7.8/10
10,795
89 user 19 critic

12 Angry Men (1997)

PG-13 | | Crime, Drama | TV Movie 17 August 1997
Twelve men must decide the fate of one when one juror objects to the jury's decision.

Director:

Writer:

(teleplay)
Reviews
Popularity
1,963 ( 412)

Watch Now

From $2.99 (SD) on Amazon Video

Won 1 Golden Globe. Another 6 wins & 22 nominations. See more awards »

Videos

Photos

Edit

Cast

Complete credited cast:
...
Foreman
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Edit

Storyline

Made for cable television remake of the 1957 classic about twelve jurors quick to condemn a Latino youth on trial for murdering his father before reviewing the evidence. Juror #8 holds out with a verdict of not guilty, thus setting the stage for arguments and reasons why or why not the boy may be guilty. Written by Humberto Amador

Plot Summary | Plot Synopsis

Genres:

Crime | Drama

Motion Picture Rating (MPAA)

Rated PG-13 for language | See all certifications »

Parents Guide:

 »
Edit

Details

Country:

Language:

Release Date:

17 August 1997 (USA)  »

Also Known As:

Douze hommes en colère  »

Company Credits

Production Co:

 »
Show detailed on  »

Technical Specs

Runtime:

Sound Mix:

Color:

(Technicolor)

Aspect Ratio:

1.85 : 1
See  »
Edit

Did You Know?

Trivia

The discussion about the psychiatrist was not in the 1957 film. See more »

Goofs

Several scenes in the jury room have Juror #12 (William Petersen) with a pair of sunglasses on his head, off his head, and back on his head again. See more »

Quotes

Juror #8: Suppose we're wrong.
See more »

Connections

Version of Ek Ruka Hua Faisla (1986) See more »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

 
Not great like the original, but an honest effort
3 October 2002 | by (Jersey City, NJ) – See all my reviews

If you have seen the original "12 Angry Men," it's hard not to classify this film as inferior. The acting was better, the cinematography was better, the pace was faster. The cast in the remake is talented, just not as talented. Even the great George C. Scott couldn't quite measure up to Lee J. Cobb. Even the great Jack Lemmon couldn't compare to Henry Fonda. The only actor I felt was an improvement was Mykelti Williamson, who delivers a powerful and disturbing speech towards the end. I see him in mostly small, supporting roles, where he doesn't really get to show off his talent. In this film, Williamson gets the chance to flaunt his overlooked acting chops. One actor who I felt was a big step down was Tony Danza, who doesn't measure up at all to Jack Warden. Danza does an OK job, but dramatic acting isn't his forte. Sitcom acting is his strongsuit. Edward James Olmos does a fine job, but it took time getting over his phony accent. That's right, he's been in this country so long that his Latino accent sounds phony.

Nevertheless, the acting is good and the film really muscles up during the third act. If the director sped up the pace and the camerawork wasn't as clumsy, this could've been a much more compelling film. But to be fair, it's a tough job measuring up to the original. We've all seen and heard much of the dialogue (which is almost word-for-word from the original script, only with a few obscenities, one racial slur and modern references like "Fat Albert" added), so hearing it again is like listening to a stand-up comedian using his old material. Funny stuff, but we've heard it before. Only a good comedian will usually maintain a good delivery of the joke, while the delivery of some of the old dialogue is limp this time around.

My score: 7 (out of 10)


31 of 37 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you?

Contribute to This Page

Create a character page for:
?