UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

angery20 This remake of a classic simply sucked. The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the director.If I could do a shot by shot, role by role comparison, the major difference is that in this remake the actors are so visibly "ACTING". Each line is freighted with meaning as if it was the most important utterance in theatrical history. The camera angles and lighting all re-enforce these scenery chewing interpretations.For example in the original we have a man commenting on the rain and telling a simple story about losing a football game because of heavy rain. That's it a bit of exposition an almost throw away line of character development. In the remake that same bit is treated as some quasi-mystical life lesson, an epochal moment in time. The character changes from a guy passing time to a bore who thinks the world revolves around his part time job as an assistant football coach.Each and every speech in this remake is treated in the same way. There is not one line small enough that it's not treated with the attention usually reserved to Shakespearian soliloquies.The acting is often bad and that's frequently not the fault of the actors. It's the director that tells the actors to dial it up or down. It's the director that sees the whole picture. The pacing of this remake is amazingly slow and that makes its 117 min run time seem like 3 hours. The original was 96 minutes and was over before you noticed the time.I would love to go into greater detail but that would require I watch this movie again, and that ain't happening.

Michael_Elliott 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. When I say "by the numbers" I really mean it because for some reason this film uses the same story and dialogue from the first film, which really makes no sense but the film is somewhat entertaining even though we've seen it all before. The all-star cast includes Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Tony Danza, Ossie Davis, James Gandolfini and Edward James Olmos. The one interesting change is that four black jurors were added and the way Friedkin uses this is rather interesting in some dialogue about race.

Morten Furuseth After 40 years of 12 angry men in B/W starring Henry Fonda - it was time to try again. Henry F and friends ,- did an excellent job in 1957 , no doubt about it. But this is even better. It has an even more emotional and spirited atmosphere , with even more feelings to each actor. Jack Lemmon is brilliant as the knight and warrior of righteousness and gives his character Davies the exact expressiveness and life that is needed - a bit more than Fonda who was a bit more silent and concerned as a person. Nothing wrong about him - Lemmon does however make his man stronger with a touch of a temper - he can get a little angry an it looks good. It's the best!

roswellian-1 This movie surprised me. I'd seen the original first and adored it, so I was certainly excited to see what they'd done with the remake. Sadly, I was greatly disappointed with the movie. While almost everything played out the same, I had a hard time connecting with or liking any of the characters. Jack Lemmon was boring, and I had a hard time watching the movie till it's end. The movie was entirely too annoying to enjoy how intense a jury deliberation can get. The ending was different than it's predecessor and certainly not better, rather depressing, actually. If you're looking for a good movie depicting the jury system, rent the original. It's far better than it's re-make.