Directed by William Friedkin
During the trial of a man accused of his father's murder, a lone juror takes a stand against the guilty verdict handed down by the others as a result of their preconceptions and prejudices.
Dvanáct rozhněvaných mužů, Twelve Angry Men, Die 12 Geschworenen, La parola ai giurati, Doze Homens em Fúria, Douze hommes en colère, 12 разгневанных мужчин, 12 hombres sin piedad: Veredicto final, 12 dühös ember, 12 Homens e uma Sentença, Dwunastu gniewnych ludzi, 12 oameni furioși, 12 rozhněvaných mužů, 12 розгніваних чоловіків, 12 Разгневени мъже, 12人の怒れる男 評決の行方, 十二怒汉, 12인의 노한 사람들, Dvanásť rozhnevaných mužov, 12 edsvurna män, ١٢ رجلاً غاضباً, 12 гневних људи, 十二怒漢
Czechia 
Germany6 
France 
USAPG-13 France Czechia France Germany USA 
11 Angry Men & Tony Soprano.
I think this version really gains something from the diverse casting. It puts it even greater stark relief the central concern of this story, which is how does a fractious, pluralistic society come together to make the weightiest decisions about life and death? How do we talk and deliberate with each other when we can’t always separate ourselves from our bigotries, selfishness and petty concerns? What does civic virtue actually look like? Is democracy, in the deep sense, possible?
Action!: Friedkin, The Realist
There are some scripts that are so strong that it would take a complete moron to mess it up. And with this film, it has become obvious that this is one of them. And luckily for us, Friedkin is no moron. He also managed to get an equally impressive cast made up of veterans and upcoming talent, delivering some of their best performances. You can clearly see why they either archived such an iconic status or what they will do in the near future. It’s hard to pick up who stood out above another, as they were all great, though James G. may have been a little underutilized.
One major difference in this version is probably…
Never was, never is, and never will be like the original. And the comparison with the original will forever haunt the remake, as will the question: Why? But as much as I adore Lumet's film, I will always defend the remake. Because there are so many fine reasons for it: The veins of George C. Scott that so often pulsate to the surface, the beads of sweat on Gandolfini's forehead, Danza's V-neck, Petersen's perplexity, Lemmon's sad eyes, the camera that becomes more and more mobile but always keeps its eye on what's important, the certainty, with which it exploits and captures the limited space, the confidence in the cast (even if not all of them shine) and the civil courage…
Not all of them were angry
12 constantly pissing men
My lifelong aversion to remakes had me thinking the worst when I saw that "12 Angry Men" was remade back in 1997 (it didn't land on my radar at all back when it was initially released). After a recent re-visit to the 5 star 1957 film, decided to bite the bullet and find out just how bad the remake was. All I knew going in was that Jack Lemmon was in it.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that it wasn't half bad! I thought they were going to do an entire new script that just followed the general out-line of the original, but instead it was pretty much identical to the 1957 version (outside a few minor changes), which…
Remakes have a hard time getting by in the cinematic world. They get the moan and groan before they're chance in the sun. A film as legendary as Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men would be one of these films no one would touch with a 12 foot pole, however, the project is in the more than capable hands of William Friedkin. Usually one for camera tricks and astounding technical feats, Friedkin leaves the material to the stacked ensemble, only toying around with one or two moments when the camera finally gets to move across the room.
Some iconic punchlines are not as gut-wrenching as they are in the OG, but they are effective all the same. The biggest changes probably come…
they can shoot a remake every other decade for my money, especially when it's done by a guy like Friedkin assembling so many nice faces around the table. wonderful study on prejudices, racism, classicism and ethics, with the illusion of real justice looming over a happy but sad, battle-weary ending.
also realized how Armin Müller-Stahl was making use of his german dialect as cute gimmick before America discovered Werner Herzog's shtick some moments later.
An unnecessary remake but it’s still fantastically directed and filled with so many incredible performances. It’s just twelve great actors sitting in a small room on a hot summer day debating on whether or not an 18 year old boy is guilty of murder. The original film is a perfect movie this film is almost perfect, the only thing holding it back is that it doesn’t do much to differentiate itself from the original. James Gandolfini has been one of my favorite actors since I started The Sopranos and he was the one that drew me to this movie. Overall this is, much the like the original really engaging but it doesn’t offer enough new to feel like it’s own thing rather than just a one to one remake.
i accidentally watched the remake instead of the original movie and only realized it halfway through. this version is both highly entertaining and excellently made, with great performances.
Bet it smells crazy in there
