Da 5 Bloods
On the Record
I May Destroy You
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
Already have an account? Log in here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We encourage our community to report abusive content and/ or spam. Our team will review flagged items and determine whether or not they meet our community guidelines.
Please choose best explanation for why you are flagging this review.
Thank you for your submission. This post has been submitted for our review.
Sincerely, The Rotten Tomatoes Team
This movie has provided many good and negative examples of negotiation. For instance, sing facts alone to defend one's position will also be unhelpful because opinions are often also subjective rather than merely objective. This was shown in the movie where the juror who firmly believed in the defendant being guilty, based his positions on seemingly factual evidence from the crime scene and claimed that the "facts are undeniable". However, this only caused the disagreement to stagnate as the juror's objectivity could not address the subjective opinions of the other jurors. Furthermore, it is important to not blame others for having an opposing position. One instance of this occurring during the movie was when the aforementioned juror claimed that the juror who was convincing the others that the defendant was not guilty, had "never been wronger in his life". This example shows that blaming fails to separate the people from the problem and may show that you are not open and are unwilling to work together to resolve the problem. As a result, the opposing party may become defensive as well and will either be less open to understanding your position or will even become more hostile.
A great version even if it isn't different story wise from the original.
This movie compelled me to think beyond the surface, to see people as precious lives no matter their background or class.
Under the guise of factual evidence, the men in the movie based their preconceived notions of the boy on their perception of his class and background, rather than the factual evidence they heard in the court. In fact, the evidence against him reinforced their initial negative impression of him, hence furthering their claim that he is guilty. Yet, Davis saw the boy as a living human, whose life is just as important and meaningful as anyone else. With this perspective, the principle of reasonable doubt resonated with him, causing him to vote that the boy was not guilty. Hence, it is important to regard facts that call one's own perceptions into question instead of ignoring them and only choosing to reinforce your prior perceptions, as it could lead to discrimination and generalisation.
Some remakes attempt to distinguish themselves by taking a familiar premise in an entirely different direction. Others try to remain faithful to the original and distinguish themselves through acting or effects. 12 Angry Men (1997), is an example of the latter. This modernization of one of the classic legal dramas hits all the major plot beats of the original. The "modernization" part comes in largely through the addition of four black jurors to the twelve men in the jury room (and I do mean men - all the jurors are male, possibly due to a literal reading of the title). One of these jurors, Juror 10, is a former Nation of Islam member with a hatred of Hispanics, but he serves a similar function to the bigoted white guy he replaces. There is also a brief discussion of the relevance of psychiatric testimony, not present in the original, which does not drastically alter the outcome of the deliberations. These changes don't substantially distinguish the film from its predecessor, but it at least manages to avoid torpedoing itself.
The performances are where the film distinguishes itself. By the typical standards of television movies, some major stars are involved, and they are capably directed by William Friedkin, who is a director I greatly respect for his role in The French Connection. Unsurprisingly, the performances of the film are excellent, if perhaps not quite up to the stratospheric level of the original. The performances in the remake of 12 Angry Men also make the 12 men appear even angrier than the original. Granted, the exchanges in the original were occasionally full of a fair amount of vitriol, but the remake is fairly shouty, although it generally avoids becoming hammy.
The film's script does little to differentiate itself from the brilliant 1957 version, but the acting is impressive, and the performances give the film a different tone to the original. Watching this film is equivalent to watching a famous Broadway play, then years later seeing a modernized version of the same play in a local theater, starring a different set of talented actors. The experience probably isn't going to be quite as good, but if you enjoyed the original, it might be worth a watch.
Jack Lemmon has grown old inevitably since last seeing him on Airport 77. This remake was not bad because the story and script were good in the first place despite there was not too much alternations from the one back in the 50's.
Stil great script, just not as good as an orginal one.
I couldn't get through this remake. It isn't horrific and a few solid performances, but the acting and directing often felt flat and poorly timed and executed compared to the original. For me, it lacked the exceptional acting, timing, delivery, tenseness, and character interplay of the original film.
Powerfully gripping, dramatic and self-inspired, 1997's 12 Angry Men lives up to its 1957 classic as a terrific remake and features excellent performances from the film's all-star cast with Jack Lemmon's lead stealing the show.
A weaker version to the original masterpiece. It's not the same if you watch the 1957 version first. It pails in comparison to the original.
Emotional yet not overly sentimental, impactful, and bearing an important message (whether you choose to take it as a moral or logical one).