scott, he's lost something in his old age. He's fat and dumpy and baggy-eyed. He lacks the nervous energy he once had. He can't make the big speeches with as much force as he once would have. Fonda is much stronger and more convincing.
Juror #9: The best thing in the new one is the priceless Hume Cronyn as `the old man', who does almost as much to sway his fellow jury members as #8 but seems too frail to stand up to their anger. His key revelation that the testimony of the other old man who was a witness may have been fueled by his desire to `be somebody' is poignant as #9 can obviously identify with that. Joseph Sweeney is competent in this role in the 1957 version but Cronyn is on another level entirely.
Juror #10: This is the `other' villain of the piece. His problem is bigotry. Rose cleverly converted the white racist of 1957 into a black racist in 1997, just to show that bigotry takes many forms. Mykelti Williamson gives a strong performance in this role but I still prefer Ed Begley's old wreck of a man, who retreats into a shell after everyone- even #3 rejects him.
Juror #11: This is a European immigrant who, perhaps because he is an outsider who has been judged by American Society since he got here, becomes one of the first converts. George Voskovic is fine in the original, Edward James Olmos his equal in the new one.
Juror #12: This is an air-headed salesman who sides with whoever looks like they are going to win. Lemmon would have been excellent in this role in 1957. Robert Webber was fine instead. CSI's William Peterson doesn't make much of an impression the remake, (except that he's put on a lot of weight in seven years).
So, I'll take Cobb, Binns, Fonda, Begley and Webber from the 1957 film and Vance, Davis, Mueller-Stahl, Harewood and Cronyn from the 1997 TV Movie, with the other two positions a tie. That leaves us with a 5-5-2 tie overall. But it's not really a tie. The two main roles are #8 and #3 and biggest `supporting' role #10 and the 1957 film gets a hat trick on those.
But each film is worth spending the time to watch and then watch over again the next time it's on. -
Lady_Targaryen13 June 2006This remake of ''12 Angry Men''is awesome! I didn't watched the original version of this movie, but I liked very much this version,so I guess the first one is so great or even better then this one.(I will watch it eventually) 12 jurors need to conclude if a boy accused to have killed his father, is guilty or non guilty. The majority of them believes that the boy is guilty, with the exception of only one of the jurors (the juror number 8). Since the boy's penalty will be death sentence, the juror number 8 wants to know the arguments and reasons before giving a conclusion,making everybody to think very well about all the case and to forget their hypocrisy.
This movie is spectacular and make us think very well about the process of the things,specially in Court. I liked the cast very much as well, even not knowing many of the actors, I think their job was terrific! -
lib-425 October 1998Watching this movie was like peeling an onion- the more it progressed the more the heart of the real matter was revealed. The ideas this movie fosters- the certainty that everyone enters the jury room with a hidden agenda were proven. Most of all it brings to light the fact that justice and money are connected. I was in awe of both Jack Lemmon and Hume Cronyn- how they were men of courage. Though the whole movie is set in a jury room it never lacks for tension and action. This movie should be required for every person who ever has to serve on a jury.
-
educallejero14 February 2021So perfect that this 1997 remake barely changed a thing from the original one from 1957, a showcase of its purity passing the test of time.
What this one does improve is the acting. Everyone is, at least, as good as the performer from the original, and plenty are better.
In particular, George C. Scott ties Lee Cobb as the best, but Jack Lemmon does the protagonist better than Fonda, without going melodramatic, but staying just passionate for "the true" as much as worried about a defenseless accused that everyone in the judicial system seems too eager to convict. -
elo-equipamentos27 February 201912 angry men the original is a true masterpiece, this remake is just a fine picture, supported by the amazing casting as Jack Lemmon. George C. Scott, Ossie Davis, Hume Cronyn and Armin Mueller Stahl, the atmosphere looks like almost the same, but lose the first impact to the viewers over the original, therefore stay clear that this remake was some steps behind, still has a psychological approach of human nature, when someone has to decided just by first impression given on the courthouse, by simply facts, without proper consideration, this picture was a warning for those who are in charge to decided between life and death!!!
