Thanks for the memories!

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Don't Believe the Hype

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

12 Angry Men, the Henry Fonda version made in 1957 has always been my favourite film, due to many factors.I have just watched 12 Angry Men, the 1997 remake, with Jack Lemmon.Being an absolute fan of Henry Fonda, and his own 1957 Produced version, directed by Sidney Lumet, I was not expecting what I experienced on screen. I expected a grossly inferior version.But what I got in the 1997 version is not just great acting from all concerned, but also extra dialogue written by Reginald Rose himself, and because of this extra dialogue, we have not only a longer film, but also a very non politically correct film in the sense that Henry Fonda's version is stiff, and is very politically correct, even if this adds to it's charm.This 1997 version is not stiff. Directed by William Friedkin, it's much broader, notably because the characters are given a broader range of harder hitting dialogue.There is one scene in the 1957 version which hits home to me, it's when Lee J. Cobb is having a go at the old man on the jury, and Edward Binns another juror, steps in and stands up for the old man.In the 1997 version , Soporanos actor, James Gandolfini plays Edward Binns part, but is given more to say.Each character in the 1997 version is given more to say, which adds to the atmosphere of the story.I recommend this 1997 version, because it does stand on its own merit. 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.

Why make another version of this movie? 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. We'll never see the talent of the actors in the room who have since passed-away. In fact, only Jack Klugman (at age 85) is still with us. Other movies seem tailor-made for plays, such as Glengarry Glen Ross. 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). In fact, as I watched each actor, I identified with people I knew who had the same characteristics, such as Jack Warden's wise-ass, or Ed Begley, Sr.'s angry racist or Lee J. Cobb's uptight, high-strung yelling man or any of the other people. I do think that Jack Klugman's role may have been miscast. I didn't necessarily identify with him as a product of the slums. They could have cast a minority for his role but I guess in 1957 all-white, male juries were what was the norm.

These comparison notes resulted from something I've wanted to do for a long time – watching the two "12 angry men" back to back in one sitting. Obviously, a detailed comparison is not feasible with the length limit of IMDb user comments. A small monograph would serve better. Indeed the original movie has been used as material for corporate training courses on relating styles.The following comparison is therefore confined to the cast of the 12 jury members. The big picture was of course an updating of the times – while in 1957, it was an entirely White cast, the remake saw 4 Blacks (1, 2, 5 and 10). But colour is entirely incidental in this movie, as in "Lilies of the field" (1963) in which Sidney Poitier won his Oscar.For Juror #1, Martin Balsam plays a slightly tentative foreman, or at least not as self-assured as Courtney B. Vance's portrayal 40 years later. Both handle the sentimental scene of baseball-in-the-rain quite well.Juror #2, the people-generally-ignore guy, is handled quite differently in the two versions. John Fiedler plays a nerdy little man who can however turn cheeky at the right moment. Ossie Davis' portrayal is an out-and-out grass-root guy that is consistently humble in manner even when the content of his lines could be cheeky, like throwing back things said by Jury #3 right in his face.Juror #3, coincidentally or otherwise, is played by two great actors who both include the middle initial as part of their name. While portrayal of the "bad guy" is similar throughout most of the movie, the finale "breakdown" scene is handled slightly differently. Lee J. Cobb's version is slightly briefer and less emotional, with the breakdown triggered by catching sight of his picture with his son. George C. Scott's portrayal, however, is more emotional with thoughts of his own son triggered when he talks about the accused boy's purported shout to his father "I'm going to kill you". Interesting to note that because of the difference in the gentlemen's age when they took the role, in character in Cobb's case has not seen his son for only 2 years while in Scott's case it's 20 years.Juror #4, the most logical and analytical of the bunch, was played in 1957 by E. G. Marshall, as down-to-earth and dispassionate as the role requires. Armin Mueller-Stahl in 1997 comes across as a little more "academic" and less practical in flavor. Or maybe Marshall's persona for the role has been too firmly ingrained.The man-from-the-slumps, Juror #5 who is the third to change his vote to "not guilty", comes across very much alike in the portrayals by Jack Klugman and Dorian Hare and as I said, the colour difference is just incidental.Juror #6 is the typical blue-collar worker who claims that he "lets the boss do the thinking". But don't be deceived because he is also the one who comes up with the sharp retort to Juror #8 in the washroom, "Suppose we come up with a not guilty verdict and the accused did kill his father." He and Juror #6 change their votes to "not guilty" together, turning the result to a dead even 6-to-6. Ed Binns (a versatile actor who a few years later played a Senator in "Judgment at Nuremberg") plays the role more ore less on face value while James Gandolfini displays just a little more subtle intelligence and authority.Juror #7, the man whose interest is only in catching the baseball game in the evening, is a somewhat superficial character, and the role is handled effectively by Jack Warden and later Tony Danza.Henry Fonda's Juror #8, the hero of the story, makes such a deep and long impression that it's difficult to imagine anyone else playing it. It requires some effort to give Jack Lemmon an unbiased consideration. It seems that Juror #8 forty years later has become more emotional, angrier and louder. Come to think of it, you can say the same thing about the entire mood of the remake, which may simply reflect the change in the times.Juror #9, the "old man", is the first to change his vote to "not guilty" in support of Juror #8's gutsy "gamble". Joseph Sweeney plays this character with such confidence that you'll forget about his age. Hume Cronyn plays it with a little more fragile vulnerability.Juror #10 is the uncontested top ass**** in the story, with prejudice and discrimination written all over him. Ed Begley brings out the cold, dry, contemptible character well. Mykelti Williamson (who plays an excellent "Bubba" in "Forrest Gump"), tackles the character somewhat differently, with a trace of I-don't-really-give-a-sh** resignation that is not seen in Begley's portrayal.Juror #11, the European immigrant watchmaker, the fourth man to change his vote to "not guilty", is a character with matching precision – patience, mannered upbringing, clear sense of right and wrong. Both George Voskovc and Edward James Olmos have done an excellent job, with the latter displaying a touch more of icy coolness.Juror #12 the salesman is well played by both Robert Webber and William L. Peterson in the portrayal of the indecisive character and disinterest in the court case. He, together with Jurors # 1 and 7, are the most "undecided" three, forming the bunch that is the next to change their vote to "not guilty" after the 6/6 split. The remaining 3 are the die-hards.

Some people may not think that this movie is as good as the original version, however, even though there are changes in the script, this movie depicts the view of our society. The cast, language and and scenario are more familiar in our modern world. Many times we get turned off by the black and white movies, just because of the black and white fact, but this movie brings the same idea and at the same time we can relate to the way we live nowadays. The fact that Henry Fonda is still alive to redo this movie is what impresses the most, specially if people watch both versions. The original movie is incredible, may be even better than the 1997 version, but owning both copies and watching them one after the other is a treat for all. Tony Danza was the perfect actor for the role of the baseball fan and the fact the there is a female actress brings more credibility to our times. This movie was printed on DVD in Australia (Region 4) and on VHS in America. Does anyone know if this movie is printed on DVD in USA and Canada (Region 1)? If so, Where could it be purchased? You may mail me at davidtamm@hotmail.com and I would write this information on this site for all interested in purchasing such DVD.