12 Angry Men

Plot synopsis:
In a New York City courthouse a jury commences deliberating the case of an 18-year-old boy from a slum, on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. If there is any reasonable doubt they are to return a verdict of not guilty. If found guilty, the boy will receive a death sentence.
In a preliminary vote, all jurors vote "guilty" except Juror 8, who argues that the boy deserves some deliberation. This irritates some of the other jurors, who are impatient for a quick deliberation, especially Juror 7 who has tickets to the evening's Yankee game and Juror 10, who demonstrates blatant prejudice against people from slums. Juror 8 questions the accuracy and reliability of the only two witnesses and the prosecution's claim that the murder weapon, a common switchblade (of which he possesses an identical copy), was "rare." Juror 8 argues that reasonable doubt exists and that he therefore cannot in conscience vote "guilty," but concedes that he has merely hung the jury.
Juror 8 suggests a secret ballot, from which he will abstain and agrees to change his vote if the others unanimously vote "guilty". The ballot is held and a new "not guilty" vote appears. An angry Juror 3 accuses Juror 5, who grew up in a slum, of changing his vote out of sympathy towards slum children. However, Juror 9 reveals it was he that changed his vote, agreeing there should be some discussion. Juror 8 argues that the noise of a passing train would have obscured the verbal threat that one witness claimed to have heard the boy tell his father "I'm going to kill you". Then, Juror 5 changes his vote. Juror 11 also changes his vote, believing the boy would not likely have tried to retrieve the murder weapon from the scene if it had been cleaned of fingerprints.
Jurors 5, 6 and 8 question the witness's claim to have seen the defendant fleeing 15 seconds after hearing the father's body hit the floor, since he was physically incapable of reaching an appropriate vantage point in time due to a stroke. An angry Juror 3 shouts that they are losing their chance to "burn" the boy. Juror 8 accuses him of being a sadist. Jurors 2 and 6 change their votes, tying the vote at 6–6.
Then, a rainstorm strikes the city, threatening to cancel the game for which Juror 7 has tickets. Juror 4 doubts the boy's alibi of being at the movies, because he could not recall it in much detail. Juror 8 tests how well Juror 4 remembers previous days, which he does, with difficulty. Juror 2 questions the likelihood that the boy, who was more than half a foot shorter than his father, could have inflicted the downward stab wound found in the body. Next, Jurors 3 and 8 conduct an experiment to see whether a shorter person could stab downwards on a taller person. The experiment proves the possibility but Juror 5 steps up and demonstrates the correct way to hold and use a switchblade; revealing that anyone skilled with a switchblade, as the boy would be, would always stab underhanded at an upwards angle against an opponent who was taller than them, as the grip of stabbing downwards would be too awkward and the act of changing hands too time consuming.
Increasingly impatient, Juror 7 changes his vote to hasten the deliberation, which earns him the ire of Jurors 3 and 11, both on opposite sides of the debate until Juror 7 admits that he truly believes the boy is not guilty. Then, Jurors 12 and 1 change their votes, leaving only three dissenters: Jurors 3, 4 and 10. Juror 10 vents a torrent of condemnation of slum-born people, claiming they are no better than animals who kill for fun. Most of the others turn their backs to him, except for Juror 4, who says to him 'sit down and don't open your mouth again' he then humiliatingly sit downs in a corner by himself.
When the remaining "guilty" voters are pressed to explain themselves, Juror 4 states that, despite all the previous evidence, the woman from across the street who saw the killing still stands as solid evidence. Juror 12 then reverts his vote, making the vote 8–4.
Juror 9, seeing Juror 4 rub his nose (which is being irritated by his glasses), realizes that the woman who allegedly saw the murder had impressions in the sides of her nose, indicating that she wore glasses, but did not wear them in court out of vanity. Other jurors, including Juror 4, confirm that they saw the same thing. Juror 8 adds that she would not have been wearing them while trying to sleep and points out that on her own evidence the attack happened so swiftly that she wouldn't have had time to put them on. Jurors 12, 10 and 4 change their vote to "not guilty", leaving only Juror 3. Juror 3 gives a long and increasingly tortured string of arguments, building on earlier remarks that his relationship with his own son is deeply strained, which is ultimately why he wants the boy to be guilty. He finally loses his temper and tears up a photo of him and his son, but suddenly breaks down crying and changes his vote to "not guilty", making the vote unanimous. Outside, Jurors 8 (Davis) and 9 (McCardle) exchange names and all of the jurors descend the courthouse steps to return to their individual lives.

