Excellent remake


Just finished watching this, and really enjoyed it. It's a very good updated version of the 1957 classic. Lemmon does a an excellent job in his own right, even if Fonda was in fact better. All and all, definitely worth a watch, and a worthy remake to Lumet's classic film, 8/10.

reply

I agree it's a remarkable remake, and in my personal opinion, it suprases the original in almost every aspect, even acting. My main three reasons, briely described, are:

a) The racial update to the Jury was very much a plus. The key was not making the black jurors into stereotypes, and giving each of them very distinctly different social and economic backgrounds which determined their thoughts, actions and over-all demeanor.

b) I genuinely prefered the acting of 11 of these jurors over the originals. My one execption is Juror #9, the old gentelman, who was made a bit too old since both Lemmon and Scott were in their 70s (the same age as 1957's Juror #9), while in the original, Fonda and Cobb were 53 and 46 respectively. Perhaps due to the actor's age, I felt he played the character a bit too weak and slow. I have a hard time believing someone as frail-looking as him would not be dismissed from a jury during the summer in such hot weather.

c) The pacing and editing was far better in this one; the scenes, arguments and shifting of votes transitioned far more smoothly and with more focus on each juror's reason on doing so. You can chalk this up to the additional 15-20 minute run-time which gave more time to establish little, but crucial, facial expressions and dialogue that helped us understand their motivations and change of heart.

reply

I agree it's a remarkable remake, and in my personal opinion, it suprases the original in almost every aspect, even acting.

I completely disagree. It was worse watching for the cast but it didnt surpass the original in any way. The direction was banal, when Lumet's direction highlighted the claustrophobia and tension of the situation. The script's attempt at modernizing a story didn't work on any level. The added dialog was cringe-worthy.

Only the acting was mostly doing justice to the original material but even then it didn't surpass the original cast.

a) The racial update to the Jury was very much a plus. The key was not making the black jurors into stereotypes, and giving each of them very distinctly different social and economic backgrounds which determined their thoughts, actions and over-all demeanor.

It was pretty forced and PC and it only highlighted the fact that there was somehow not one woman on that jury, which in the 90ies in NYC is bizarre at best.
And somehow not one of these men have any particular insight about the justice system, poverty or racism that African American men would certainly have. It doesn't change their dialog or perspective, except for the racist rant, and a whole lot of "brotha" added for good measure.

I have a hard time believing someone as frail-looking as him would not be dismissed from a jury during the summer in such hot weather.

Unless you have an actual medical condition, and a doctor's recommendation, you can't get out of jury duty just because it's hot and you're old.

The pacing and editing was far better in this one; the scenes, arguments and shifting of votes transitioned far more smoothly and with more focus on each juror's reason on doing so.

Focus is one word for it. Every added bit of dialog was so ham-fisted. The end, in particular, when Scott's cracking, was so bad. It was as if they didn't trust people to understand that he identified with the victim because of his history with his kid so they hammered it in. What a waste of a perfectly good scene.

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

reply

Absolutely agree with the 2 poster above me.
Great remake, great cast and great update of the original!

Prostitute: What the *beep* are you doing?
Johnny: I'm gonna kill a bunch of people.

reply

Yup just watched it for the second time. These guys manage to piss you off with some superb acting, even if the case details are a little too convenient at times.

A definite classic to me, remake or not.

reply

It's called 12 ANGRY MEN! They're suppose to make you happy?!

Not all characters in great dramas are likeable, because there would be no real drama. I've heard rants like that from everyone in general.

The Verdict rots in your hands.

reply

I think the poster was complimenting the film by writing that they were such good actors they were able to piss you off - as they were supposed to in many cases.

User Error Please Try Again

reply

Exactly.

"You'll be taking a soul train straight to a disco inferno where you never can say goodbye!"

reply

I just finished watching the original and I've seen the remake a couple of years ago.
Here are my arguments about which one I liked better:

- Henry Fonda did an excellent job and I feel Jack Lemon was great just as well if not a tad bit more likable.

- I felt Lee J. Cobb's rendition of the character was more powerful but as for the moment when #3 finally switches his vote I prefer the script, acting and overall feel of the scene with Jack Lemon and George C. Scott.

- Mykelti Williamson portrayed the racist juror #10 as revolting and detestable, in other words it was a superb performance and incomparable to the 1957 version, even though I read the actor found the role emotionally draining and completely opposing to his own character.

They are both excellent movies and I would like to see the play live some time if it still plays. I do give just a slight lead to the remake over the original.

reply