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.Twelve men must decide the fate of one when one juror objects to the jury's decision.
- Won 2 Primetime Emmys
- 7 wins & 22 nominations total
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
10lib-4
Watching this movie was like peeling an onion- the more it progressed the more the heart of the real matter was revealed. The ideas this movie fosters- the certainty that everyone enters the jury room with a hidden agenda were proven. Most of all it brings to light the fact that justice and money are connected. I was in awe of both Jack Lemmon and Hume Cronyn- how they were men of courage. Though the whole movie is set in a jury room it never lacks for tension and action. This movie should be required for every person who ever has to serve on a jury.
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 version of 12 Angry Men is certainly worth seeing, but it does not come close in overall excellence to the original film with Henry Fonda. Jack Lemon does a credible job here but it is certainly not his best work. George C. Scott is excellent as he plays the last holdout in a jury room. If you really want a treat, see the 1957 film version with Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Beagly, Jack Warden, Martin Balsam and E.G. Marshall. The debut direction of Sidney Lumet is simply outstanding making use of unique and effective camera angles and close-ups.Much of what this TV version lacked was better direction. It is pretty hard to improve on perfection though.
Did you know
- TriviaJack 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."
- GoofsIn 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.
- Alternate versionsThe 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.
- ConnectionsFeatured in The 55th Annual Golden Globe Awards (1998)
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 57m(117 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content