12 Angry Men (1997)
Genre: Drama
Duration: 117 minuten
Country:
United States
Directed by: William Friedkin
Stars: Jack Lemmon, James Gandolfini and George C. Scott
IMDb score:
7,8 (20.794)
Releasedate: 17 August 1997
12 Angry Men plot
Twelve judges of the court are about to judge a man. Juror 8 is the only one of the group to vote innocent. This is the beginning of arguments and reasons why the man should or should not be guilty. Remake of the 1957 classic of the same name.
Actors and actresses
Foreman
Juror 2
Juror 3
Juror 4
Juror 5
Juror 6
Juror 7
Juror 8
Juror 9
Juror 10
Reviews & comments
Movsin
-
- 8286 messages
- 8442 votes
Let's put it this way: with such a data and a set of excellent actors it is difficult to make a bad film.
Was the original from 1957 breathtaking, this remake can hardly beat it, which is quite an achievement and if I ever thought that Henry Fonda was unapproachable in the role of the dissenting judge, now I want to work after Jack Lemmon have seen, however, nuance this opinion.
Needless to say, "12 Angry Men" clearly highlights the fragility of testimonials.
Translated from Dutch · View original
Aapje81
-
- 2227 messages
- 5200 votes
Never seen the original, but this version is definitely not bad. The acting level is high and the dialogues are strong. Watching from start to finish. For enthusiasts, the Family Guy parody is a recommendation.
Good
PS Now on display on AMC
Translated from Dutch · View original
FlorisV
-
- 1859 messages
- 798 votes
Strong movie. Although slightly less good, he is reminiscent of Glengarry Glenn Ross, also actually a play that has been made into a feature film with top actors. Friedkin is a gifted director who gets the most out of his players. Despite the fact that the film is of course extremely talkative and does not have a lot of dynamics, it continues to fascinate.
It's also nice to think about and discuss at the end of such a film what you would have voted yourself as a jury member.
And what would I vote for? Guilty. what???? Why??? Some will shout indignantly. Pretty simple. I would never so easily reject a witness statement as is happening here. A witness will not know all the details exactly, how long it took, what time was it exactly, etcetera. But seeing a murder is something you don't forget. And why testify (you are under oath and commit a serious crime by lying in court as a witness) to something you didn't see, at the risk of a serious jail sentence?
In fact, I personally see the entire film as an argument against the jury system, but also as an argument against the manipulative rhetoric in the courtroom. How easily people can change position like a ping pong ball. Something the movie itself makes partly clear, but don't forget how manipulative movies themselves can be...the arguments I mention have not been mentioned because then the plot might not have had the desired climax. The role of emotion that reigns, above reason, is certainly discussed, but also only when it suits the maker. I found the film too captivating to make too much of a point. It provides plenty of food for thought, is well written and very well played.
Translated from Dutch · View original
Trending Movies
Corporate & Media
Realtimes Network
Innovatieweg 20C
7007 CD, Doetinchem, Netherlands
+31(315)-764002
