MovieChat Forums > 12 Angry Men (1997) Discussion > only had three issues with this movie (s...

only had three issues with this movie (spoilers)

posted 11 years ago by Aaden
1 reply | jump to latest

1. there's a difference between the 'murderer' not being able to recall the movie he saw hours earlier, and a juror not being able to recall the last name of a b-grade actress in a movie he saw days ago. ridiculous.

2. they never really proved that the 'murderer' didn't bring the knife downwards in a stabbing motion. that was a bit of a stretch. then, i suppose this doesn't matter as we find out later that he may actually not have even done it.

3. the baseball match juror just suddenly admitting that he doesn't think he did it, after all the time he spent declaring how guilty he was. yeah, later on we realise that he didn't really have an opinion either way, and just wanted to get out of there. but i felt that point should have been fleshed out more.

other than that, this was damn near perfect. i picked it up today by accident thinking it was the original, was disappointed but watched it anyway. now i'll really have to see the original, as i'm sure it's gonna be as good, or better than this.

http://s7.zetaboards.com/Pixeleuphoria/index/

[–] Ithilfaen 7 years ago

1. there's a difference between the 'murderer' not being able to recall the movie he saw hours earlier, and a juror not being able to recall the last name of a b-grade actress in a movie he saw days ago. ridiculous.

1) She wasn't a B grade actress. She was nominated for an Oscar for that part in 1997.
2) The point Lemmon's character was trying to make was that under the best of circumstances, it's hard to remember unimportant details about a movie so when your life is on the line and your father (hate him or not) is lying dead next to you, a certain amount of confusion would be expected.

2. they never really proved that the 'murderer' didn't bring the knife downwards in a stabbing motion. that was a bit of a stretch. then, i suppose this doesn't matter as we find out later that he may actually not have even done it.

They didnt have to "prove" it. The mere plausible suggestion of a reasonable doubt is enough. And there was more than just a reasonable doubt about that particular piece of "evidence". The kid had used a knife before, and was used to that kind of knife. If he had been the one killing his father, in anger, he would have probably gutted him or cut his throat and not stabbed like that.

3. the baseball match juror just suddenly admitting that he doesn't think he did it, after all the time he spent declaring how guilty he was. yeah, later on we realise that he didn't really have an opinion either way, and just wanted to get out of there. but i felt that point should have been fleshed out more.

How was it not fleshed out? He just wanted to see his damn game. It's only after he realizes that the game won't happen anyway and that voting guilty doesn't matter that he votes not guilty. What else did you want?

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