Tags: murder

Review:
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).
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.
Edward James Olmos is supposed to play "the foreigner," but Armin Mueller-Stahl, the man playing the wealthy and dignified Juror #4, speaks with a very noticeable German accent.Even though I wanted to avoid it, I think I will do a point-by-point critique of the actors' performances based on how their characters were designed and based, somewhat, on the nearly flawless performances in the 1957 classic: Juror #1 - Courtney B.
It's just that everyone else is too old and it makes him look young.) Juror #10 - Okay, Mykelti Williamson simply does not cut it when it comes to Ed Begley's original, hateful bigot.
Also, a few of the roles in the remake are badly miscast (Tony Danza and Ozzie Davis both come to mind).I'd give this version 6/10 and the original gets a 10/10 from me..
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.
I just finished watching the 1957 version and I admit it seems like a play (and probably was developed originally as a play since it basically takes place in one room) and it was also broadcast live during the heyday of the golden years of television.
I'm not sure if the casting was simply dead-on or the actors happened to nail the roles they had or a combination, but each person seems very well-suited to his role and it's hard not to get wrapped up in the dialog and the general pace of the movie (as though you were peering into the jury room through a peephole).
Scott presage their conflicts in the later made-for-TV remake Inherit the Wind as the two jurors who refuse to budge from their convictions that a murder case does and does not have reasonable doubt attached to it, respectively.As with the original, 12 Angry Men is really an ensemble piece, the first American example of avant-garde filmmaking on a mass scale; with the exception of a few brief flashes at beginning and end, the film takes place in two adjoining rooms, a jury room and a men's room, allowing the director no scenic latitude at all and forcing him to concentrate on the actors themselves.
The producers do deserve some credit for making the rabid reactionary racist a black muslim thereby saving the viewer from some patronizing PC garbage but at the end of the day the original movie didn`t need remaking and this TVM proves it.
But the tension and suspense that is created within the single jury room is more than most high budget suspense-thillers I see today.I really reccomend this movie to people who haven't seen the original and to those who have.
But what do you call a movie which also includes (1) extremely stereo-typed and implausible characters (take a look at the former Nation of Islam member who behaves like he's from Mars), (2) a plot which you can see coming from miles away (surprise: a one-to-eleven vote changes into twelve-to-nil) and (3) a disclosure of 'evidence gaps' which is an insult for the intelligence of the viewer (none of the jurors even considers the option that an eye-witness will not need her *reading glasses* to see a murder at a 10 meters distance).
12 Angry Men (1997) ** 1/2 (out of 4) By the numbers remake from director William Friedkin tells the same story as the original film.
12 angry men the original is a true masterpiece, this remake is just a fine picture, supported by the amazing casting as Jack Lemmon.
Scott, Ossie Davis, Hume Cronyn and Armin Mueller Stahl, the atmosphere looks like almost the same, but lose the first impact to the viewers over the original, therefore stay clear that this remake was some steps behind, still has a psychological approach of human nature, when someone has to decided just by first impression given on the courthouse, by simply facts, without proper consideration, this picture was a warning for those who are in charge to decided between life and death!!!Resume:First watch: 2019 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 8.
And I have my reasons to think the original is one of the best films of all time, while this is just a decent movie I'll never see again.I think one of the main weak spots is the atmosphere, it would require less illumination, less space around the table, a more maintained jury room, a more claustrophobic kind of look.
Scott and Jack Lemmon, especially the latter (on his golden years, with Wilder).The director completely misunderstands the original concepts such as camera-actor positioning relation, the pronunciation of certain iconic phrases such as "but not very probable" (spoken by E.G. Marshall), "I don't know, I'm guessing" (spoken by Henry Fonda), "I'm one of them" (spoken by Lee. J.
The original movie is a unique, irreplicable work of art, while the remake looks like a fine stage representation that was casually recorded.There where some good things and improvements:
But, despite the huge quality gap, the remake also shows us that the original script by Reginald Rose is timeless and even 40 years later, it feels fresh and new, and with good performances, it prevents the film from being mediocre..
His starlight had faded a little when he remade in 1997 the iconic "one-room" drama that made a name out of Sidney Lumet and proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that you could thrill without dangers, and inspire without any fanfare.You don't necessarily make a second masterpiece by remaking one, but "12 Angry Men" is a good remake of a great film, which makes it a great made-for-TV program by proxy.
