12 Angry Men (1997)

Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott lead another troupe of players in that classic about men on a jury in a capital case 12 Angry Men. As I said in my review of the original film, it's a wonderfully acted but inherently flawed classic.It's been updated somewhat as the original dozen were 12 angry white men. No women, but that would compromise the title. At one time just being a woman was an automatic out. Here we have Mykleti Williamson, Courtney B. Vance, Ossie Davis, and Dorian Harewood on the jury.The fault with the first is repeated here. No way to get around it, the moment was a dramatic high point. Jack Lemmon in the Henry Fonda part announces to his fellow deliberaters that he visited the neighborhood of the crime and produces the exact same make and model of the switchblade weapon used in the murder.Sorry folks, but it is still standard jury instructions that jurors NEVER visit the scene of the crime or the neighborhood of same. And you never do ANY independent investigating. When Lemmon produces that switchblade an immediate mistrial should have been called. Besides how did he get it through the metal detectors?This version of 12 Angry Men, still wonderfully acted and directed, still inherently flawed.

January 3, 2017 - There are movies that remind you why you love movies.The deliberations of a jury in the case of a homicide: a young man with a difficult course is accused of the murder of his violent father. From the beginning, the case seems clear: the son is guilty because everything accuses him. A first round of voting is requested. All vote "guilty" except one man. Thus begins a discussion of one hour and fifty which will reveal the reasons for the act, the unresolved issues of the investigation, the various motives of the members of the jury. Everything happens, everything explodes because of a single individual who did not say "guilty". A man who wanted to know more, because he was not convinced in his soul and conscience of the guilt of the young man. As simple as it is, 12 Angry Men is an exceptional story, which tells so much about the human, his social relationships, his relationship to the truth, what he believes to be the truth, the interference of personal experiences in his perceptions and on the strength of doubt and dialogue. The 1997 version by William Friedkin (The Exorcist, French Connection, Sorcerer, To Live and Die in LA, ...) is splendid. 2 hours of dialogue in a closed room that keeps you in suspense, you have to do it. The plot focuses on the arguments and gives no conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. 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. Longer than 20 minutes, better staged, better characters, the tension is more palpable. But seeing the one from 1957, I remember that I clearly felt the progress of the tension thanks to the very subtle work of Friedkin's camera. If you look at it (look at it!), Observe when it is tight or wide, when it moves the camera or not and how the Fa4on to show the scene influences the emotional intensity. I just saw it for the fourth time in 6 months and I do not get tired.It reminds me that this great director and not known assz has made a better remake of another classic, the Salary of Fear. His version is called in French The Convoy of Fear (or Sorcerer in VO) and it is extraordinary. Re-released on DVD / Blu-Ray recently thanks to its status of cult film.Decidedly this guy is an unknown genius. He has to his credit a flop of intriguing and sometimes disturbing films.Praise of doubt: faced with 11 certainties, 1 man gives a doubt and that will save the accused. Jack Lemmon, the ordinary and modest man who said no.This story seems to me very important in our time when the media is on the alert because of the explosion of information sharing methods. We must more than ever be cautious when appearances, labels, reputations. We must never believe, we must examine, always. Alain -

this remake of the 1957 classic is actually pretty good.it doesn't have the same impact or resonance of the original,but it is good int it's own right.just like in the original,there are some fine actors here.Courtney B. Vance,William Petersen,Ossie Davis,George C. Scott,Armin Mueller-Stahl(who has never turned in a bad performance,even in a bad movie)and jack Lemmon are just a few of the brilliant performers here.there is only one weak link. and for me,that would be Tony Danza.he just seems out of his league here.although it wasn't necessary to remake the classic version(since there was no way to improve on it)at least they didn't butcher the material.for me,Twelve Angry men is a 7/10

The first time I watched this was in grade 11 English.I am a big fan of William Petersen so when I heard he was in it, I assumed it would be a good movie...but good is such an understatement. It's one of the best movies I've ever seen. It makes you get down to the core of it all and really think.It's like you're actually there, part of the jury. This movie was so real, so dramatic. I was never really into the whole "law and oder" thing but this movie changed everything. I have now seen the movie over 5 times and it never gets old. If you haven't already seen it you have to check it out.