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
A young man(Douglas Spain) is accused of murder. It is a hot summer day in a jury room. Most of the jurors have better things to do, and want to get out of there. One man, Juror #8(Jack Lemmon), decides not to jump to conclusions. He uses reason and logic to help prove to the other jurors that there is a reasonable doubt, and there is not enough evidence to convict this man. Juror #8 has to convince a bigot, Juror #10(Mykelti Williamson), a man who refuses to admit he may be wrong, Juror #4(Armin Mueller-Stahl), a man who has something against young people, Juror #3(George C. Scott), and a man who just wants to get out of there, even if it means making an unjust choice, Juror #7(Tony Danza).
Lemmon, Scott, Williamson, Stahl, and even Danza put on great performances. This is an exception to the rule that remakes can't be great. This was a brilliant film. Like in the original, tempers flare as it is a hot day and there is no air conditioner. William L. Petersen, Edward James Olmos, Hume Cronyn, James Gandolfini, Dorian Harewood, Ossie Davis, and Courtney B. Vance all play as jurors too. Every juror does a great job. Every character has a story and view point.
If you liked the classic or play, you should definitely see this remake. I strongly recommend this movie. 10/10
Lemmon, Scott, Williamson, Stahl, and even Danza put on great performances. This is an exception to the rule that remakes can't be great. This was a brilliant film. Like in the original, tempers flare as it is a hot day and there is no air conditioner. William L. Petersen, Edward James Olmos, Hume Cronyn, James Gandolfini, Dorian Harewood, Ossie Davis, and Courtney B. Vance all play as jurors too. Every juror does a great job. Every character has a story and view point.
If you liked the classic or play, you should definitely see this remake. I strongly recommend this movie. 10/10
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 is possibly the most watchable crime film of all time. It is quite difficult to separate it from the 1957 original, though it is set more to a 1990's audience, in terms of social thought, and mannerisms.
Jack Lemmon, and George C. Scott excel in this tele-movie, as two men of principle, both acting on there instincts and trying to arrive at the correct verdict, for a young man on trial for murder. We dont see the actual trial, the murder, or the lawyers, we instead have to rely on the discussions of the jurors to get an understanding of the events.
I dont know of many movies where you are kept on the edge of your seat for the entire film, but this is one of them. The remarkable fact is that the movie is limited to just one room, and virtually no props or special effects. Whether you have seen the original or not, this film will not disappoint. With a supporting cast of Armin Mueller Stahl, and Edward James Almos, this movie has no real weak points.
Jack Lemmon, and George C. Scott excel in this tele-movie, as two men of principle, both acting on there instincts and trying to arrive at the correct verdict, for a young man on trial for murder. We dont see the actual trial, the murder, or the lawyers, we instead have to rely on the discussions of the jurors to get an understanding of the events.
I dont know of many movies where you are kept on the edge of your seat for the entire film, but this is one of them. The remarkable fact is that the movie is limited to just one room, and virtually no props or special effects. Whether you have seen the original or not, this film will not disappoint. With a supporting cast of Armin Mueller Stahl, and Edward James Almos, this movie has no real weak points.
If you have seen the original "12 Angry Men," it's hard not to classify this film as inferior. The acting was better, the cinematography was better, the pace was faster. The cast in the remake is talented, just not as talented. Even the great George C. Scott couldn't quite measure up to Lee J. Cobb. Even the great Jack Lemmon couldn't compare to Henry Fonda. The only actor I felt was an improvement was Mykelti Williamson, who delivers a powerful and disturbing speech towards the end. I see him in mostly small, supporting roles, where he doesn't really get to show off his talent. In this film, Williamson gets the chance to flaunt his overlooked acting chops. One actor who I felt was a big step down was Tony Danza, who doesn't measure up at all to Jack Warden. Danza does an OK job, but dramatic acting isn't his forte. Sitcom acting is his strongsuit. Edward James Olmos does a fine job, but it took time getting over his phony accent. That's right, he's been in this country so long that his Latino accent sounds phony.
Nevertheless, the acting is good and the film really muscles up during the third act. If the director sped up the pace and the camerawork wasn't as clumsy, this could've been a much more compelling film. But to be fair, it's a tough job measuring up to the original. We've all seen and heard much of the dialogue (which is almost word-for-word from the original script, only with a few obscenities, one racial slur and modern references like "Fat Albert" added), so hearing it again is like listening to a stand-up comedian using his old material. Funny stuff, but we've heard it before. Only a good comedian will usually maintain a good delivery of the joke, while the delivery of some of the old dialogue is limp this time around.
My score: 7 (out of 10)
Nevertheless, the acting is good and the film really muscles up during the third act. If the director sped up the pace and the camerawork wasn't as clumsy, this could've been a much more compelling film. But to be fair, it's a tough job measuring up to the original. We've all seen and heard much of the dialogue (which is almost word-for-word from the original script, only with a few obscenities, one racial slur and modern references like "Fat Albert" added), so hearing it again is like listening to a stand-up comedian using his old material. Funny stuff, but we've heard it before. Only a good comedian will usually maintain a good delivery of the joke, while the delivery of some of the old dialogue is limp this time around.
My score: 7 (out of 10)
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.
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
- Runtime1 hour 57 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content