Or it's much simpler: the original film was also a version made after the play and the TV program, and there always was Reginald Rose's brilliant study of justice through characters handling, questioning and applying it with all their differences, biases and personalities.Because that's what the story is about: characters, the reason why the big screen provided the best version is because of the casting.
Still there were no women, no ethnic people (the accused was), it was a "typical" jury room of the 50s that could have inspired a Portman-line introduction going like: "and the 12 Angry WHITE Men are..."Of course, the remake escapes from the initial "bias" since it features four black actors (Courtney B.
He's obviously a member of the Black Nation brotherhood, not an Arab but it's eerie how the one hateful character was representing a culture that wouldn't be much appreciated four years later.I wish I could blame it on the casting choice but by intellectual honesty and given how powerful was Williamson's performance (his angry mumbling at "facts" would almost be funny if it wasn't so scary), I will blame it on the people who gave the negative images through actions.
Scott would win the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor in a TV Production, Lemmon lost to Ving Rhames who gave him the award and contributed to what Lemmon called "the sweetest moment of his life".I wish I could find an interesting correlation with the overall racial content of the film, but if only for that beautiful gesture coming a few years before Lemmon's death, I'm glad Friedkin remade "12 Angry Men" and cast the great Jack Lemmon..
It's very strong because the point of view of the film is precisely what is said about the act, and not its nature.January 12, 2017 - I just saw the 1957 version of Sydney Lumet with the splendid Henry Fonda.Surprised: I find that the version of William Friedkin of 1997 is better than that of 1957.
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..
It is far from boring though, for they all raise some very interesting points to consider when convicting a man accused of a crime.The movie opens in the courtroom for just a brief moment as the attorneys are both resting their case and the judge is instructing the jury to deliberate.
After many heated confrontations with the rest of the jury, juror #eight still insists that the young man may be innocent.The critical intention in this movie can come off in different ways.
I believe it does.I have seen both the classic 1957 movie with Henry Fonda and the 1997 remake with Jack Lemmon.
which is already a remake of the play filmed for TV by Sidney Lumet)This remake was the opportunity to correct some of the details of the Reginald Rose one, such as the discussion about the motives of the crime, or to make George C Scott older.All that could be criticised or praised, this to my mind improved it a little bit, but above all I would say the second one (well, I actually saw it first) is more realistic, more human than the first one, probably because of this wider range of race and social background of the jury.Well, it just changed my life and the way I look at others (at Tony Danza definitely, but in fact at any person I meet).
You will, however, be more than satisfied with the excellent, powerful acting, superb writing and great directing in this movie.I've not seen the original 1957 version with Henry Fonda, but I certainly intend to at first opportunity..
I have not seen the original and can therefore unfortunately not say how they compare, and the script seems like something that might have started out as a stage play, for which it would also work brilliantly.The idea of a film including only the discussion between jurors of a small and seemingly insignificant trial, might seem a boring one at first glance.
But, no, this turns out to be a film spanning the foundations of justice, and browsing on important subjects of prejudice due to race and age, as well as containing a critique of a society where impatience has become all too common, and the life of a single person as well as the conscience of all hangs in the balance.I'd recommend this film for its brilliant cast and acting alone, but it has a story that really grips you, and you cannot watch this for long without starting to feel you are also there in that room, a part of the discussion, and not just watching a movie..
The storyline is very true to the original which shows respect for a great movie and the only real need to remake this classic is due to the changing times, so hopefully the younger generation can watch and learn as I did..
When I first saw 12 Angry men I said oh this is going to be a A+ to me it made me feel as if I was sitting right at the table with each an everyone of them Jack was just a snap of the finger the way he just set there listening to the rest of the 11 Jury men I mean the man he told it just like he heard it he didn't set there an run his mouth at the start he set there listening to the 11 an then he jumps right in with the best of his self not only with words but he acts out what he really believes happen..
Scott in his 40s or 50s.As in the original, a number of the characters had so little to do or say that I found it didn't matter to me in the slightest who the actors in this version were and since most of them were now being played by African-Americans, it seemed more like tokenism than anything else.
Vance, James Gandolfini, Ossie Davis (was he trying to channel John Fiedler's nebbish demeanor??) and Dorian Harewood could have easily been played by other actors (or even actresses, had the movie been called "Twelve Angry Men and Women").
