Your probable score
?
12 Angry Men
1997
Drama, Crime
TV Movie
1h 57m
Twelve men must decide the fate of one when one juror objects to the jury's decision. (imdb)
Directed by:
William FriedkinScreenwriter:
Reginald Rose12 Angry Men
1997
Drama, Crime
TV Movie
1h 57m
Your probable score
Avg Percentile 64.22% from 523 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews
(527)
Compact view
Compact view
Show
Sort
Rated 25 Sep 2013
80
77th
George C Scott just lost his cool now we got a movie goin'
Rated 25 Sep 2013
Rated 21 Sep 2010
70
79th
A strong cast led by Scott and Lemon make for a good remake. Hold me closer Tony Danza.
Rated 21 Sep 2010
Rated 01 May 2024
80
65th
Unlike Gus Van Sant's Psycho, this film should be studied as a black-and-white to color remake. The original screenwriter makes some inspired updates--taking the original's subtext of racism and classism making them so direct that at times it felt like a spiritual sequel to Do the Right Thing. And the cast is really good--especially Jack Lemmon. I do think a few actors should've been younger, and some boom mics and cameras were visible at times. But those are minor complaints. Recommended.
Rated 01 May 2024
Rated 10 Oct 2023
80
78th
Well, it's a stage play too. If we can have umpteen film versions of Hamlet, we can see how Jack Lemmon essays a character we mostly know because of Henry Fonda. It's a fine film, just a little too not filmy enough, but it's not like the Lemmon version of 12 Angry Men was coming to my city, so I'll take it.
Rated 10 Oct 2023
Rated 30 May 2022
80
68th
So, why remake it? Two reasons leap out. First, the main idea presented is as relevant today as it ever was, so it was as relevant in 1997 as it was in 1957 as it is today. Second, Friedkin changes the racial dynamics of the piece by using a more diverse cast. Lumet's film touches on racism with Ed Begley's character, but Friedkin brings new elements to the story by, for example, casting Dorian Harewood in Jack Klugman's role .
Rated 30 May 2022
Rated 22 Mar 2022
80
80th
Worth watching purely for the performances.
Rated 22 Mar 2022
Rated 12 May 2020
9
78th
Not quite as powerful as the '57 version, but a fantastic modernization with a stellar cast.
Rated 12 May 2020
Rated 07 Oct 2017
75
85th
(Rewatched on 22/05/23): There was no reason to remake 12 Angry Men, but Friedkin did an admirable job. It lacks the visual dynamism of Lumet's version, some of the casting choices are questionable (Tony Danza?), and the attempts to update the film to reflect the racial politics of the day are only partially successful. On the plus side, Friedkin assembled a stellar cast, and there is much pleasure to be had watching great actors like Lemmon and Scott going toe-to-toe in late career.
Rated 07 Oct 2017
Rated 11 Aug 2014
90
81st
Like the original, this restaging features a great cast helmed by a fine director. There's some overacting, but the racial integration adds flavor and realism instead of being token and the script never loses its cunning zing no matter how many times one plays it through. But the '57 version is a masterclass in methodical lens and camera use to tell a contained chamber piece, and I'm betrothed to it. But it's such an important story; whichever version has the cast you prefer, you can't go wrong.
Rated 11 Aug 2014
Rated 30 Sep 2013
84
82nd
Good news. They colorized the original, added a few swear words and a Danza. Not bad really mostly cause everthing gets better with Hume Cronyn.
Rated 30 Sep 2013
Rated 20 Aug 2012
80
68th
I can't think of a much more loyal remake. Pretty much the same film with a couple mediocre performances that keep it from being as great as the original. But the only real problem is it starts off with a FEMALE judge. Women aren't allowed to be judges, everybody knows that.
Rated 20 Aug 2012
Rated 18 Sep 2024
80
79th
While it's not as good as the original, it does feel a little more updated with a mixed-race cast (still no women on the jury, though). There are a few times where the dialogue sounds a tad too polemic, and while Lemmon was fine, it seemed like he was trying to mimic Fonda's (outstanding) performance. Favorite moment: George C. Scott smiling when he sees who volunteered to be stabbed.
