12 Angry Men

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)