If the racial and age diversity of this cast was meant to be politically correct or reflective of society, it would have been better served in a film which used that diversity to full advantage and, in cases like Scott's and, to a lesser degree, Jack Lemmon's (whose Davis seemed bored and tired half the time compared to Henry Fonda's deeply compassionate and thoughtful portrayal), one wishes, as I mentioned earlier, that these actors had been about 20 years younger.
It has definitely made its way into one of my all time favorites.I have not seen the original film, but as to some of the comments regarding poor acting in this movie - I didn't think it was at all evident.
It takes an actor of Lemmon's class to be able to achieve the same quality.The strongest points about the remake when set against the original are Friedkin's direction - starkly different from Lumet's, although not nearly so ground-breaking - and the Mykelti Williamson character.
The casting for this movie is great and includes many familiar actors like Tony Danza, Edward James Olmos, Courtney B.
The twelve actors brought a freshness and an integrity to the play and which did not for a moment make me pause and think that Jack Warden was more of a sport lout than Tony Danza (but who can forget Jack shooting the ball of paper at the fan), or that Lee J Cobb played the bully better than George C Scott, Robert Webber a slicker ad-man than William Petersen.
This is a production that updates the superior original film with its all white cast to the present with mixed race actors, each of whom shades the interpretation of their dialogue as members of the multitude of ethnicities, nationalities, creeds, ages, and ideologies that comprise modern American society.In finely tuned performances which brings vitality to the story of men locked in life-altering judgement of a young man accused of patricide, the cast performs with give and take of mature actors, each of whom is capable of holding the screen individually.
Twelve Angry Men is a superior remake of an outstanding original film.
On the opposite end, in one of his finest roles: Jack Lemmon and Hume Cronyn.I liked that this film allowed elderly men to be brilliant.
Jack Lemmon replaces Henry Fonda as the good juror #8, the late great George C.
This was the tv movie version of 12 angry men, this first came out 40 years before this one in 1957, starring Jack Klugman and the other actors who i can't remember.
This version, like the 1957 film, both based on a play, shows by means of a fictitious jury deliberation how any juror's interpretation of evidence might be influenced by his own personal problems and prejudices.
I remember being a little kid, watching the original version of 12 Angry Men on TV thinking this is one of the best movies I'd ever seen.Then I heard they were re-making it for TV and I thought, "no way, the magic of this movie just can't be replicated."Of course it couldn't.
Reginald Rose has tweaked here and there with his original teleplay, comtemporizing the trial and the twelve angry men, but, ultimately it's the same movie...in colour.That said, it isn't a bad film, and is thoroughly watchable, with some fine performances and sparking dialogue.
I've never seen the 1954 original in which Bob Cummings played Juror #8, (The Fonda/Lemmon role).
He wins this one big and it's a big win for the old film.Juror #4: In the original this man is played by the wonderful  EG Marshall, who would go on to star in Rose's `The Defenders'.
CSI's William Peterson doesn't make much of an impression the remake, (except that he's put on a lot of weight in seven years).So, I'll take Cobb, Binns, Fonda, Begley and Webber from the 1957 film and Vance, Davis, Mueller-Stahl, Harewood and Cronyn from the 1997 TV Movie, with the other two positions a tie.
I didn't watched the original version of this movie, but I liked very much this version,so I guess the first one is so great or even better then this one.(I will watch it eventually) 12 jurors need to conclude if a boy accused to have killed his father, is guilty or non guilty.
As much as I like Lemmon, Fonda delivered a more captivating performance; oddly, I found Scott did the same, but for the last version of the film.The things that were noticeable in this remake, when comparing to the original, are: 1-The jury room is slightly bigger, not much but it is noticeable.
As does the 1957 version.Two great movies based on a stage play by Reginald Rose, of how one man, refuses to go along with the other jurors, and takes a stand and just wants to talk, because it's "just possible" that the boy is "not guilty".EXCELLENT..
With the exception of a decided lack of female jurors, I think the jury in the remake was more representative of what you would expect to see in a modern day jury (the original could have just as easily been called "Twelve Angry White Men".
I have viewed both versions of this film, and both have merit, although I like the original better.
The part of the dissenting juror, Henry Fonda in the original and Jack Lemmon here, would take on a new dimension if it were played by a woman.