12 Angry Men

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!   December 26, 1998
12 out of 13 found this review helpful

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   February 20, 2001
Robert P. Beveridge (Cleveland, OH)
10 out of 13 found this review helpful

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   May 27, 2004
10 out of 11 found this review helpful

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   November 7, 2002
www.DavidLRattigan.com (United Kingdom)
8 out of 10 found this review helpful

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.