It does not make sense to make a remake
of such a good film as of Lumet's. Can anybody who saw the film 40 - 50 years ago like a remake?
shareThe remake is by far and away the superior film. Just because someone else did it first doesn't mean they did it best.
The remake has better acting and pacing and the characters provide a far more accurate representation of what a jury would look like today. Many people complain about the all-male jury, but as a lawyer myself, I can tell you that it is possible, although very rare.
In the original you could tell most of the actors were just reading lines because they had no physical and emotional delivery, almost as if they were performing for an audio recording rather than a visual recreation.
In the remake all the actors seem really into the arguments, the fights, the social and racial tensions rising. It all felt more real.
In the original I felt like I was watchig actors in a film, in the remake I felt I was watching real people bicker and fight over a murder trial.
Dude the original is a classic!! You're points on the movies pacing etc have no credibility since you are a Lawyer and know nothing of the matter. Also the emotional delivery of some of the lines in the original was astounding to say the least. I think you watched the wrong movie or need to rewatch it lol.
shareOf course it's a classic, BUT IMO (and I'm not the only one) this was better made, the acting was as good, if not better. The bits that were updated to modernize things was good. It didn't have those awkward shots like the original where they cut to a single of an actor out of nowhere (ie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqDd06GW76o&t ). They did a lot of handheld camerawork in the "remake", which gave the scenes a little more life.
share