12 Angry Men Reviews

• Not a bad remake...but why?

  
  By A17D77DFID0GZG on 1999-07-07
  The original "12 Angry Men" is a classic, with powerful performances by an amazing cast (many at the time, unknown), along with brilliant camera work and direction. Why then was it ever remade? Did they think they could better the original? Well, they didn't, and anyone who tries in the future, won't. And as good an actor as Jack Lemmon is, it was never so evident that he is no Henry Fonda.

  I'll admit that the cast for this remake is very good throughout (the performance of the ad agency character is at least on par, if not better, than the original). However, none of the other performances quite matched their counterparts, and the direction and camera work doesn't even come close. While the original "12 Angry Men" jumped off the screen, this remake seemed to just sit there.

  Between 1 and 10, the remake of "12 Angry Men" gets a marginal 6. If you've never seen the original, do yourself a favor and rent it. It is a far superior film.
  
  

• An excellent study of small group interaction!

  
  By on 1998-12-26
  This is an excellent re-make of the original movie (starring Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb). The plot is moved into a more contemporary setting that shows current feelings and prejudices that drive people's opinions and close their minds.

  The story is an outstanding example of the different personalities and self-appointed roles that become evident in a small group trying to come to a concensus. The attitude and behavior of the jurors, cooped up in a sub-standard room, are made very obvious immediately. Private agendas, however, take much longer to surface.

  "12 Angry Men" puts the American Judicial system on trial. The plot illustrates, very painfully, just how poorly some citizens take their responsibilities in as significant a case as one that involves capital punishiment.

  The cast is excellent.
  
  

• Very capable remake

  
  By A2EDZH51XHFA9B on 2001-02-20
  12 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 atyle 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. ****
  
  

• Nice effort, but doesn't stand up to the original

  
  By on 2004-05-27
  I really don't think a masterpiece like 12 ANGRY MEN needs a remake. This remake of the classic 1957 film makes many good efforts, but falls short in many points. First of all, I think George C. Scott is excellent, and could stand serious comparison with Lee J. Cobb in the original. (Alright, maybe his final monologue isn't quite as cyclonic as Cobb's, but perhaps Scott was wise in not trying to emulate that.) Many of the other actors are also very good. But some of the actors miss the mark on their characterizations. Olmos' watchmaker is a confused mess. (Who is he? Where is he from? What is his social class?) Gandolfini's Juror # 6 is surly and disagreeable, unlike Edward Binns' kindly original. The actor playing Juror # 5 is too confident and bold; in the original, this character was a scared and self-conscious young man who identified with the defendant. I admit that making Juror # 10 a former Nation of Islam member was a creative choice. But why does the judge (female in this version) not set up the atmosphere of physical discomfort and indifference, which are important themes in the movie? And why does # 10 decribe the defendant as a "common ignorant slob"? His appearance and dress do not suggest this! Finally, and most seriously in my opinion, a mess has been made of the relationship between Jurors 2 and 3. In the original, a father/son relationship was established between Cobb and John Fiedler. In the remake, Ossie Davis and Scott are both virtually the same age, so that whole theme is lost. In the original movie, ALL the actors were superb and perfect for their parts; there were no weak links.
  
  Another problem I have with this movie is that in some places it fastidiously modernizes, while in others it stays stubbornly in the 1950's. Why are there two Europeans on the jury? Before I saw the movie I thought sure there would be a Hispanic, an Asian, or a Middle Easterner. Why does Juror # 7 still sell marmalade as in the original? (Danza seems more like someone who would sell sports equipment or big-screen TV's!) Why does Juror #12 still present the dated stereotype of the 50's advertizing man? Why is the Olmos character still a watchmaker? Indeed, the screenplay was adapted by Reginald Rose, the writer for the 1957 version, and it is pretty close to the original script. I think in some instances he should have changed more than he did. The black and white and the camera work of the original do a much better job of creating the atmosphere of heat, claustrophobia, and grittiness in the jury room. And of course the central problem of updating this movie is that juries today would probably not consist entirely of men.
  
  But above all, I find that this remake lacks the depth and richness of the original. I could spend all day analyzing the 1957 version, its many telling details, its layers of meaning, the countless psychological insights which the actors lend to their portrayals. Not so here. A case in point is Lemmon. His performance is good as far as it goes, but it is straightforward and one-dimensional. He has none of the complexity and shades of self-doubt that Fonda brought to the role. He seems more like a self-assured amateur lawyer than an architect pulled from the street. To sum it all up, I think the original 1957 12 ANGRY MEN is a timeless classic that neeeds no updating. This version has some good performances and is interesting to watch, but in the end it is superfluous.
  
