12 Angry Men (1997)

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

You won't be disappointed!

One of my all time favorites.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

This film and its concept are eternal to our political process. In fact, 12 Angry Men should be remade every 10 years...with federal and private funds. Why?It is an insight to our most fundamental democratic process...the JURY. This remake brings to fore our contemporary morals and cultures (and clashes) and is most definitely worth watching not only for it's concept but for the stellar contemporary cast and Billy Friedkin, the director.Just think if were remade again today, with current stars, styles, morals, fashion, new legalities, maybe women on the jury, a few more immigrants, etc.Filmmakers remake and add forever editions (like Friday the 13th), to movies, but this movie ABOVE ALL should be remade. l want to see 12 Angry Men III, made in 2010, NOT 12 Angry zombies.12 Angry Men is America, and is at the heart of our very existence, especially in light of today's political situations.Come on producers let's get 12 Angry Men III the green light for a remake and show it to this generation. The background music could easily be Mellencamp's, "Ain't that America". And it is.

This remake of a classic simply sucked. The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the director.If I could do a shot by shot, role by role comparison, the major difference is that in this remake the actors are so visibly "ACTING". Each line is freighted with meaning as if it was the most important utterance in theatrical history. The camera angles and lighting all re-enforce these scenery chewing interpretations.For example in the original we have a man commenting on the rain and telling a simple story about losing a football game because of heavy rain. That's it a bit of exposition an almost throw away line of character development. In the remake that same bit is treated as some quasi-mystical life lesson, an epochal moment in time. The character changes from a guy passing time to a bore who thinks the world revolves around his part time job as an assistant football coach.Each and every speech in this remake is treated in the same way. There is not one line small enough that it's not treated with the attention usually reserved to Shakespearian soliloquies.The acting is often bad and that's frequently not the fault of the actors. It's the director that tells the actors to dial it up or down. It's the director that sees the whole picture. The pacing of this remake is amazingly slow and that makes its 117 min run time seem like 3 hours. The original was 96 minutes and was over before you noticed the time.I would love to go into greater detail but that would require I watch this movie again, and that ain't happening.

After 40 years of 12 angry men in B/W starring Henry Fonda - it was time to try again. Henry F and friends ,- did an excellent job in 1957 , no doubt about it. But this is even better. It has an even more emotional and spirited atmosphere , with even more feelings to each actor. Jack Lemmon is brilliant as the knight and warrior of righteousness and gives his character Davies the exact expressiveness and life that is needed - a bit more than Fonda who was a bit more silent and concerned as a person. Nothing wrong about him - Lemmon does however make his man stronger with a touch of a temper - he can get a little angry an it looks good. It's the best!

I think remakes are good when it is a good story such as this one, that touches incredibly important issues that have no time. The people, the jurors, calling themselves by their numbers, regardless of their races or creed, have many fears and beliefs in common, and so they have doubts and arguments for each. I didn't know that there was an older version, but I can assure you, I enjoyed greatly the performances of each. Of course one character one likes more than the other but then I put myself in that position and wonder what would I agree on. Also the diversity of ethnic background, which I don't believe was thought of back in the fifties, makes it a better movie to be understood in our times, while even tho the first story must have had the same characters personalities, this one is set on a different man, to show that good morals, ample intelligence and reasonable doubt is human and not belonging to a certain race.