Resume:
First watch: 2019 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 8 -
Thonolan31 June 2004Last night, I attempted to rent the b&w classic at the the local video store only to find that they had switched the classic with the remake (which I realized only after I got it home). I figured I might as well give it a try. Honestly, it wasn't a bad movie, but it doesn't even begin to compare with the original (which is one of my all-time favorites). An attempt has been made update the movie by adding minorities and modernizing some of the dialog. Some of this works, some of it doesn't. Also, a few of the roles in the remake are badly miscast (Tony Danza and Ozzie Davis both come to mind).
I'd give this version 6/10 and the original gets a 10/10 from me. -
chiefop-9220914 January 2022Hilarious those who call this version uneeded or unecessary considering how many times this story has been done. A little shallow in spots sure, but Scotts doing the Lee J Cobb at bit the end was worth the price of admission. One of Jack Lemmons final roles (for me) also.
-
Mr-Fusion16 March 2023Nothing about Sidney Lumet's "12 Angry Men" cries out for an update, yet here we are. And it's a pretty good one. And(!) somehow angrier than the original. A dozen character actors fronted by Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott (both ideal choices for their respective roles) and William Friedkin extracts terrific performances from just about everyone. As aesthetics go, it may not be as striking; then again, the handheld camerawork enhances the fly-on-the-wall vibe.
I think this sums it up best: in a bizarre dystopia where the original film no longer exists, this will do nicely. The fundamentals are still intact, the actors are new and interesting, and in that respect, it really does feel like a stage play.
Not bad at all. -
sunildaswaney-636423 November 2021The 1997 version of "12 Angry Men"is one of the best movies that I have ever seen. Everything about the movie was simply outstanding with Jack Lemmon being especially brilliant.
If you are the sort of person who enjoys watching a movie that asks you to put on your thinking cap all of the time in order to pick up the clues in order to solve a court case/murder/mystery etc.,then don't miss this film! -
This version of 12 Angry Men is certainly worth seeing, but it does not come close in overall excellence to the original film with Henry Fonda. Jack Lemon does a credible job here but it is certainly not his best work. George C. Scott is excellent as he plays the last holdout in a jury room. If you really want a treat, see the 1957 film version with Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Beagly, Jack Warden, Martin Balsam and E.G. Marshall. The debut direction of Sidney Lumet is simply outstanding making use of unique and effective camera angles and close-ups.Much of what this TV version lacked was better direction. It is pretty hard to improve on perfection though.
-
angery202 March 2008This remake of a classic simply sucked. The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the director.
If I could do a shot by shot, role by role comparison, the major difference is that in this remake the actors are so visibly "ACTING". Each line is freighted with meaning as if it was the most important utterance in theatrical history. The camera angles and lighting all re-enforce these scenery chewing interpretations.
For example in the original we have a man commenting on the rain and telling a simple story about losing a football game because of heavy rain. That's it a bit of exposition an almost throw away line of character development. In the remake that same bit is treated as some quasi-mystical life lesson, an epochal moment in time. The character changes from a guy passing time to a bore who thinks the world revolves around his part time job as an assistant football coach.
Each and every speech in this remake is treated in the same way. There is not one line small enough that it's not treated with the attention usually reserved to Shakespearian soliloquies.
The acting is often bad and that's frequently not the fault of the actors. It's the director that tells the actors to dial it up or down. It's the director that sees the whole picture. The pacing of this remake is amazingly slow and that makes its 117 min run time seem like 3 hours. The original was 96 minutes and was over before you noticed the time.
I would love to go into greater detail but that would require I watch this movie again, and that ain't happening. -
Sm545424 April 2002A young man(Douglas Spain) is accused of murder. It is a hot summer day in a jury room. Most of the jurors have better things to do, and want to get out of there. One man, Juror #8(Jack Lemmon), decides not to jump to conclusions. He uses reason and logic to help prove to the other jurors that there is a reasonable doubt, and there is not enough evidence to convict this man. Juror #8 has to convince a bigot, Juror #10(Mykelti Williamson), a man who refuses to admit he may be wrong, Juror #4(Armin Mueller-Stahl), a man who has something against young people, Juror #3(George C. Scott), and a man who just wants to get out of there, even if it means making an unjust choice, Juror #7(Tony Danza).
Lemmon, Scott, Williamson, Stahl, and even Danza put on great performances. This is an exception to the rule that remakes can't be great. This was a brilliant film. Like in the original, tempers flare as it is a hot day and there is no air conditioner. William L. Petersen, Edward James Olmos, Hume Cronyn, James Gandolfini, Dorian Harewood, Ossie Davis, and Courtney B. Vance all play as jurors too. Every juror does a great job. Every character has a story and view point.