  

• Mildly enjoyable misfire

  
  By AMMEMPM9MPS55 on 2002-11-07
  It is almost always a bad idea to remake as classic a movie as Twelve Angry Men. It is nigh guaranteed to result in disappointment. So it is with William Friedkin's remake of Sidney Lumet's 1957 film. Because it sticks closely to the original script, and has a few welcome veterans in the cast, it is saved from being totally unenjoyable. But still, even George C Scott and Jack Lemmon are no match for Lee J Cobb and Henry Fonda. The original cast had a certain presence that is not even neared by the lineup of familiar faces on show here.

  The production also suffers from its unbelievability. Back in 1957, a few logical holes and incredulities seemed not to matter, being compensated for by the drama and tension. Set in the 1990s, however, it is simply anachronistic. Technical advances in the forensic science seem to be unknown to the characters in this transplant to modern-day. It loses credibility. The occasional changes in the dialogue are arbitrary and unnecessary at best; banal and inexplicable at worst.

  Overall, the Friedkin version lacks the atmosphere and tension of the original. Lumet's version was brilliantly edited and photographed so as to maximize the claustrophobic atmosphere and lend mood and ambience to the interplay of the characters. Friedkin's second-best begins with an annoying shaky camera technique and goes on to a flat cinematography style that does little to enhance the drama.

  At least there is the treat of rehearing Kenyon Hopkins' original theme (however briefly it is heard in both versions) rearranged for jazz quartet. It is poor compensation, however, for the disappointment of seeing a masterwork reproduced in a manner that results in a pale and unsatisfying imitation of a brilliant original.
  
  

• What a remake!
  By A4RT6PYQW9QA7 on 2002-12-03
  I consider myself a very demanding movie watcher, and this one definitely satisfies my expectations. I had the chance to see both 1957 and 1997 versions for "12 angry men", and I must say my vote goes to the recent one. Friedkin manages to create a whole atmosphere which seems much more realistic to me than the rather rigid and sometimes mechanic performances shown on the earlier version. In my opinion, Friedkin's cast looks so natural in their expressions and personality, they don't seem to be 'acting', which is a fault often seen in older movies. Characters and psychological profiles were improved so that you recognize and identify everyone of them, and you have a feeling no man's missing and no man's unnecesary. Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott offer an astonishing display of talent, and Scott's final monologue makes Lee J Cobb's performance look pale and opaque. If I were to choose a lawyer, I'd take Lemmon instead of Fonda, no doubt about it. The variety of the cast brings a refreshing, believable and solid mosaic of personalities I just don't see in Lumet's film (1957). Don't turn your back on this remake. You may be missing a great movie.
  
  
• A Great Success
  By on 2004-05-18
  This movie was simply mesmerizing, I saw the first 12 angry men on AMC. But it was very tedious, and boring. My mother got summoned to jury duty a few months later and she would come home pissed off that she had to do this boring civil duty. so one night she stopped by BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO and rented the new version of 12 Angry Men and it blew us away. We still watch this video at least two times a week, Because it's hilarious, and refreshing to see the diversity in the cast (mainly due to a 40 year time time difference in the two movies) . At the same time it makes you think. I love all the performances by these fantastic actors. Especially those of Mykelti Milliamson, and George C. Scott, potraying the angriest jurors of all. I love when people can let their rage take over and show us all their real feelings towards people from other races, countries,etc.
  
  
• 12 great actors!
  By on 2000-01-02
  I never saw the first but i know i want to because of how great this one was.And the way Jack Lemmon(who i think gave the best performance)can convince eleven jury members that a (probably) guilty man is innocent.The idea seems imposible but this brilliantly made movie proves you wrong! And the actors do a great job portraying their characters and the dialouge is unbelievable!This movie definitley deserves five stars,if not more.This is a modern,up-to-date,classic film of the lives of what real jurors go through when faced with detertmining a man's life.
  
  
• Marvelous acting! Terrific writing! Excellent remake!
  By on 1999-02-05
  This is a very strong remake of the fantastic 1957 Sidney Lumet film starring Henry Fonda. This ensemble is incredible with wonderful performances by George C.Scott, Jack Lemmon, and even Tony Dansa. I really didn't think much of Dansa before seeing this film. I guess he can act! The performances are marvelous. My only concern is that this version is so similar to the 1957 version. The script has been updated with more 1990's concerns and language, but much of the dialogue is the same and there is a great deal that appears to be stolen from the original actors performances -- in particular Tony Dansa borrows a great deal of Jack Warden's marvelous performance as juror #7. I would have liked a more novel approach to some of the characterizations. But overall, I loved it!
  
