MovieChat Forums > 12 Angry Men (1997) Discussion > I love this movie but I have a HUGE prob...

I love this movie but I have a HUGE problem with it (SPOILERS)...

posted 15 years ago by indotexan
50 replies | jump to latest

I'll be honest, I've only seen this movie once and that was almost ten years ago, but I remember it very vividly and from what I remember, it was a great movie.

However, I just finished serving on a jury today and one of the instructions that we, the jurors, received was to ONLY consider the evidence that was presented during the trial.

In the movie, pretty much all of Jack Lemmon's lines about the knife should not have been considered, period. From what I remember, that was one of turning points in alot of the jurors' minds.

I remember it being said that the defendant's lawyer was a simple public defender, was overburdened, etc. and that's why it had not been brought up during the trial. Fine, use ineffective counsel as a grounds for appeal. The facts, as presented in the trial, show that he was guilty.

Anybody else see what I'm talking about? They used outside information to arrive at the not guilty verdict that should not have been considered during deliberation.

"I stick my neck out for nobody."- Rick Blaine, Casablanca

[–] sweetprojects 13 years ago

The thing that I dont like in this version is that they are combining two time zones that dont match.
Over all, seeing this version, I understand that all the guy was trying to do is look over the evidence.

-They made, Jokes about Rocky
-Cleveland/Yankees baseball game w/ Modern tickets
-They used modern day racial slurs
-They had an integrated jury
-A female judge
-A comment was maid, "when you get down to New Years Eve 1972, let me know"
-Finally, the movie Secrets and Lies came out it 1996

Well the point I am trying to make is that this remake is in current time. So they should be using current technology. Or even common sense!
-The Knife
1)How could it not be know that multiple knives where sold at the same store
2)How could a Juror carry a concealed weapon into court, 3 days strait?

-The Woman
1) The eye site would have been taken into account by both Prosecution and the Defense to even see if they can admit it into evidence
2) Neither the Old Man nor Woman spoke about the noise of the train. If you are in a noise blistering area, you would automatically say "I was real loud, but..."

The old man
- He said he heard the yelling, went to the door, and saw the guy run out. Not check this out, how far is it from where you stay to the closest store? 5 minutes right? Its always 5 minutes! I only looked away for a seconds or I was only gone for a minute. The argument that "How could the old man see him if he has a limp" can me debunked. When you hear or see something, you just react! Thats it!

The Boy
-He got the same knife that killed his father moments before he killed his dad
-He says the knife fell out of a whole in his pocket
-Why are the pants not a piece of evidence? I mean O.J. at least got to try on a glove!
-He had access to the house
-There where no signs of a break in
-No forced entry
-He is skilled with a knife, so dont you think if you have a skill, you would know what to do to make a murder not look like you did it...AT THE AGE OF 18! This isnt a 6 year old we are talking about! He knows what he's doing! He knows why he bought the knife!
-They say all 3 boys kicked it and he bought the knife for one of his boys, Well, give me my sh-t then! They way they talk about it is that his friend would have been in his a$$ until he got his new knife!
-Not knowing the movie? Thats because you snuck in or said just give me a ticket!

The Cops
-Detectives caught him. Not cops. That means the cops where there and called in detectives to find other sh-t, but, Bingo! We found him.

Final Thought
-If I was on trial for killing my Dad, and I didnt do it, you better duck tape my a$$ on that stand so i can at least have a word in as to the fact that I didnt do it

[–] Ithilfaen 7 years ago

1) The eye site would have been taken into account by both Prosecution and the Defense to even see if they can admit it into evidence

The prosecution probably didn't know she was even wearing glasses. Why would they look too hard into something that can hurt them?
As for the defense, you're assuming the kid's pro bono lawyer cared. Obviously he didn't.

-He is skilled with a knife, so dont you think if you have a skill, you would know what to do to make a murder not look like you did it...AT THE AGE OF 18! This isnt a 6 year old we are talking about! He knows what he's doing! He knows why he bought the knife!

That doesn't fit with a rage killing. And it also doesn't fit a planned killing either because it takes a lot of force stabbing a bigger man to death, whereas it takes considerably lesser strength to gut or slice someone's throat, which is what that knife was made for

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

[–] travinitrav 13 years ago

Most of the issues I have with the movie are about how things changed over time. When the play and first movie came out a lot of facts were relevant then and not so much now.
In 1997 its unlikely a DA would move forward on a case without some kind of forensic evidence and they had absolutely none. Of course this is necessary to keep the story intact but that means its less relevant to society now. Also some people were getting eye surgery in 1997 and MANY had contact lenses, especially ladies who worry about their appearance. There were a couple other things as well that have changed since the 50's.
As time keeps moving on this type of film will make less sense to audiences. Eventually there will need to be a new jury movie that includes modern crime solving techniques. I still think watching 12 jurors yell at each other will be good entertainment, the Casey Anthony story proves a case that initially seems obvious may have some room for discussion. But writers are so obsessed with this older story cuz it remained popular over the years and Broadway loves it.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 13 years ago

You make some very good points - especially the contact lenses/surgery concept. I, however, disagree with you on the DA not moving forward without forensic evidence. Even in today's standards many cases, if not most, don't have forensic evidence - at least incriminating evidence. Most are solved with the old fashion detective work. Unlike the TV/movies - criminals aren't leaving fingerprints/DNA all over the crime scene or at it at all. Since the son lived there - the only relevant place forensics would come into place would be the knife and the son's clothing (for the most part). Since a stab wound isn't as "messy" as TV portrays - having no blood on his cloth wouldn't be out of the question. It also would be common to find no fingerprints on the knife. Finding DNA on the knife is a good route to go and probably the best bet - but a lack of DNA on the knife wouldn't be out of the ordinary.
DA’s often go to trial with no forensic evidence and many times just circumstantial evidence (and do get convictions).

You can scream now if you want.

[–] Ithilfaen 7 years ago

I remember it being said that the defendant's lawyer was a simple public defender, was overburdened, etc. and that's why it had not been brought up during the trial. Fine, use ineffective counsel as a grounds for appeal. The facts, as presented in the trial, show that he was guilty.

Wow. I hope your trial wasn't a murder trial because you didn't understand the concept of reasonable doubt.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco