12 Angry Men

I have enjoyed the original about 3 or 4 times. I still haven't seen the remake, but may one of these days. As fiction, it's a pretty good story, but it has very little to do with reality.

I didn't realize it was a remake, but thought it was fantastic. Damn near missed a plane because I couldn't not see the end. I now look forward to seeing the original. I'll get back to you when I have.

I thought the original was brilliant in many ways. I thought the remake was good--not great. Perhaps one of the reasons why I wasn't crazy about the remake was the the original make such an indelible impression on me.

Watching it yesterday was like seeing it for the first time, altho' I do remember Henry Fonda in the original b/w film. I don't remember any of the other actors, tho.

EOE: That was a great ensemble in the remake, but I am partial to the original. I just couldn't see anyone other than Henry Fonda in the role and perhaps I preferred it because it made such an impression on me at the time I saw it. But then, I haven't seen a remake of a film that I thought was better than the original yet. :wink: The original cast included Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, Jack Klugman, E. G. Marshall, Jack Warden and Martin Balsam, all great character actors.

One of the few times a remake makes it to the caliber of the original -- fascinating to watch both for the actor's interpretation of the roles and I agree that Tony Danza delivers a remarkable performance.

I like 'em both but actually prefer the remake. No special reason, I just do.

The actor who plays the angry black man, I forget his name but he was Bubba in forest Gump, is exceptional in his part, as is George c Scott.

Mykelti Williams played the angry black man. Gives you some insight to his range, huh? From a sweet and softhearted man like Bubba to a loudmouthed, impatient, dishonorable character like the one he played in 12 Angry Men.
One thing I really like about the remake, without even revisiting the original, is the mix of different races of men. That really fired things up.

Yeah when the hispanic actor, another well known character actor whose name escapes me, flared up after being so softspoken that was very effective.....

Edward James Olmos. "Miami Vice' of all places!

You can also catch Olmos on PBS's "American Famil," an excellent dramatic series and it's broadcast in HDTV.

In grade 8 our English teacher showed us the movie in class. I think there was a small discussion amongst ourselves about how ridiculous it seemed that Jack Lemmon could get a knife (and a particular knife that resembled the suspect's knife) into the jury room (when he stabbed it onto the table). We didn't finish the entire movie though.

daleliop, The movie was originally set many years ago--the sixties? You could get anything into a court or jury room back in those days. Now just to get into the court house you are scanned, searched, checked, and possibly frisked. Ah, the good old days.

Roberta: 12 Angry Men was made in 1957. Now, those were the "good ole days" - those Golden Fifties, with a few Forties thrown in for good measure.

But the version dale is speaking of is the remake with Jack Lemmon, set in present day. Correct? It was released in 1997. You may have pointed put a glaring mistake, dale. I mean, GLARING, remembering metal detectors in government buildings back in the 80's.

I've never seen the Jack Lemmon remake, but I've seen the Henry Fonda version several times. And as a lawyer, I gotta' say that "Twelve Angry Men" drives me nuts. No question, the acting in the film is superb, but the film depicts what is, in effect, a runaway jury. Fonda's character, for instance, brings in that knife: that's clearly improper, and would immediately necessitate a mis-trial. Likewise, the jury considers inferences from evidence that were unsupported by the trial testimony. For instance, the fact that one of the witnesses was near-sighted (a fact not adduced in the trial) may have been a good guess on Fonda's part, but it was not supported by any testimony and should not have been considered by the jury.

I usually give films that deal with the legal system a good deal of leeway (I think "The Verdict" is a terrific film, even though its conclusion is marred by an obvious procedural error), but I just can't get over the mistakes in "Twelve Angry Men." I only hope that, if I were on trial for my life, I'd get a jury that wasn't like the one in that film.

EDIT: corrected a grammatical error

I can't remember the original and never saw the end of the remake.What was the final verdict?

Not guilty.

They found him not guilty? That's just the jury I'd want. People willing to stand up, speak out and go against the rest of the room.