  
• Not as good as the 1957 version but it has its moments
  By A1HO9J4DCQDGP9 on 2001-03-08
  This remake had a tough act to follow and sadly it failed in a lot of areas, but despite this, and the fact that it's not the most memorable film you'll ever watch, it does have one or two good moments. The acting is pretty good but it lacks the passion that Henry Fonda, Lee J Cobb, Jack Klugman and the rest of the 1957 cast managed to convey to the audience as they struggled to overcome their prejudices in a case where the life of a young boy hangs in the balance. This version has a more contemporary feel to it, the bigot is a black man with a chip on his shoulder and the Judge in charge of the overall case is a woman. There is more background information given in this version and you get a better idea of what is happening on the outside of the jury room as well as on the inside. You are not shut in as you are in the 1957 film. The Director has tried to make the Jurors more human to the watching audience. I think perhaps this is part of the reason as to why it failed to make the same impact that the 1957 version did. We knew next to nothing about these 12 angry men, they were as much a mystery to us as the crime the young Hispanic boy was supposed to have committed. The 1957 film was filled with tension and atmosphere and as the film progressed you (the audience) were drawn deeper into the jury room, which became more and more oppressive as ignorance, pettiness, bigotry and hatred oozed its way into your soul and the souls of the characters on screen. The 1997 version was more of a mystery tale being systematically unravelled by a group of disparate men who didn't really know what they were doing most of the time. The good points of this modern remake was that it was in colour, that the setting was contemporary and the acting though not up to the standard of Henry Fonda and his peers was adequate and watchable but sadly not memorable. I gave it three stars out of five because it did try so hard. A forgettable remake of a 20th century classic.
  
  
• Never saw the original, but this one was awesome!
  By A3KUUII2GSHN7T on 2002-08-15
  I took a gamble on this one last summer, renting it from Blockbuster on a boring summer's night. I decided to go with the newer version that night instead of the original. It was a decision I have not regretted.

  I soon ordered this film and bought it, wanting to show it to any fan of serious courtroom drama without all the foolish raz-mataz of a film like 'A Time To Kill'. The acting and focus on human nature is also a delightful twist. We get to see the various aspects, prejudices, and bias of everyday people.

  George C. Scott does a standout job while Jack Lemmon and Courtney B. Vance(Hunt For Red October, Hamburger Hill) shine in their roles. Vance really made me move him up a few notches on my favorite actors list after this one.

  This film is full of great acting. Ossie Davis(The Stand, Grumpy Old Men), Dorian Harewood(black guy who gets shot in Full Metal Jacket), Hume Cronyn(Batteries Not Included, Cocoon), and Mykelti Williamson(Bubba from Forrest Gump) are the familiar faces while Tony Danza, James Gandolfini, and Edward James Olmos round out the familiar names.

  This film is tremendous and deserved more praise when it came out. You might find yourself rethinking some of your views after watching this one.
  
  

• Doesn't stand up to the original
  By A3GW14989FU2N9 on 2001-08-24
  Despite fine performances by all, especially Jack Lemmon in the Fonda role, this remake does not even come close to the original. It lacks the punch of the original and not all the actors meet the standards set by the original actors. Even the great Hume Cronyn, as good as he is, doesn't compare to his predecessor. Maybe I am disappointed in this movie because I saw the original first and judge it by that standard. On it's own, it's not a bad film but once you've made a classic why remake it? Do you really think you can get it better. Don't waste your money. Buy the original.
  
  
• This is what acting should be
  By A2FBQRCLIIPGYA on 1999-12-14
  Ok..Re-makes don't always work, but I think this surpasses the original. Jack Lemmon and the late George C.Scott make this one of the most compelling films I've ever seen. This is what acting should be - truthful and totally convincing.
  
  
• Futile anachronistic remake
  By on 2002-10-22
  that just seems dull, dimwitted and hoplessly dated. The original was a landmark film, though still very much of its era, but the remake works about as well as a strawberry pizza.
  
