12 Angry Men (1997)

Twelve men must decide the fate of one when one juror objects to the jury's decision.

Director:

William Friedkin

Writer:

Reginald Rose (teleplay)

Stars:

Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Hume Cronyn

Won 1 Golden Globe. Another 6 wins & 22 nominations.

Cast

Complete credited cast:
Courtney B. Vance	...	Foreman
Ossie Davis	...	Juror #2
George C. Scott	...	Juror #3
Armin Mueller-Stahl	...	Juror #4
Dorian Harewood	...	Juror #5
James Gandolfini	...	Juror #6
Tony Danza	...	Juror #7
Jack Lemmon	...	Juror #8
Hume Cronyn	...	Juror #9
Mykelti Williamson	...	Juror #10
Edward James Olmos	...	Juror #11
William Petersen	...	Juror #12
Mary McDonnell	...	Judge
Tyrees Allen	...	Guard
Douglas Spain	...	The Accused

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.

---

Plot Keywords:

guilty | stockbroker | no music | coach | murder | 

---

Genres:

Crime | Drama

---

Motion Picture Rating (MPAA)

Rated PG-13 for language

Details

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Release Date:

17 August 1997 (USA)

Also Known As:

Douze hommes en colère

Filming Locations:

Raleigh Studios - 5300 Melrose Avenue, Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, USA

Company Credits

Production Co:

MGM Television

Technical Specs

Runtime:

117 min

Sound Mix:

Dolby SR

Color:

Color (Technicolor)

Aspect Ratio:

1.85 : 1

Did You Know?

Trivia

Out of the 12 actors who played the 1997 jurors, only 4 are younger than those who played their 1957 alter-egos, in increasing order: #1: 1 year, #11: 2 years, #6: 4 years and the biggest age gap is between the two jurors #10: 16 years. As for the rest of the cast, the majority is older than the 1957 one, the biggest age gap being between the two Jurors #2: Ossie Davis who was 80 at the time of the film and John Fiedlerwho was 32, which makes a difference of 48 years. Overall, the average age of the 1997 movie's jurors is 56, vs. 45 for the 1957 version.

---

Goofs

After it starts raining, and they take a break, Juror #7 picks up a piece of wadded up paper twice between shots.

---

Quotes

Juror #5: I used to play in a backyard that was filled with garbage. Maybe it still smells on me.

---

Connections

Version of Shi'er gongmin (2014)

User Reviews

Not great like the original, but an honest effort

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)