Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

IncaWelCar In truth, any opportunity to see the film on the big screen is welcome.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Patrick Nackaert One can't escape a comparison with the earlier same-titled film of 1957. The 1957 version was innovative - how can you keep 12 men in the same room for almost the whole movie? - and generally considered a masterpiece.The 1997 movie is the updated version, close to the original. So don't expect too many surprises from that end.Both movies are very thought-provoking. About the judicial system. About human relations. About prejudices. About justice. It makes it worth to watch at least one of them.The film manages to capture your attention despite the limitation, both in time and space. Even though it is a remake, it leaves you smiling.The story is rather simple: 12 members of the jury have to decide unanimously whether to convict a young man to death, or not.If it weren't a remake, I'd give it a 9.

djderka This film and its concept are eternal to our political process. In fact, 12 Angry Men should be remade every 10 years...with federal and private funds. Why?It is an insight to our most fundamental democratic process...the JURY. This remake brings to fore our contemporary morals and cultures (and clashes) and is most definitely worth watching not only for it's concept but for the stellar contemporary cast and Billy Friedkin, the director.Just think if were remade again today, with current stars, styles, morals, fashion, new legalities, maybe women on the jury, a few more immigrants, etc.Filmmakers remake and add forever editions (like Friday the 13th), to movies, but this movie ABOVE ALL should be remade. l want to see 12 Angry Men III, made in 2010, NOT 12 Angry zombies.12 Angry Men is America, and is at the heart of our very existence, especially in light of today's political situations.Come on producers let's get 12 Angry Men III the green light for a remake and show it to this generation. The background music could easily be Mellencamp's, "Ain't that America". And it is.

davidtamm Some people may not think that this movie is as good as the original version, however, even though there are changes in the script, this movie depicts the view of our society. The cast, language and and scenario are more familiar in our modern world. Many times we get turned off by the black and white movies, just because of the black and white fact, but this movie brings the same idea and at the same time we can relate to the way we live nowadays. The fact that Henry Fonda is still alive to redo this movie is what impresses the most, specially if people watch both versions. The original movie is incredible, may be even better than the 1997 version, but owning both copies and watching them one after the other is a treat for all. Tony Danza was the perfect actor for the role of the baseball fan and the fact the there is a female actress brings more credibility to our times. This movie was printed on DVD in Australia (Region 4) and on VHS in America. Does anyone know if this movie is printed on DVD in USA and Canada (Region 1)? If so, Where could it be purchased? You may mail me at [email protected] and I would write this information on this site for all interested in purchasing such DVD.

fjord_fox This is a movie that will not be appealing to everyone. It is not an action movie, and except for the bailiff and for the very end of the movie when they go into the courtroom, you only see the twelve men, who really do turn into twelve angry men. Among these, are some very famous and well seasoned actors. George C. Scott, Jack Lemon, Hume Cronym are the ones that I recognized from old times, and then there are also Tony Danza and James Gandofini when they were very young and "wet behind the ears". Sorry, but I do not recognize any of the others.In addition, the scenery does not change either, for they are all locked in a room and the entire two hours of the movie is about the deliberation that goes on in that room. It is far from boring though, for they all raise some very interesting points to consider when convicting a man accused of a crime.The movie opens in the courtroom for just a brief moment as the attorneys are both resting their case and the judge is instructing the jury to deliberate. Douglas Spain, as the accused boy, is hopelessly looking up at the ceiling fan as he is anticipating the guilty verdict that would ultimately come to him. It seems that he had been accused of stabbing his own father to death, going to a movie afterwards, and then returning home at 3AM to be arrested by the police. There were two witnesses who both claimed that they saw him. The first was a woman who said she saw him through the window as he stabbed his father, and the second was an old man who lived there, who claimed he saw him leave the apartment afterwards and run down the stairs.Once all the men were in the jury room, it seemed to be an "open and shut case". All were SURE that he had committed the crime. All except for one: Juror #8, played by Jack Lemon. He never said that he thought the kid was innocent. In fact he said that he was PROBABLY GUILTY, but what if--just WHAT IF we are wrong? What if he really HAD gone to the movies that night, so he was not even there when it happened? What if he really had been telling the truth all along? that he had not killed his own father? This was a capital crime with capital punishment involved. He could be put to death for this crime. Could these jurors afford to be wrong and have it on their consciouses if they later discover that they had convicted the wrong man and sent him to death? After all, it had been done before.(The name Dr. Richard Kimball (The Fugitive) comes to mind. This TV Series/Movie was based on a true story. He hadn't been put to death, but in real life, he lost I think about 20 or so years in jail before he could finally prove his innocence.)I had to laugh as I saw some of these jurors vacillate from "definitely guilty" to "innocent", to "probably guilty", and then to "innocent" again as they are confronted by the others for changing their minds. Some of their reasons for "knowing" that he was guilty are funny too. One man, a black man, was sure that he was guilty just because he was a Mexican, and he said that "everybody knows that the Mexicans are benefiting from the years of hard work that the blacks had done to gain equality". Another man saw his own son in this kid, and he was mad at his son, so he was mad at this kid and therefore the kid was guilty. Another funny thing were their reasons for "getting it over with" so they could go home. Tony Danza, for example, wanted it over "in about 5 minutes" because he had tickets for the ball game and that was more important.The movie was filled with suspense as it moved along: Suspense that made you wonder if they would EVER come to a verdict. (The voting MUST be unanimous.)I do not normally watch this type of movie, but I enjoyed this one. I give it a 10, not just because of the acting, the suspense, and the drama involved, but also because it is an excellent tool for anyone who is chosen to serve on a jury. I think that every juror should have to watch this movie beforehand as a prerequisite so he/she would keep the seriousness in mind of the possibility of making the wrong decision.