  
• Great Remake
  By A1GHUN5HXMHZ89 on 2003-01-10
  I love the classics, but I never pass up looking at the remakes. Sometimes they are not as good as the originals. In this case I think I like the remake just a little better. The reason is that the original used some angle shots that made the cast look unworldly and to me that detracted from it. The cast to me only had 3 people that stood out, Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, and Joseph Sweeney. Don't get me wrong the first one has some strong acting, but the remake seems like more of the cast is what I would really expect. Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Hume Cronyn, William Petersen, Edward Olmos, Ossie Davis, and the rest the cast left more of an impression on me. The original did not impress me with people I knew on the street in the 1950s. The remake though did seem to have people I could meet in a court room in the 1990s. As for one person commentng on the lack of forensics for the time, I hate to tell you not every city has a CSI team as good as the TV shows. I thought the evidence presented was believable, certainly as much so as the original.
  
  
• Very good!
  By A1JIGDA1HL34IA on 2004-04-11
  Excellent remake, I think this one is better than the original. George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon are at their absolute best. Highly recommended.
  
  
• Excellent Educational Tool
  By A394CMXARTSCX7 on 2000-04-01
  I thoroughly enjoyed watching this video. It was masterfully acted and produced. I used this video in my American Government classroom at the end of the Judicial Branch unit to help my students see a different side of the Judicial system. I highly recommend this video to any teacher looking for a decent video to use in their American Government classroom.
  
  
• A great update to a phenomenal movie
  By A1AYTXG5D6KA8O on 2003-08-27
  I think both the 1957 and 1997 versions are great movies and I will alternate watching both over the years. Given the passage of 40 years, they are bound to be different The older of the two will compare less favorably, because acting styles and attitudes toward race have changed. So have people. In the 1957 version Lee J. Cobb portrayed a man so oblivious to the facts, that every time he opened his mouth, he made the case for the other side, often humorously. George C. Scott never quite achieves that. However in the final scene Scott surpasses Cobb in revealing his bias, and breaking down. Lemmon's remark to Scott, "He's not your son, he's someone else" is not contained in the first movie and is an appropriate added touch. I like both Fonda's and Lemmon's performances as juror Number 8. The pivotal person is actually Mykelti Williams who plays the Ed Begley role (juror number 10, who has a cold). As the nation of Islam fanatic, he divides the African-American jurors among themselves. This adds some credibility and complexity, so the fight is not just black vs. white. Inevitably, the complexities of modern American society are more accurately reflected in the 1997 version. Before the 1960s, we just didn't address race head-on. The older version is accurate testament to that. Still, the 1957 version is amazing. E. G. Marshall's portrayal of the stock broker is commanding and genuinely fun to watch. His conversion from guilty to not guilty is the single most dramatic moment in either movie. The cinematography on his face showing his transformation from confident to doubtful is wonderful work. The claustrophobia in the 1957 version surpasses the 1997 version. I choose to treat these movies as complimenting one another. My only question is when will they put the 1997 version on DVD? Get both versions and appreciate the differences. They are both superior films. Both accurately reflect the times in which they were made.
  
  
• An Inside Look
  By A1YHQ1JWEJK6BI on 2004-08-09
  12 Angry Men is a movie about a jury made up of 12 very different men that have just listened to a murder case and must come to a conclusion that will determine a young mans future. It is very interesting to see the twelve different men's intents, interests and personalities. What seems to be an easy guilty vote in the beginning boils down into a long and heated argument between the men as some people just want to go home and some people want to serve justice.
  
  95% of the movie takes place in one place, which most times leads to a rather boring movie, but in this case really helps focus in on one main goal. I enjoyed this movie a lot, it allows you to see that people on a jury are of all types and can be just like you or I. In the end, whether you are interested in law or not, this is a fascinating movie that most will enjoy.
  
  
  
• Do NOT waste your time!..See the original 1957 version instead!
  By A3VER44IDFD8KK on 2005-12-13
  With all due respect to those of you who gave this a thumbs up, this 1997 version of "12 Angry Men" is at best a "passionless, passionate" remake of the 1957 original with Henry Fonda and Lee Cobb.
  
  Even with veteran actors like George C. Scott, Hume Cronyn, Ossie Davis, and Jack Lemmon, the acting was stiff and lifeless, and the pinnacle and critical moments of truth and revelation were totally lost or glossed over! (I knew as soon as I realized that Tony Danza was going to play the agitated baseball fan, this was NOT going to an Academy performance.) There is absolutely NO COMPARISON - either visually or performance-wise - between this version and the far superior original 1957 version.
  
  The newer version pretty much kept to the original but with a few updates. (Not necessarily a bad thing.) However, the producers felt it "necessary" to "boost the rating" of the newer version to PG-13 by adding swearing and cursing, which added nothing but foul language to a subpar performance. (The original had just one minor curse word.)
  
