A little to "COLORFUL!"
December 31, 2008
The cast in this film was not the best, don't get me wrong George C. Scott, Jack Lemmon, & Hume Cronyn are wonderful in this movie, but the rest of the cast was not very good at all. As for it being to "COLORFUL" it had to many African Americans and they were very rude to white cast in the film. I think your best sticking with original from '57 with Henry Fonda. If your just buying it for the reasons I did for George C. Scott, Jack Lemmon, & Hume Cronyn you'll like their acting only they are the only 3 good preformers in the film.
Will it be '57 or '97? Both perhaps?
(1 of 1 Found this Helpful)
December 3, 2008
'57 is a classic par excellence, but '97 does offer some interesting new features. I use both of the films as a means of processing a vast array of psychological concepts while working with first and second year college students. When I first stop the '97 version, I ask students if they heard anything at the onset of the film. There is a clever insertion of the line, "I'm gonna' kill you," as the sound track presents us with noise of a passing El train. Many of my students can't identify what the voice said, and some don't even remember hearing it.
The '97 cameras pan the room differently during the preliminary vote and do not allow us to see the effect of group conformity to the norm as it is registered in '57 version. The guilty vote is not as polarized as it may superficially appear: the hands of #5, #6 and #11 are raised after some pause, and #9 lifts his up slowly as he notices all hands are in the air. He doesn't see Fonda on his extreme right.
I like the dynamic presented with the inclusion of Afro-American jurors. When #1's (Courtney Vance) leadership is belittled by #10, he shows more confidence than Martin Balsam in the '57 edition. Balsam betrays rationality and retreats to an oral regression which includes nail-biting and a pouting withdrawal.
Jack Lemmon (#8), in the '97 version, starts out very slowly but seems to gain a head of steam with the new dialogue regarding others who might have had a motive for killing the father. He persisted at a higher energy level the rest of the way. When #7 said the boy "deserved" to die, Lemmon came back with a very effective counterargument about those who have gone to the gallows only to have some one else confess to the same crime years later.
Mykelti Williamson (#10), in the '97 version, added a powerful dimension when he accused Ossie Davis (#2) of being just like all those people his age who allow the white intellectuals to manipulate them. His anti-Latino invective later on was so effective as to make one sick. In fact, Mykelti himself, felt great psychological stress enacting this role.
This may reflect my bias, but I liked the idea of the psychiatric testimony. Edward James Olmos (#11), in the '97 version, shone ably in his interpretation of the merits of such testimony. To think of the primal crime (patricide)does not mean that you have followed through on the thought. He went on to say that if all of the jurors took the same battery of tests, perhaps one or two of them might show the same capability.
'97 does not include the photograph of #3's estranged son which heightened his emotional responses. In the cathartic ending, Lee J. Cobb tears the picture in pieces as he lets loose emotionally.
I could go on ad nauseam. Suffice it to say, I prefer both.
12 Moody Guys
(1 of 1 Found this Helpful)
July 5, 2008
Watching this 1997 version of 12 ANGRY MEN recently, I was struck by the fact that four of the 12 actors in key roles here have since passed away. That has absolutely nothing to do with the film's quality, of course (or nothing directly to do with it), but it is striking that key members of this impressive cast--and of course, I'm referring to Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Hume Cronyn and Ossie Davis-- have gone on to that jury box in the sky.
As I say, the fact that these great actors have all died within the past decade is not a direct reflection on the film itself. But it does raise at least one issue that a previous reviewer has noted: namely, the question of the cast's relative age in comparison to the cast of the 1957 classic movie version. Jack Lemmon was 72 when he played Juror #8 in this version. In the original film version, Henry Fonda was a comparatively youthful 52 when he portrayed the same character in 1957. Lee J. Cobb was all of 47 when he took on the part of Juror #3. George C. Scott was pushing 70 when he assayed the role.
In Scott's case, the role of the pained father--alienated from his own son and transferring some of his rage onto the accused--rings a bit false. He's fine until his climactic moment when he makes this association painfully clear (to all three viewers who hadn't already guessed), but at that very point, his performance unravels. Yes, there are 70 year old men estranged from their 30-something children, but one might expect the rage to be somewhat more muted by that point. Scott's wounds seem almost too fresh in this production.
Lemmon's relative maturity is not without its own problems. He is almost too sage. One is never quite sure whether he is really a tentative, but tenacious truth seeker, stubbornly hashing his way through the case's many inconsistencies, or whether he's actually a fine legal mind with a grand strategy that slowly and masterfully unfolds.
The obvious attempts to update the film's action are more annoying than enlightening. It's significant that this time out, the jury is racially mixed (and ethnically too, since two of the jurors are at least vaguely European). And depending on your point of view, it may be a sign of progress overall that African-American characters can be as perceptive or as flawed as any of their cohorts. (One even turns out to be bigoted in the extreme against the Hispanic accused.) But by 1997 could you really get away with having a jury without a single woman on it? No, it wouldn't be the same if the film were called 10 ANGRY MEN AND A COUPLE OF WOMEN WHO AIN'T TOO HAPPY EITHER. On the other hand, all the little updates thrown into the mix (including the presence of a female judge) do nothing to alter the fact that the movie is fundamentally anachronistic from the get-go.
cast is too damn old!
June 28, 2008
Listen, the actors performing here are all outstanding. The problem is that the script was written for a group of much younger men.
I mean, come on! George C. Scott in Lee Cobb's original role does that corny, over-acted ending about being stabbed with the knife by his son - he looks like he's in his '90s here -
What's his son? Seventy? Get over it, George! It's just ridiculous.
Forget this film - see the play or buy the original film.
Decent remake
January 18, 2008
I have to agree with many of the other reviewers who give the nod to the original version over this remake, but, all in all, it still is a decent film that is a study of the justice system. While not as in depth as the original, this is a worthy remake.
When a young man is on trial for murder, it is up to a jury of twelve men from different ethnicities and backgrounds to decide his fate. When one juror (Jack Lemmon) boldly takes the stance that he believes the man is not guilty, it sets off fireworks and arguments in the jury room. Each man is given their chance to defend their stance, and, as they fight over whether the young man killed a person, some begin to see the errors of their judgment. Highlighted by an all-star cast, there are many well-known actors who are members of the jury, including Tony Danza, George C. Scott, and Edward James Olmos.
The film's subject probably relates to anyone who has had to serve on a jury, and knows the personality clashes that exist within the jury room. What I like about this film is that is really speaks to the idea that one person can have a huge impact in the court of law or in any part of life if they continue to trust their instincts or beliefs. Juror 8 doesn't waver in this regard. Another poignant aspect of the film is the idea of what is fair as far as the jury system goes. As depicted in the film, a few of the jury clearly just wants to "get the case over with" so they can go on with their regular lives. Perhaps one of the subtle messages evoked from 12 Angry Men is that maybe there are flaws in the jury system that need to be addressed.
Twelve Angry Men relies much on dialogue to create suspense (rather than action), and for the fact that they are able to capture it (in this version and in the original), I commend it. Almost the entire film takes place in the jury room with the jurors. If you need big explosions, drive-by shootings, or dramatic car chases, or blood and guts, then this might not be a film for you. This is a film that caters to dealing with the justice system, and the jurors one by one try to understand the psychology and motives of someone accused of murder.
Check it out!
3 1/2 stars