Rated 18 Sep 2024
Rated 28 Jul 2024
86
95th
This captures the essence of the original perfectly but I'm a bit mixed on the 90's era social dynamics added. I think it does a better job of conveying personal biases into the discussion but I preferred how the original made the consensus reached by everyone considering other people's arguments rather than the awkward peer pressure given onto some people. But you know, I think this take on the concept is fresh and creative enough that it deserves its own commendation.
Rated 28 Jul 2024
Rated 06 May 2024
70
60th
Finally got around to watching this. The 1957 Lumet masterpiece is one of my all-time favourites, so I didn't feel the desire to see what I expected to be a far inferior offering. Well I came away with mixed emotions. There are some good elements here and the cast is first rate. My criticism comes from a lot of the dialogue and acting to feel ignorant by force. The amount of stubbornness and how it was portrayed became too much. A lot of passive aggressiveness. Still, that was by design. 7.0.
Rated 06 May 2024
Rated 19 Jun 2023
90
91st
Şampiyonlar ligi kadrosu. Nefes almadan izleniyor. Klasik.
Rated 19 Jun 2023
Rated 26 Dec 2017
65
26th
Liked the original better
Rated 26 Dec 2017
Rated 09 Dec 2016
80
72nd
These guys didn't know what they were talking about, that kid was guilty as shit.
Rated 09 Dec 2016
Rated 05 Aug 2015
23
12th
Basically a shot for shot remake of a movie that never needed to be remade because none of the original's greatness hinged on the time period or special effects. It's a fine remake but it's annoying that it exists in the first place.
Rated 05 Aug 2015
Rated 24 Sep 2013
75
45th
Starts out as a creaky exhibition match, just a recreation of the original, but as it goes its own flavor comes out more and more. Minor Freidkin and nothing on the '57 film, but worth a watch.
Rated 24 Sep 2013
Rated 09 Jul 2013
91
70th
Not a patch on the original, but Friedkin brings his trademark intensity and lets a good cast do what they're good at.
Rated 09 Jul 2013
Rated 18 May 2013
84
34th
I really liked this film. It was interesting to see how to make a movie about court without actually being in court. The acting was good and the plot was too. The movie is a little dry and slow, so you have to think about what's going on and listen, because there is not a lot of action in this film.
Rated 18 May 2013
Rated 10 Jul 2012
50
21st
This gets the score it does because some of the casting was really great (aside from the fact that there were three old men) but overall this was incredibly flawed. A lot of changes that were made probably seemed progressive or current in the 90s but they ended up in retrospect being cheap or regressive (especially their choice of a leftover of the black power movement as the racist). It was too aware of the power of the original and in aiming at that same power it totally missed the mark.
Rated 10 Jul 2012
Rated 30 Aug 2009
70
45th
It's a good movie, well directed, well played, but... the original movie from 1957 is perfect. So...it's a remake that nobody needs. Pity.
Rated 30 Aug 2009
Rated 27 Jun 2009
75
72nd
Overall Enjoyment: 30/40, Plot/Themes: 15/20, Cinematography/Direction: 15/20, Acting/Writing: 15/20
Rated 27 Jun 2009
Rated 23 Aug 2008
80
38th
Likable remake of a classic.
Rated 23 Aug 2008
Rated 16 Sep 2007
90
86th
Not quite as good as the first version, but sometimes the material is so good that nobody could screw it up
Rated 16 Sep 2007
Rated 09 Aug 2007
80
34th
An unnecessary remake, but by no means a terrible one.
Rated 09 Aug 2007
Rated 25 May 2007
55
28th
Considerably worse than the original, but still just ok. I'd recommend to see the original one though. This remake is absolutely unnecesary.
Rated 25 May 2007
Cast & Info
Directed by:
William FriedkinScreenwriter:
Reginald RoseCollections
Loading ...
Similar Titles
Loading ...
Statistics
Loading ...
Trailer
Loading ...
PSI
?