12 Angry Men- Sidney Lumet

[captainofbeef]

12 Angry Men- Sidney Lumet- Chris' favorite films #19.As anyone who knows me knows (gotta love the wording there), my father loves any and every old classic film. One day while sifting through Blockbuster, he picked one out for me. It was this, the original 12 Angry Men. So, we went home and I got around to watching it. I was young, about 10, so this film didn't have really any effect on me.About a year ago, I picked up this film, again at my father's request. I remembered not liking it yet I still brought it home. You can imagine my suprise after the rewatch. The performances truly carry this film. There is no action in this movie outside the jury room, so the performances have to be amazing. The best performance though, is by far Henry Fonda. He outshines the rest of the cast with his stunning performance. Lumet is truly a master and I can't wait to see his new courtroom drama. But I doubt it will come anywhere near the level of greatness this film achieved.100/100

[criterionmaster]

A perfect film and a true classic. The performances are some of the best ever.

[ie]

I've only seen the 1997 remake, which I say is good.

I have a copy of the 1957 version, but I have yet to watch it. Soon, cowboy, soon.

[ie]

I just finished watching the 1957 version, and I must say, I think your favorite of the two depends on which version you saw first.


The role of Juror #3 was made for George C. Scott. In fact, for the first half of the movie, until I looked it up, I was convinced that Lee J. Cobb was George C. Scott. Not to knock the original actor, though, because both worked the role quite well.

Even though I could better appreciate the movie as a whole now, I enjoyed the story more the first time around with the remake. For example, when new evidence was brought up during the movie, I kept thinking a few steps ahead, which was distracting me a little bit.



Overall, the foundation of 12 Angry Men is solid, and I think as long as a bulk of the material was left alone (updates aside), I think it could be remade by even... Uwe Boll and it could still turn out decently.

Uwe Boll aside:

Although in that case, our buddy would have to add something. The jurors had superpowers!

SPOILER: Click to show

When Juror #3 motioned to stab Juror #8, he actually did! There was plenty of fake blood! But since Juror #8 had a regenerative healing factor, he just picked the knife out and danced around! Then Juror #3 pulled out his modified AK-47 and started shooting at Juror #8! He was a real bloody mess, until he just was like "nah" and recovered! He looked brand new! Then some zombies came in, and the jurors beat them up really badly! It was the most awesomeist thing ever!

Acting might suffer, because our boy had two mannequins and one cardboard cut-out, but hey, at least he didn't cast a dog, eh?

Anyone competent could remake 12 Angry Men and the result would still be good. Keyword: competent.


In the end, my thoughts on both versions are the same. I do think the remake is a worthy remake, and does not disgrace the original in any regard, but the original is just as good.

I give both versions a 9/10, and I put them in the same slot in my Top 100.

[kiddo]

What Lumet did in 12 Angry Men was something extraordinary. It's easy to forget that the editing and many of the director's dicisions is basically what holds the viewer interested, if not totally absorbed (as I was), in addition to the out-of-this-world-acting. But the performances is the easiest aspect to discover as great, and I do not think "any other competent director" could pull it off. It's something genuis with the direction in 12 Angry Men; it's quite difficult to point out exact things Lumet does with the form of the film, but he manage to make an hour and thirty long movie about twelve men discussing a crime a person we have no special sympathy for, did commit or not, so intense and touching. Not only beacause of the great job by the actors; you nearly notice the cutting of the scenes, and when you do clearly notice it, it is most possible the idea. The whole thing is put together so nicely, that I would say that Lumet outconquer the actors.

[ie]

Alright, alright, I forgot to make this clear:

The actors are the most important part of the whole thing.


All you really need is twelve good actors that can play their parts, and it will do well. I could imagine 12 Angry Men would do well as a broadway play of some sort.

With good actors in place, all you'd need is a competent director to film the events. Sure, the original had some nice director effects; many long shots in the beginning, ending with quick shots of the juror's faces. But the material is there, and it's not impossible to direct.

[kiddo]

Still, I think you are unable to see the greatness in Lumets contributions; the film works best as a film (though I haven't seen any plays), because it touches so many advantages the film medium has; you only have to use them in the best way, and I think Lumet manage to do this better than most others. I agree that the actors is fantastic, but it's the direction that makes the film so genuis. The pace, the camera positions etc...

[ie]

I can see the contributions Lumet made just fine, and I mentioned a few of them in my previous post.