12 Moody Guys 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! 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 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
Dear MGM, WHERE IS THE DVD???!!! 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!!!!
My favorite movie... Excellent, provocative. I loved it! Got me thinking for sure. I saw both this and the silver screen version. I loved this later version much better. Maybe because I could relate to the situation that was modernized some as I am from this era. The silver screen (old) version is kinda cheesy.
Anything Goes Trivia
Last Kiss
Megaton Man
Trevor
