George C.Scott
Added 10/25/2009
A much better version than the original with Henry Fonda; however Fonda's portrayal of the same character was much better than Lemmon's. But, if you turn off the movie there you've missed a lot. Even though this version is initially slow moving, it eventually picks up pace, and gives a more identifiable and current flare to the 1950's version. George C. Scott's performance is simply masterful and proves he still has it late in the game!!! One star better than the 1950's version.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Where's the DVD?
Added 6/23/2009
This is the only remake that I know of that is superior to the original. Don't get me wrong, I own the original and it is an excellent movie with superb acting. But this remake is better. The acting is better, the dialogue is better and the small updates in the script make it more realistic - especially regarding the race issue. My only complaint is that I have now waited 10 years for this to be released on DVD.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A little to "COLORFUL"!
Added 12/31/2008
The cast in this film was not the best, don't get me wrong George C. Scott, Jack Lemmon, & Hume Cronyn are wonderful in this movie, but the rest of the cast was not very good at all. As for it being to "COLORFUL" it had to many African Americans and they were very rude to the white cast in the film. I think your best sticking with original from '57 with Henry Fonda. If your just buying it for the reasons I did for George C. Scott, Jack Lemmon, & Hume Cronyn you'll like their acting only they are the only 3 good preformers in the film.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Will it be '57 or '97? Both perhaps?
Added 12/3/2008
'57 is a classic par excellence, but '97 does offer some interesting new features. I use both of the films as a means of processing a vast array of psychological concepts while working with first and second year college students. When I first stop the '97 version, I ask students if they heard anything at the onset of the film. There is a clever insertion of the line, "I'm gonna' kill you," as the sound track presents us with noise of a passing El train. Many of my students can't identify what the voice said, and some don't even remember hearing it.
The '97 cameras pan the room differently during the preliminary vote and do not allow us to see the effect of group conformity to the norm as it is registered in '57 version. The guilty vote is not as polarized as it may superficially appear: the hands of #5, #6 and #11 are raised after some pause, and #9 lifts his up slowly as he notices all hands are in the air. He doesn't see Fonda on his extreme right.
I like the dynamic presented with the inclusion of Afro-American jurors. When #1's (Courtney Vance) leadership is belittled by #10, he shows more confidence than Martin Balsam in the '57 edition. Balsam betrays rationality and retreats to an oral regression which includes nail-biting and a pouting withdrawal.
Jack Lemmon (#8), in the '97 version, starts out very slowly but seems to gain a head of steam with the new dialogue regarding others who might have had a motive for killing the father. He persisted at a higher energy level the rest of the way. When #7 said the boy "deserved" to die, Lemmon came back with a very effective counterargument about those who have gone to the gallows only to have some one else confess to the same crime years later.
Mykelti Williamson (#10), in the '97 version, added a powerful dimension when he accused Ossie Davis (#2) of being just like all those people his age who allow the white intellectuals to manipulate them. His anti-Latino invective later on was so effective as to make one sick. In fact, Mykelti himself, felt great psychological stress enacting this role.
This may reflect my bias, but I liked the idea of the psychiatric testimony. Edward James Olmos (#11), in the '97 version, shone ably in his interpretation of the merits of such testimony. To think of the primal crime (patricide)does not mean that you have followed through on the thought. He went on to say that if all of the jurors took the same battery of tests, perhaps one or two of them might show the same capability.
'97 does not include the photograph of #3's estranged son which heightened his emotional responses. In the cathartic ending, Lee J. Cobb tears the picture in pieces as he lets loose emotionally.
I could go on ad nauseam. Suffice it to say, I prefer both.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
12 Moody Guys
Added 7/5/2008
Watching this 1997 version of 12 ANGRY MEN recently, I was struck by the fact that four of the 12 actors in key roles here have since passed away. That has absolutely nothing to do with the film's quality, of course (or nothing directly to do with it), but it is striking that key members of this impressive cast--and of course, I'm referring to Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Hume Cronyn and Ossie Davis-- have gone on to that jury box in the sky.
As I say, the fact that these great actors have all died within the past decade is not a direct reflection on the film itself. But it does raise at least one issue that a previous reviewer has noted: namely, the question of the cast's relative age in comparison to the cast of the 1957 classic movie version. Jack Lemmon was 72 when he played Juror #8 in this version. In the original film version, Henry Fonda was a comparatively youthful 52 when he portrayed the same character in 1957. Lee J. Cobb was all of 47 when he took on the part of Juror #3. George C. Scott was pushing 70 when he assayed the role.
In Scott's case, the role of the pained father--alienated from his own son and transferring some of his rage onto the accused--rings a bit false. He's fine until his climactic moment when he makes this association painfully clear (to all three viewers who hadn't already guessed), but at that very point, his performance unravels. Yes, there are 70 year old men estranged from their 30-something children, but one might expect the rage to be somewhat more muted by that point. Scott's wounds seem almost too fresh in this production.
Lemmon's relative maturity is not without its own problems. He is almost too sage. One is never quite sure whether he is really a tentative, but tenacious truth seeker, stubbornly hashing his way through the case's many inconsistencies, or whether he's actually a fine legal mind with a grand strategy that slowly and masterfully unfolds.
The obvious attempts to update the film's action are more annoying than enlightening. It's significant that this time out, the jury is racially mixed (and ethnically too, since two of the jurors are at least vaguely European). And depending on your point of view, it may be a sign of progress overall that African-American characters can be as perceptive or as flawed as any of their cohorts. (One even turns out to be bigoted in the extreme against the Hispanic accused.) But by 1997 could you really get away with having a jury without a single woman on it? No, it wouldn't be the same if the film were called 10 ANGRY MEN AND A COUPLE OF WOMEN WHO AIN'T TOO HAPPY EITHER. On the other hand, all the little updates thrown into the mix (including the presence of a female judge) do nothing to alter the fact that the movie is fundamentally anachronistic from the get-go.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
George C.Scott
Added 10/25/2009
A much better version than the original with Henry Fonda; however Fonda's portrayal of the same character was much better than Lemmon's. But, if you turn off the movie there you've missed a lot. Even though this version is initially slow moving, it eventually picks up pace, and gives a more identifiable and current flare to the 1950's version. George C. Scott's performance is simply masterful and proves he still has it late in the game!!! One star better than the 1950's version.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Where's the DVD?
Added 6/23/2009
This is the only remake that I know of that is superior to the original. Don't get me wrong, I own the original and it is an excellent movie with superb acting. But this remake is better. The acting is better, the dialogue is better and the small updates in the script make it more realistic - especially regarding the race issue. My only complaint is that I have now waited 10 years for this to be released on DVD.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A little to "COLORFUL"!
Added 12/31/2008
The cast in this film was not the best, don't get me wrong George C. Scott, Jack Lemmon, & Hume Cronyn are wonderful in this movie, but the rest of the cast was not very good at all. As for it being to "COLORFUL" it had to many African Americans and they were very rude to the white cast in the film. I think your best sticking with original from '57 with Henry Fonda. If your just buying it for the reasons I did for George C. Scott, Jack Lemmon, & Hume Cronyn you'll like their acting only they are the only 3 good preformers in the film.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
