SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Mischa Redfern I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Alistair Olson After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

e-96997 January 3, 2017 - There are movies that remind you why you love movies.The deliberations of a jury in the case of a homicide: a young man with a difficult course is accused of the murder of his violent father. From the beginning, the case seems clear: the son is guilty because everything accuses him. A first round of voting is requested. All vote "guilty" except one man. Thus begins a discussion of one hour and fifty which will reveal the reasons for the act, the unresolved issues of the investigation, the various motives of the members of the jury. Everything happens, everything explodes because of a single individual who did not say "guilty". A man who wanted to know more, because he was not convinced in his soul and conscience of the guilt of the young man. As simple as it is, 12 Angry Men is an exceptional story, which tells so much about the human, his social relationships, his relationship to the truth, what he believes to be the truth, the interference of personal experiences in his perceptions and on the strength of doubt and dialogue. The 1997 version by William Friedkin (The Exorcist, French Connection, Sorcerer, To Live and Die in LA, ...) is splendid. 2 hours of dialogue in a closed room that keeps you in suspense, you have to do it. The plot focuses on the arguments and gives no conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. It's very strong because the point of view of the film is precisely what is said about the act, and not its nature.January 12, 2017 - I just saw the 1957 version of Sydney Lumet with the splendid Henry Fonda.Surprised: I find that the version of William Friedkin of 1997 is better than that of 1957. Longer than 20 minutes, better staged, better characters, the tension is more palpable. But seeing the one from 1957, I remember that I clearly felt the progress of the tension thanks to the very subtle work of Friedkin's camera. If you look at it (look at it!), Observe when it is tight or wide, when it moves the camera or not and how the Fa4on to show the scene influences the emotional intensity. I just saw it for the fourth time in 6 months and I do not get tired.It reminds me that this great director and not known assz has made a better remake of another classic, the Salary of Fear. His version is called in French The Convoy of Fear (or Sorcerer in VO) and it is extraordinary. Re-released on DVD / Blu-Ray recently thanks to its status of cult film.Decidedly this guy is an unknown genius. He has to his credit a flop of intriguing and sometimes disturbing films.Praise of doubt: faced with 11 certainties, 1 man gives a doubt and that will save the accused. Jack Lemmon, the ordinary and modest man who said no.This story seems to me very important in our time when the media is on the alert because of the explosion of information sharing methods. We must more than ever be cautious when appearances, labels, reputations. We must never believe, we must examine, always. Alain -

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.

stephiiliiciious 12 angry men is a taut drama that is set in a jury room. It was directed by William Friedkin. It has actors like James Gandolfini and Jack Lemmon.A kid from the slums is on trial for the suspected murder of his father. The 12 jurors have to sieve through all of the evidence and the witness' testimonies and convict the kid accordingly. Most of the jurors have better things to do, and want to get out of there. Juror NO#8 says not guilty and the other 11 jurors are in uproar over his decision. He puts out his views and tries to sway them to change their decisions to not guilty.There was a pretty good selection of actors that were chosen for the cast of the jurors. They created a lot of atmosphere in the small, humid juror's room. There is a mix of characters, some quite outspoken like NO#3 played by George C Scott and NO#8 played by Jack Lemmon. Jurors like NO#12, NO#11 and NO#5 were really quite but had some really good points in regards to new and old evidence. Although it was set in the juror's room for the whole movie, it didn't take way from the overall feel of large scale conflict and tension.I found the movie rather interesting but it didn't have much substance. I've always enjoyed crime shows because I can sit there and try decoding the evidence and finding out who's guilty and what not. I would recommend this to people that like pretty tense drama's.

roswellian-1 This movie surprised me. I'd seen the original first and adored it, so I was certainly excited to see what they'd done with the remake. Sadly, I was greatly disappointed with the movie. While almost everything played out the same, I had a hard time connecting with or liking any of the characters. Jack Lemmon was boring, and I had a hard time watching the movie till it's end. The movie was entirely too annoying to enjoy how intense a jury deliberation can get. The ending was different than it's predecessor and certainly not better, rather depressing, actually. If you're looking for a good movie depicting the jury system, rent the original. It's far better than it's re-make.