p r e f e r r e d r e v i e w e r s :
 |
 |
|
You haven't selected any preferred reviewers. To learn more about customizing your experience, click here.
|
|
|
 |
 |
o t h e r r e v i e w e r s :
|
|
|
JD [ 5.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Now here's a question. Why bother doing a remake that is EXCATLY the same 40 years later? This film is not updated at all but hey, this one's in COLOR. Lacking any originality whatsoever and having Tony Danza of all people as the lead, this is truly a complete waste of time. There was at least 1 angry man after this was over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Love_Spoon [ 7.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
A worthy modernization of the 1957 classic with a few minor changes. I suppose that's where it's possible to run into difficulty with remakes of great movies-- especially remakes of movies that were based on books or plays. Once Henry Fonda has played Juror #8, it's not difficult to compare Jack Lemmon playing that same role to Fonda, rather than the original character written by Reginald Rose. Lemmon does a great job in either regard, as does George C. Scott as Juror #3. The only think that stuck out in my mind against the film was the use of profanity. There was not a profanity to be found in the 1957 edition, but in the remake, profanity was abundant enough to warrant an R rating. I think it's unfortunate that the script was changed for the worse in that respect. However, the story is great, regardless of the situation, and for this version, deserves a 7.0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edwards [ 7.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
I liked this cast more than the original's. Why is a remake automatically worse than its source? I think this one is actually better, not by much but thanks to a stronger and more intense group of thespians (esp George C. Scott, Jack Lemmon, Armin Muehler-Stahl, Mykelti Williamson, even Tony Danza)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A_Ratliff [ 7.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
A revamped version of Sidney Lumet's 1957 cautionary morality tale, "12 Angry Men"... made for Showtime? Actually, it turned out surprisingly well, considering how good remakes usually are. The movie loses the black-and-white urgency of the original, yes, and it's not as cinematically brilliant. The dialogue seems less crackling among these actors, and the acting itself does not measure up to the titanic skills put forth by the original cast--I mean, can Tony Danza really replace the great Jack Klugman? On the flip side, however, some of the acting is spot-on--witness Jack Lemmon's flawless reworking of Henry Fonda's morally rich character Juror #8, or George C. Scott's tour de force updating of Lee J. Cobb's classic devil's advocate, Juror #3. With the recent death of Jack Lemmon, both Lemmon and Scott have now passed on, and left these crackling performances behind for everyone to enjoy. It's not up to par with the brilliant original, for sure, but it's definitely worth a look.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chapter11 [ 7.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Showtime's remake of Sidney Lumet's classic real-time drama "12 Angry Men" suffers from the same reason Gus Van Sant's 1998 "Psycho" remake did - both beg the question, "WHY?" Why remake "12 Angry Men," especially when little is changed from the original, besides the careless dropping of several profanities and the cast is revamped to actually include African-American performers? Better yet, why watch such a thing? Well, for one, the performances. Though nothing matches the original for raw human drama, "12 Angry Men" boasts several tour-de-force performances, notably George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon perfectly stepping into the shoes filled forty years prior by, respectively, Lee J. Cobb and Henry Fonda. The movie's a good watch, but it doesn't equal the dramatic power of its predecessor - fortunately, strong showings from a classy cast of performers lift "12 Angry Men" from the muck of mediocrity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Weighted Rating | : 7.0 |
| No. Ratings | : 16 | |
| No. Reviews | : 9 | |
|
|
|
|