If you liked the classic or play, you should definitely see this remake. I strongly recommend this movie. 10/10 -
Tito-84 April 2000I have not seen the classic 1950's version of this movie, but I seriously doubt that I would enjoy it any more than this brilliant remake. To put it mildly, this film has some of the best acting that I will ever see. The whole cast is great, but George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon really stand out in a film where all the performances are rock solid. The absorbing story moves along at a relatively brisk pace, and I was thoroughly entertained from beginning to end. I can't praise this film enough. Even if you love the original, this is still a must-see.
-
xterminal19 February 200112 Angry Men (William Friedkin, 1997)
Friedkin's made-for-television adaptation of the classic 1957 film is surprisingly well-thought-out and executed with a style most straight-to-small-screen works lack. Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott presage their conflicts in the later made-for-TV remake Inherit the Wind as the two jurors who refuse to budge from their convictions that a murder case does and does not have reasonable doubt attached to it, respectively.
As with the original, 12 Angry Men is really an ensemble piece, the first American example of avant-garde filmmaking on a mass scale; with the exception of a few brief flashes at beginning and end, the film takes place in two adjoining rooms, a jury room and a men's room, allowing the director no scenic latitude at all and forcing him to concentrate on the actors themselves. Friedkin, as Lumet before him, gathers a mix of the well-known and the underrated from all corners of the Hollywood backlot, gives each a speech, and goes to great pains to ensure that those who espouse even the most controversial views are as charismatic as those who are warmer and fuzzier. In other words, this is an actors' movie, pure and simple, and if you enjoy watching actors do what they do, you'll get a kick out of this. **** -
I have to admit that I've never seen the original 1957 movie and so I don't know how this remake compares to it, but I'm sure it did it proud. 12 Angry Men is a movie that is completely built off the acting of it's characters, because there is no action, no graphics, just dialogue and plot. 12 jurors have to decide on the outcome of the trial of a young boy who is accused of stabbing his own father. 11 of the jurors are convinced that he is guilty, while 1 of the jurors (Jack Lemmon) isn't sure that he is guilty and refuses to vote guilty because of his uncertainty. Basically, this is a story that screams out for the need of justice in U.S., the way it was meant to be. Coming after the O.J. Trial, this is a great example of what's wrong with the justice system today. Jack Lemmon is the liberalistic juror who takes a stand against the other 11 jurists and tries to make them realize that they can't be certain that the boy is guilty. While there are 12 jurors, basically the story revolves around 3 men and there completely different viewpoints. Lemmon's main opponent is George C. Scott who is a flaming conservative from the 19th Century. Scott is always great as the convincing, "down to Earth" type who believes in quick and ground breaking actions. Due to experiences with his own lost son, he feels it to be his duty to make sure this kid pays. The 3rd view in this film is portrayed by Mykelti Williamson as the "Black Panther-type" African-American who still is convinced that the "White Man" is out to destroy his race. Williamson deserved an Academy nomination as "Bubba" in Forest Gump and continues to be the most underrated black actor in Hollywood. Williamson does an excellent job with his loud and radical violent views and not only scares the other jurors, but shocks the viewer too. Not to take anything away from the other jurors. The casting for this movie is great and includes many familiar actors like Tony Danza, Edward James Olmos, Courtney B. Vance, and Hume Cronyn along others. A great plot, a great cast, and a great flow of debating issues makes this a damn good movie for those who love intellectual thrillers. Due to it being a remake, I can't give it anything for originality and intellectual thrillers aren't exactly eye-openers or nonstop excitement, so I gave the movie an 8 ot of 10.
-
asajb200010 June 2007Why make another version of this movie? I just finished watching the 1957 version and I admit it seems like a play (and probably was developed originally as a play since it basically takes place in one room) and it was also broadcast live during the heyday of the golden years of television. We'll never see the talent of the actors in the room who have since passed-away. In fact, only Jack Klugman (at age 85) is still with us. Other movies seem tailor-made for plays, such as Glengarry Glen Ross. I'm not sure if the casting was simply dead-on or the actors happened to nail the roles they had or a combination, but each person seems very well-suited to his role and it's hard not to get wrapped up in the dialog and the general pace of the movie (as though you were peering into the jury room through a peephole). In fact, as I watched each actor, I identified with people I knew who had the same characteristics, such as Jack Warden's wise-ass, or Ed Begley, Sr.'s angry racist or Lee J. Cobb's uptight, high-strung yelling man or any of the other people. I do think that Jack Klugman's role may have been miscast. I didn't necessarily identify with him as a product of the slums. They could have cast a minority for his role but I guess in 1957 all-white, male juries were what was the norm.