  Whereas, the newer version relied solely on raw emotion to draw you into the plot (which it failed miserably to do), the older version held you captive wtih rivoting performances and crucial character development and insight as each juror began to come to their own conclusions over the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
  
  An interesting sidenote. In the 1957 version: After the jury is dismissed from the courtroom, there is a 6-minute+ continuous camera shot, as all 12 jurors enter the room and get themselves situated before beginning the deliberation. Without a break, the camera moves from one group of jurors to another and the everyday (sometimes inane) dialogue conversations between the jurors is non-stop the whole time. I have NEVER seen this long of a shot duplicated in a modern movie. (If just one person misses their cue or forgets a line, the whole scene starts over.)
  
  I guess I don't have to reiterate that I didn't care for this version of "12 Angry Men" AT ALL! To me, to give it even a 1-star rating is being extremely generous. Big thumbs down! Forget this version and see the original!
  
  
• Come on everyone, you can't be serious
  By A3QSTWSC5X5IJY on 2000-05-17
  With all due respect to the other reviewers of this film, I must nonetheless admit to being baffled by some of the contributions here. Even to think of remaking Sidney Lumet's 1957 version is sacrilege but to actually go ahead and do it is incomprehensible. Whatever the merits of this film -- irritatingly made to fit in with P.C. faddishness -- it will always be compared to the original and how anyone can make a favourable comparison again I find hard to understand. The 1957 version is one of the greatest feats in cinema history not because of the special effects but rather because of the lack of them. What a gamble to make a film entirely (barring two shots)set in one dull, stuffy room but it was a gamble that paid off. One of the truly great but criminally underrated films of all time. Watch the original and shun the remake.
  
  
• simply the best movie ever
  By on 1999-03-01
  i'm impres't by the stunt acting of this 12 angry man
  
  
• simply the best movie ever
  By on 1999-03-01
  i'm impres't by the stunt acting of this 12 angry man
  
  
• Great!
  By on 1999-07-03
  Much better than the orginal version with more believable character
  
  
• Great version!
  By on 1999-07-20
  I think the latest version of 12 Angry Men is probably one of the greatest casts ever assermbled. It is very moving. They all give stellar performances.
  
  
• Nowhere NEAR the original
  By A1IMPSA3GAFQIB on 2000-08-01
  What NEXT will they remake? Citizen Kane? A Face in the Crowd? (they almost did with Whoopi Goldberg, come to think of it!), Some Like it Hot? For heaven's sake, some things are left far better NOT REMADE and this film is a prime example. As much as I love Jack Lemmon, this re-make is just not up to snuff. Sorry. I vote for a trip to Old Sparky for the Hollywood Exec who greenlighted this one.
  
  
• Excellent!
  By on 1999-01-12
  The first time I heard of this movie I was watching Ving Rhames give away his Golden Globe to Jack Lemmon. Well, once I had seen it on cable, I understood why Mr. Rhames would do such a thing. Granted, Mr. Rhames is a great actor in his own right (Pulp Fiction, etc.), but Jack Lemmon steals the show as the man on the outside in this super story. Twelve men trying to reach a consensus in a time of racism and rush to judgments, this film is a must-see! Check your video store or local t.v. listings, as it is still being run on cable!
  
  
• Wonderful, I wish I had seen the end! :(
  By on 1999-08-16
  For the last week of school in my 8th grade year, my Decisionsteacher thought we should watch this movie to find out basically how ajury opperates (we had just done mock trials). We were about 10 or 15 minutes from the end when the bell rang on the last day of school. I was disappointed that we didn't get to see the end, even though our teacher told us how it ends. I've been looking for this movie in video stores and all around. I havn't found it yet. I'm still disappointed that amazon.com doesn't have it in stock either. This is an excellent cast with very believeable lines. I look forward to seeing the end and the older version also. Rent or buy this movie!!!!
  
  
• A Good Remake
  By on 2002-09-27
  This movie may not be the original but it is definatly worth the price. I was very excited to see all of these actors in one room. I am 38 so you could say I am too young for the classic but I am not. The original was great but don't dicount this one.
  
  
• This is good, so is the original.
  By AZ5ZCISM0DCG0 on 2006-02-20
  George C. Scott is brilliant, his talent is obvious in this screen version of the play.
  
  
  

• 12 Angry Men (50th Anniversary Edition)
• Twelve Angry Men (Penguin Classics)
• Inherit the Wind (1999)
• Gideon's Trumpet
• Of Mice & Men