Customer Reviews

12 Angry Men [VHS]

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. ****

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.

I saw this movie back when it was on television and I loved it! I also like the older version. I can get that one on DVD but WHY CAN'T I GET THIS ONE ON DVD??? MGM, it is time to release this movie on DVD!!!!

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!!!!

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.

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.