-
philipwright23 January 2022Not as good as the 1957 Sidney Lumet original, which is still a riveting film today. But, on it's own, this 1997 version directed by William Friedkin is an excellent movie, too.
The cast is all pretty good and Jack Lemmon, particularly, is outstanding. George C. Scott also handles the Lee J. Cobb role really well.
All in all, well worth watching, even if you know how it's going to end. -
Originally, "12 Angry Men" was a live teleplay which was performed in 1954 for "Studio One". A few years later, many of the same cast members returned...and this time with Henry Fonda in the lead. The film turned out to be a masterpiece...one of the strongest movies of the 1950s and one that proved that WRITING and CHARACTER ACTORS are more important that action and big budgets. In 1997, for some inexplicable reason, some folks decided to remake it. Why? Were the TV version or first film flawed in some way? No way! So why did they produce this remake? I dunno...laziness?! Perhaps.
In most ways the film is like the previous versions, though when the story begins, you have a courtroom scene...something NOT in the other versions and something that is really unnecessary. Not bad...but unnecessary. Likewise, the portion about the psychiatrist is new...not in the originals. Why was it so otherwise similar? Well, the same guy who wrote the teleplay ALSO wrote this updated version.
So is the film necessary? No. The first film was perfect and featured some of the best character actors Hollywood could offer...as does this remake. But why see a remake when the first movie was perfect? In other words, there's nothing wrong with this 1997 version...but it just isn't necessary when we have a classic film already. The only big improvement in this 1997 film is that it's nice to see a more racially diverse jury...though it does exclude women...and as IMDB indicated, it was because the title "12 Angry People" wouldn't have the same impact.
Overall, an exceptionally well made movie...one that deserves to be seen...but only if you try one of the earlier versions first. It has many powerful moments...and I cannot discount that. It just isn't exactly original. -
sharky_5511 September 2016Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men is not only a great courtroom film but a great film in itself, so anything that follows must be hard pressed to keep up. The story, originally from Reginald Rose, is largely unchanged. Twelve men have a boy's life put into their hands, and eleven of them are angry enough to be rid of him immediately. The casting enables something that was less prominent in the 50s, a multi-racial cast. In addition to the judge now being female, there are now four African-American jurors in addition to the original non-American watchmaker (and another with an obvious German accent, which is curiously never addressed). If the casting of the black jurors could add a new angle to the story, Friedkin does not run with it. What he instead does is play race against race, minority against minority. They might have the same skin colour, and might initially address each other as 'brother', but their views could not be more different. Juror 10 is in fact a racist of another level, with hints of severed ties with the Nation of Islam. So not only is he a racist, but he is a racist that even other racists cannot stand. But there is a sorely missed opportunity here. Perhaps the most emphatic scene of Lumet's was the gradual and dramatic turning of the backs of the jurors towards the racist tirade, and Ed Begley spluttering and slowly having his loud, pushy persona deflating before our very eyes. When he does vote guilty, he is utterly defeated. Here, Mykelti Williamson is not confronted with the same level of contempt, and his beliefs are not even challenged. When he finally changes his vote, it is not a moral victory, but him merely conceding his own vengeance against the Hispanic race.
The other prominent 'antagonist' of the story is juror 3, whose inhibitions are sourced from his resentment towards his own son. Lee J. Cobb was an ugly-faced bully throughout, so grotesque and intimidating that it made it all the more effective when he caves in. George C. Scott can't quite match this constant intensity, although he would have been the clear winner in his prime, making full use of his famous temper. But he does improve the climax of the character, only because his version is a much older man and he has the ability to make his face crumble and crease inwards as he sobs over his estranged son. He takes the accused's words truly to his heart. It is a much more pitiful affair when his age brings in the issue of grandparents and connections missed.
