Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

sharky_55 Sidney 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.

disdressed12 this remake of the 1957 classic is actually pretty good.it doesn't have the same impact or resonance of the original,but it is good int it's own right.just like in the original,there are some fine actors here.Courtney B. Vance,William Petersen,Ossie Davis,George C. Scott,Armin Mueller-Stahl(who has never turned in a bad performance,even in a bad movie)and jack Lemmon are just a few of the brilliant performers here.there is only one weak link. and for me,that would be Tony Danza.he just seems out of his league here.although it wasn't necessary to remake the classic version(since there was no way to improve on it)at least they didn't butcher the material.for me,Twelve Angry men is a 7/10

Michael_Elliott 12 Angry Men (1997) ** 1/2 (out of 4) By the numbers remake from director William Friedkin tells the same story as the original film. When I say "by the numbers" I really mean it because for some reason this film uses the same story and dialogue from the first film, which really makes no sense but the film is somewhat entertaining even though we've seen it all before. The all-star cast includes Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Tony Danza, Ossie Davis, James Gandolfini and Edward James Olmos. The one interesting change is that four black jurors were added and the way Friedkin uses this is rather interesting in some dialogue about race.

fjord_fox This is a movie that will not be appealing to everyone. It is not an action movie, and except for the bailiff and for the very end of the movie when they go into the courtroom, you only see the twelve men, who really do turn into twelve angry men. Among these, are some very famous and well seasoned actors. George C. Scott, Jack Lemon, Hume Cronym are the ones that I recognized from old times, and then there are also Tony Danza and James Gandofini when they were very young and "wet behind the ears". Sorry, but I do not recognize any of the others.In addition, the scenery does not change either, for they are all locked in a room and the entire two hours of the movie is about the deliberation that goes on in that room. It is far from boring though, for they all raise some very interesting points to consider when convicting a man accused of a crime.The movie opens in the courtroom for just a brief moment as the attorneys are both resting their case and the judge is instructing the jury to deliberate. Douglas Spain, as the accused boy, is hopelessly looking up at the ceiling fan as he is anticipating the guilty verdict that would ultimately come to him. It seems that he had been accused of stabbing his own father to death, going to a movie afterwards, and then returning home at 3AM to be arrested by the police. There were two witnesses who both claimed that they saw him. The first was a woman who said she saw him through the window as he stabbed his father, and the second was an old man who lived there, who claimed he saw him leave the apartment afterwards and run down the stairs.Once all the men were in the jury room, it seemed to be an "open and shut case". All were SURE that he had committed the crime. All except for one: Juror #8, played by Jack Lemon. He never said that he thought the kid was innocent. In fact he said that he was PROBABLY GUILTY, but what if--just WHAT IF we are wrong? What if he really HAD gone to the movies that night, so he was not even there when it happened? What if he really had been telling the truth all along? that he had not killed his own father? This was a capital crime with capital punishment involved. He could be put to death for this crime. Could these jurors afford to be wrong and have it on their consciouses if they later discover that they had convicted the wrong man and sent him to death? After all, it had been done before.(The name Dr. Richard Kimball (The Fugitive) comes to mind. This TV Series/Movie was based on a true story. He hadn't been put to death, but in real life, he lost I think about 20 or so years in jail before he could finally prove his innocence.)I had to laugh as I saw some of these jurors vacillate from "definitely guilty" to "innocent", to "probably guilty", and then to "innocent" again as they are confronted by the others for changing their minds. Some of their reasons for "knowing" that he was guilty are funny too. One man, a black man, was sure that he was guilty just because he was a Mexican, and he said that "everybody knows that the Mexicans are benefiting from the years of hard work that the blacks had done to gain equality". Another man saw his own son in this kid, and he was mad at his son, so he was mad at this kid and therefore the kid was guilty. Another funny thing were their reasons for "getting it over with" so they could go home. Tony Danza, for example, wanted it over "in about 5 minutes" because he had tickets for the ball game and that was more important.The movie was filled with suspense as it moved along: Suspense that made you wonder if they would EVER come to a verdict. (The voting MUST be unanimous.)I do not normally watch this type of movie, but I enjoyed this one. I give it a 10, not just because of the acting, the suspense, and the drama involved, but also because it is an excellent tool for anyone who is chosen to serve on a jury. I think that every juror should have to watch this movie beforehand as a prerequisite so he/she would keep the seriousness in mind of the possibility of making the wrong decision.