Reviews: 12 Angry Men (1957 & 1997)
Published September 01, 2005
There are other differences between the two versions. As I mentioned, this one does have a fair amount of swearing as the tensions get high, along with the slamming of doors that was not present in the original. The judge, who only appears in the very first scene, is changed from a seemingly bored white male (Rudy Bond) to an earnest white female (Mary McDonnell). Thought the best version remains the original, I would recommend either to anyone, especially if they have never seen the story before. It's simply too damn good to miss.
The 1957 Version: Ten out of Ten
The 1997 Version: Eight out of Ten
- Reviews: 12 Angry Men (1957 & 1997)
- Published: September 01, 2005
- Type: Review
- Section: Video
- Writer: Alonzo Mosley (FBI)
- Alonzo Mosley (FBI)'s BC Writer page
- Alonzo Mosley (FBI)'s personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
The difference in the characterizations of the Foreman is significant in that Balsam, the lowly assistant football coach at Andrew McCorkland high school, is finally given a chance to "lead" when handed the reins of the jury. Notice how upset he gets when his authority is challenged ("Boy, I don't care what you do!", "Come on, fella, stay in there and pitch!"). The other important detail of his backstory at the window to Henry Fonda is not the football game, but the language he uses to describe the running back. "Cutting" and "slashing!" The look on Fonda's face is what's important here. He seems to be thinking "Will you listen to what you're saying?" as Balsam winds up his violent football analogy with the kicker line "It was murder."
In the re-make, Courtney Vance's weepy football tale does nothing to enhance the story or character except show that the actor can "do sad."
Jack Klugman and Dorian Harewood's Juror #5 is supposed to be unemployed.
Question: In the remake, if Tony Danza is so intent on making it to the baseball game, why does he keep a notepad with details of the trial?
Ed Begley plays his racist role as the type of man you could easily imagine in the 50's; Mikail T. Williamson plays his character like a psychopath (About the boy, "Here's one we can get anyway").
There never should've been a re-make, but if they had to, they should have done it like the current Broadway play and leave the story in the 1950's where it belongs. You wouldn't update MOBY DICK, would you?
The difference in the characterizations of the Foreman is significant in that Balsam, the lowly assistant football coach at Andrew McCorkland high school, is finally given a chance to "lead" when handed the reins of the jury. Notice how upset he gets when his authority is challenged ("Boy, I don't care what you do!", "Come on, fella, stay in there and pitch!"). The other important detail of his backstory at the window to Henry Fonda is not the football game, but the language he uses to describe the running back. "Cutting" and "slashing!" The look on Fonda's face is what's important here. He seems to be thinking "Will you listen to what you're saying?" as Balsam winds up his violent football analogy with the kicker line "It was murder."
In the re-make, Courtney Vance's weepy football tale does nothing to enhance the story or character except show that the actor can "do sad."
Jack Klugman and Dorian Harewood's Juror #5 is supposed to be unemployed.
Question: In the remake, if Tony Danza is so intent on making it to the baseball game, why does he refer to a notepad with details of the trial?
Ed Begley plays his racist role as the type of man you could easily imagine in the 50's; Mikail T. Williamson plays his character like a psychopath (About the boy, "Here's one we can get anyway").
There never should've been a re-make, but if they had to, they should have done it like the current Broadway play and leave the story in the 1950's where it belongs. You wouldn't update MOBY DICK, would you?






The difference in the characterizations of the Foreman is significant in that Balsam, the lowly assistant football coach at Andrew McCorkland high school, is finally given a chance to "lead" when handed the reins of the jury. Notice how upset he gets when his authority is challenged ("Boy, I don't care what you do!", "Come on, fella, stay in there and pitch!"). The other important detail of his backstory at the window to Henry Fonda is not the football game, but the language he uses to describe the running back. "Cutting" and "slashing!" The look on Fonda's face is what's important here. He seems to be thinking "Will you listen to what you're saying?" as Balsam winds up his violent football analogy with the kicker line "It was murder."
In the re-make, Courtney Vance's weepy football tale does nothing to enhance the story or character except show that the actor can "do sad."
Question: In the remake, if Tony Danza is so intent on making it to the baseball game, why does he keep a notepad with details of the trial?
Ed Begley plays his racist role as the type of man you could easily imagine in the 50's; Mikail T. Williamson plays his character like a psychopath (About the boy, "Here's one we can get anyway").
There never should've been a re-make, but if they had to, they should have done it like the current Broadway play and leave the story in the 1950's where it belongs. You wouldn't update MOBY DICK, would you?