And then there is the all-important juror 8, the moral compass of the group, the one who isn't so easily swayed. Lemmon isn't as firm as Fonda, that is to be sure. He can't sell the glint in his eye as well, and when he pulls out the second identical knife and rams it into the table, it is a rather feeble move. Because Lemmon looks to be one of the oldest of them all, the dynamics are shifted. It is not his inherent good-nature that affords him the ability to not flinch at the stabbing of the knife, but perhaps a mutual understanding with juror 3 and a lifetime of wisdom and experience at reading others. Lemmon was always at the top of his game when he brimmed with his trademark nervous energy. That is not to say that he is no effective with that vitality gone - you only have to witness the pathetic man in Glengarry Glen Ross to be proved wrong there. But this role is ultimately the wrong fit for Lemmon. It asks for resoluteness, something that he would respond to by turning away and a creased smile.
In the original, Boris Kaufman had a way of compressing the space within the cramped, stuffy juror's room in addition to the flaring tempers and disagreements. He slowly cranked up the focal length, squeezing the depth of field and the actors together in the telephoto (except, of course, for that errant shot of Joseph Sweeney in urgent close-up). He used heat to create claustrophobia as if they were sitting in a pressure cooker, and raised the temperature gradually, making the men's foreheads shimmer, until finally allowing the rain to wash it all away. Visually, Friedkin's version might have made the most departure. The heat is treated as an afterthought; though we see pools of sweat on their bodies, they don't glisten with the same intensity, so the rain doesn't have a defined role. The camera hovers constantly behind shoulders, and cannot stop swiveling and moving in and around the table, which goes against the very idea of claustrophobia. The characters often stand and leave their seats, but not for any known reason. The lack of dramatic staging is the most disappointing aspect here. But it is hard to measure up to perfection. -
bds-790338 August 2021Unbeknownst to me until the other day, I came across this remake a few days ago as I was looking through James Gandolfini's resume. I've always been a huge fan of the original because it was one of the first black and white or older films that i remember loving. And my father had recommended to me and also loves it. So it kind of has a special place in my heart for many reasons. I'm so glad I spent a little money and decided to watch this remake because I was a little blown away. I expected it to be decent but this is at least as good as the original of not better. All nostalgia aside, I'm really leaning towards the idea that this is actually the better film by just a little bit. If you've ever appreciated the original, you owe it to yourself to see this. It moved me to tears.
-
Great ensemble; good script, and fine acting, especially by the fine black actor playing the racist black Muslim. Mykelti Williamson, which appeared to me to be the most difficult role of the 12. There are some fine moments in the remake; however, we are always aware that it is a REMAKE. And if you saw the original, as I have, you just won't have the suspense that the original had. And even if you have not seen the original, you kind of get the feeling that the jurors are going to be convinced to change their votes early on in the film; it is just an exercise on WHY thye will change. William Peterson, of Das Boot fame is miscast here, but all of the others are fine. Worth viewing.
-
caseychief4 February 2003I saw this one with an open mind after seeing the original a few times. I wanted to like it. I really did. But........
This movie did nothing for me. It was OK, just because the story is a very interesting story. I admire all of the actors in this movie...even Tony Danza to some degree. But the modernization of the original costs the movie valuable atmosphere points, which was what made the earlier version one of the best movies I've ever seen.
In the original, you couldn't help but feel the heat of the room, the rising anger, and ever-increasing claustrophobic state. A few director's "tricks" helped with that. I felt no heat and claustrophobia in this one...and the anger felt more forced.
I agree with the reviewers who stated that it was not a good idea to have older actors in so many roles, including Lemmon, Scott, and Davis. It ruins the storyline around the age of Juror #9, and doesn't allow Scott to be as forceful as Cobb was in the original. And Scott does not do nearly as good a job with his end of movie rant as Cobb did. I was totally unmoved, though I must admit while watching the remake that all I could think about was Cobb's masterful gut-wrenching speech. That's not to say that the acting wasn't good. It just wasn't great.
Other little things that annoyed me (ONE SPOILER):
Gandolfini was vastly underused.
Juror #10 never realizes his idiotic behavior, so it's totally unbelievable that he would change his vote for no reason.
We see a totally unnecessary and overly dramatic speech by the judge at the beginning of the movie.
We also see a shot of the defendant, which takes away from the imagination factor of the original.
I give this movie a rating of 5/10. If it were an original and not a remake, I'd give it 7/10 for the story alone. I gave the actual original movie (albeit a remake of a play) a 10/10. See the original and forget this one.