Añade un argumento en tu idiomaTwelve men must decide the fate of one when one juror objects to the jury's decision.Twelve men must decide the fate of one when one juror objects to the jury's decision.Twelve men must decide the fate of one when one juror objects to the jury's decision.
- Ganó 2 premios Primetime Emmy
- 7 premios y 22 nominaciones en total
Reseñas destacadas
Whether or not we really needed a remake of the famous Henry Fonda film, updated with a range of nationalities and transferred to television, this is a well-enough done update benefiting from some strong actors in the cast. Jack Lemmon takes on the voice of dissent (the Fonda role), while George C Scott is the redneck extremist (played earlier by Lee J Cobb). We also have Hume Cronyn and Ossie Davis, both fine actors in their eighties or thereabouts by the time this was filmed.
The script has been slightly updated but the premise is the same, all about family betrayals and the head-on reassessment of prejudice. Lemmon in particular is excellent as the quiet reasoner ready to debate the whys and wherefores with his fellow jurors. And Scott is memorable in one of his final roles, simmering on the edge of indignation until the pay off moment when he realises not all his problems can be solved by pinning blame on others.
This shouldn't replace the 50s version but is good enough in its own right to stand alongside it.
The script has been slightly updated but the premise is the same, all about family betrayals and the head-on reassessment of prejudice. Lemmon in particular is excellent as the quiet reasoner ready to debate the whys and wherefores with his fellow jurors. And Scott is memorable in one of his final roles, simmering on the edge of indignation until the pay off moment when he realises not all his problems can be solved by pinning blame on others.
This shouldn't replace the 50s version but is good enough in its own right to stand alongside it.
Like the original 1957 film, this remake is a taut drama. Unlike most remakes, this one is as good as the first. The script still stands up as a gritty revelation of human psychology. The cast is solid, and the characters are more diverse than in the original. Look at both versions and see a study not only in the workings of human nature but also in the workings of script adaptation at its best.
There is no real reason for this movie to exist. The Henry Fonda original is a faultless classic and this movie is basically a scene for scene remake.
BUT.
What makes this redundant movie so unusual? Its brilliant!
This is a fantastic telling of the story.
I will always choose the original to watch but if this came on the tv I would be glued to it.
Perhaps its just the strength of the story. A movie that is essentially 100% character driven and the characters are fascinating.
Either version, you are in for a good time :)
BUT.
What makes this redundant movie so unusual? Its brilliant!
This is a fantastic telling of the story.
I will always choose the original to watch but if this came on the tv I would be glued to it.
Perhaps its just the strength of the story. A movie that is essentially 100% character driven and the characters are fascinating.
Either version, you are in for a good time :)
Nothing about Sidney Lumet's "12 Angry Men" cries out for an update, yet here we are. And it's a pretty good one. And(!) somehow angrier than the original. A dozen character actors fronted by Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott (both ideal choices for their respective roles) and William Friedkin extracts terrific performances from just about everyone. As aesthetics go, it may not be as striking; then again, the handheld camerawork enhances the fly-on-the-wall vibe.
I think this sums it up best: in a bizarre dystopia where the original film no longer exists, this will do nicely. The fundamentals are still intact, the actors are new and interesting, and in that respect, it really does feel like a stage play.
Not bad at all.
I think this sums it up best: in a bizarre dystopia where the original film no longer exists, this will do nicely. The fundamentals are still intact, the actors are new and interesting, and in that respect, it really does feel like a stage play.
Not bad at all.
This TV-movie is truly remarkable. It's a remake of an undeniable classic, and that word usually brings tears to your eyes. Remakes normally are a lame excuse used by uninspired directors to make more money out of a good idea. You know the drill of the average remake: bigger, louder and as less tribute to the original as possible. William Friedkin's take on 12 Angry Men is the exact opposite of all this. It's a modest re-telling of the story but obviously made with endless amounts of professionalism and respect towards the original. Taken up to an even higher level by on of the best ensemble casts of the nineties! All members of the jury are familiar faces and some of them give away the best performances in their entire career. The acting level of the cast during some of the intense discussions and debates almost burns holes in the screens
it's that perfect. A very special word of respect and worship goes out to Jack Lemmon, Hume Cronym and George C. Scott. These 3 late legends of the big screen kept on giving amazing performances till they sadly passed away. May their souls rest in piece, cinema will never forget them. Of course, I can't give this version the honor of being better than the original masterpiece starring Henry Fonda, but nevertheless it's an intense and fascinating courtroom drama that'll leave no soul unharmed. Naturally, one could ask the question if it was really necessary to create an update of 12 Angry Men
the answer to that would be no' of course, but what the heck. Almost every remake, sequel or spin-off is unnecessary, but that doesn't mean they can't be enjoyable.
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesJack Lemmon was nominated for a Golden Globe for his performance, and lost to Ving Rhames. Upon winning, however, Rhames asked Lemmon to join him on stage and presented the award to him. Lemmon declared that the moment was "one of the sweetest in my life."
- PifiasIn the original 1957 script, the defense attorney is referred to several times as 'he'. In the 1997 script, the defense attorney is again referred to as 'he', but, in the opening scene of the 1997 version, the defense attorney who is sitting next to the defendant is a woman. The trial itself isn't shown, so it's possible they may have been talking about an additional male member of the defense that we didn't see in the film.
- Versiones alternativasThe 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray, in addition to adding the extra opening Kino Lorber logo, plaster the MGM logo and closing MGM Television logos with the 2012 variants.
- ConexionesFeatured in The 55th Annual Golden Globe Awards (1998)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
- Is this film a remake of the 1957 film of the same name?
Detalles
- Duración1 hora 57 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta
Principal laguna de datos
By what name was 12 hombres sin piedad: El veredicto (1997) officially released in Canada in English?
Responde