User reviews

There 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 :)

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.

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)

Watching 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.

So 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.

This is possibly the most watchable crime film of all time. It is quite difficult to separate it from the 1957 original, though it is set more to a 1990's audience, in terms of social thought, and mannerisms.

Jack Lemmon, and George C. Scott excel in this tele-movie, as two men of principle, both acting on there instincts and trying to arrive at the correct verdict, for a young man on trial for murder. We dont see the actual trial, the murder, or the lawyers, we instead have to rely on the discussions of the jurors to get an understanding of the events.

I dont know of many movies where you are kept on the edge of your seat for the entire film, but this is one of them. The remarkable fact is that the movie is limited to just one room, and virtually no props or special effects. Whether you have seen the original or not, this film will not disappoint. With a supporting cast of Armin Mueller Stahl, and Edward James Almos, this movie has no real weak points.

Nothing 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.

That's what this is and is very well done.

Great performances all around.

The dialogs and conflicts between the 12 men discussing the verdict after the trial of a man are loaded with a lot of social conflict, hate, prejudgement, racism and classism.

Your blood will boil watching men treating others in ways that you probably had the misfortune of witnessing in your life.

Injustice is everyday news in this world we're living in, but there's always someone who fights, someone who thinks on his own, who believes there's more to it than the first thing it's been told.

This is an homage to those people, and it serves to keep us alert on thinking twice before judging anything or anyone, and to fight ignorance to finally be able to live in peace with each other and with ourselves.

Last 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.

Hilarious 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.

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.

A 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

12 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

The 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!

I picked up this movie at the video store and thought "Hmmm could be interesting' My girlfriend said she saw the original and it was good so this one could only be better. She was right. Back to basics acting. Even Danza is good. Don't rent it if you're expecting a lot of scenery. It all takes place in the jury room so if you're claustrophobic, be wary. Brilliant writing, you'll be making bets with your friends on whose going to change their minds to "Not guilty" I do caution those with weak stomachs. There's no air conditioning in the room and almost all of them sweat. My girlfriend pointed this out. Strange how we all see different things in movies. Rent it...you'll love it.

I 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.

I always remember Roddy McDowall's comment; "If you're going to remake a movie, remake a bad one and make it good." The obvious inference here is, that you avoid the inevitable comparison to the original. This remake was a lot better than I expected it to be, but, alas, still not as good. Changing the Ed Begley part into a black racist, just doesn't work. And neither does casting George C. Scott in the Lee J. Cobb role. Great actor though he was, he was just too old for the part. One plus is that the script is a little softer, and somehow seems a little more acceptable than the original.

TL;DR: Watch the original.

12 Angry Men (1957) is in my, top 5 movies of all times. Don't be deceived: it's not a crime movie but a story about the worst qualities of the people. 99% of the movie happens in a single room and is the the script and the skills of the actors that make 1957's 12AM a top-tier gem.

While in this remake the story is the same, with the same quotes, the cast is, obviously, different. And that is a problem: they did a good job but they can't stand a chance against the old one.

It's a tough decision to remake a good classic, since so many people will avoid it on principle and choose to stick with their loyalty. The 1997 television remake of 12 Angry Men made an excellent casting choice with the leading juror: Jack Lemmon. Henry Fonda was so unlikable, wooden, whiny, and unconvincing, I couldn't believe the other jurors would listen to him. With Jack Lemmon, you believe his passion and you want to listen to him. He's not just reading a script; he truly wants to see the young boy get a fair trial.

As for the infamous Juror #3, Lee J. Cobb was wonderful in the original. He couldn't have been any better, so how do you compete with that? With George C. Scott, who also couldn't be any better. It's a wonderful role, and it can show off any great character actor's acting chops. No matter which version you watch, when Juror #3 has his big scene, you feel it deep in your heart. Hume Cronyn, Ossie Davis, Dorian Harewood, James Gandolfini, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Tony Danza, Mykelti Williamson, Edward James Olmos, and William Peterson made up the other members of the jury. As the new era appeals to a new generation, there's a lot more diversity in the cast; I'm sure the next remake will have a predominantly female jury to appeal to an even more modern audience. In 1997, the only woman in the cast is Mary McDonnell, the judge. Even if you love the original version, I'm sure you'll love the remake as well. Once again, it has great acting, and the since the story isn't changed, you'll still feel moved and inspired at the end.