12 Angry Men

A strong cast led by Scott and Lemon make for a good remake. Hold me closer Tony Danza.

George C Scott just lost his cool now we got a movie goin'

So, why remake it? Two reasons leap out. First, the main idea presented is as relevant today as it ever was, so it was as relevant in 1997 as it was in 1957 as it is today. Second, Friedkin changes the racial dynamics of the piece by using a more diverse cast. Lumet's film touches on racism with Ed Begley's character, but Friedkin brings new elements to the story by, for example, casting Dorian Harewood in Jack Klugman's role .

Like the original, this restaging features a great cast helmed by a fine director. There's some overacting, but the racial integration adds flavor and realism instead of being token and the script never loses its cunning zing no matter how many times one plays it through. But the '57 version is a masterclass in methodical lens and camera use to tell a contained chamber piece, and I'm betrothed to it. But it's such an important story; whichever version has the cast you prefer, you can't go wrong.

(Rewatched on 22/05/23): There was no reason to remake 12 Angry Men, but Friedkin did an admirable job. It lacks the visual dynamism of Lumet's version, some of the casting choices are questionable (Tony Danza?), and the attempts to update the film to reflect the racial politics of the day are only partially successful. On the plus side, Friedkin assembled a stellar cast, and there is much pleasure to be had watching great actors like Lemmon and Scott going toe-to-toe in late career.

Not quite as powerful as the '57 version, but a fantastic modernization with a stellar cast.

Worth watching purely for the performances.

I can't think of a much more loyal remake. Pretty much the same film with a couple mediocre performances that keep it from being as great as the original. But the only real problem is it starts off with a FEMALE judge. Women aren't allowed to be judges, everybody knows that.

Well, it's a stage play too. If we can have umpteen film versions of Hamlet, we can see how Jack Lemmon essays a character we mostly know because of Henry Fonda. It's a fine film, just a little too not filmy enough, but it's not like the Lemmon version of 12 Angry Men was coming to my city, so I'll take it.

Surprisingly decent remake.

Good news. They colorized the original, added a few swear words and a Danza. Not bad really mostly cause everthing gets better with Hume Cronyn.

Şampiyonlar ligi kadrosu. Nefes almadan izleniyor. Klasik.

Finally got around to watching this. The 1957 Lumet masterpiece is one of my all-time favourites, so I didn't feel the desire to see what I expected to be a far inferior offering. Well I came away with mixed emotions. There are some good elements here and the cast is first rate. My criticism comes from a lot of the dialogue and acting to feel ignorant by force. The amount of stubbornness and how it was portrayed became too much. A lot of passive aggressiveness. Still, that was by design. 7.0.

Basically a shot for shot remake of a movie that never needed to be remade because none of the original's greatness hinged on the time period or special effects. It's a fine remake but it's annoying that it exists in the first place.

Unlike Gus Van Sant's Psycho, this film should be studied as a black-and-white to color remake. The original screenwriter makes some inspired updates--taking the original's subtext of racism and classism making them so direct that at times it felt like a spiritual sequel to Do the Right Thing. And the cast is really good--especially Jack Lemmon. I do think a few actors should've been younger, and some boom mics and cameras were visible at times. But those are minor complaints. Recommended.

87.500

Not a patch on the original, but Friedkin brings his trademark intensity and lets a good cast do what they're good at.

Overall Enjoyment: 30/40, Plot/Themes: 15/20, Cinematography/Direction: 15/20, Acting/Writing: 15/20

An unnecessary remake, but by no means a terrible one.

These guys didn't know what they were talking about, that kid was guilty as shit.

It's a good movie, well directed, well played, but... the original movie from 1957 is perfect. So...it's a remake that nobody needs. Pity.

Not quite as good as the first version, but sometimes the material is so good that nobody could screw it up

I really liked this film. It was interesting to see how to make a movie about court without actually being in court. The acting was good and the plot was too. The movie is a little dry and slow, so you have to think about what's going on and listen, because there is not a lot of action in this film.

Excellent remake. - Very Good

85.500

Starts out as a creaky exhibition match, just a recreation of the original, but as it goes its own flavor comes out more and more. Minor Freidkin and nothing on the '57 film, but worth a watch.

haven't seen the original but this one was terrific!

Likable remake of a classic.

Considerably worse than the original, but still just ok. I'd recommend to see the original one though. This remake is absolutely unnecesary.

Liked the original better

This gets the score it does because some of the casting was really great (aside from the fact that there were three old men) but overall this was incredibly flawed. A lot of changes that were made probably seemed progressive or current in the 90s but they ended up in retrospect being cheap or regressive (especially their choice of a leftover of the black power movement as the racist). It was too aware of the power of the original and in aiming at that same power it totally missed the mark.