Twelve angry men 1997. 12 Angry Men (1997 film) 2019-01-19
Twelve angry men 1997 Rating:
8,2/10
324
reviews
‎12 Angry Men (1997) directed by William Friedkin • Reviews, film + cast • Letterboxd
Yeah, let get this over with, we probably all got things to do. When pressed by Juror 11, however, Juror 7 says he believes the defendant is not guilty. Lemmon in particular is excellent as the quiet reasoner ready to debate the whys and wherefores with his fellow jurors. It was a very touching story about a black woman who. You're in exchange or something? Now, from what was presented at the trial, it seems that the boy is guilty, but maybe if we go deeper. Come on, let's get back to work.
Having argued several points, Juror 8 requests another vote, this time by secret ballot. In an epilogue, the friendly Jurors 8 Davis and 9 McCardle exchange names all jurors having remained nameless throughout the movie and part ways. Each of them stemming from the same roots in once being a television play. Juror 11 also changes his vote, believing the defendant would not likely have tried to retrieve the murder weapon from the scene if it had been cleaned of fingerprints. The window was open upstairs, it was a hot night, remember? Four: The storekeeper who sold it to him identified the knife in court and said it was the only one of its kind that he had ever had in stock. Really, I'm asking you, who they got? When he was 16 we got into a battle, he hit me in the face, big kid, ya know.
I thought it was very sharp the way he handled all his points one by one, in logical sequence. Donnelly Written by Reginald Rose Starring Tony Danza Hume Cronyn Edward James Olmos Ossie Davis James Gandolfini Armin Mueller-Stahl Courtney B. He didn't hear it through the ceiling. Furthermore, Juror 4, while still the same race, was American in the original but German here. I still don't see how anybody could think this kid's not guilty. Well, not strange really, they just have peculiar ways of expressing themselves sometimes, you know what I mean. He was born in a slum.
How does he know how long 15 seconds is? It's not possible that he could've heard it. I mean, she remembered the most significant details. What's he got to gain? Now, where did his panic start and where did it end? You oughta have little respect! Pardon, maybe you do not fully understand the term reasonable doubt. His real name is McCardle. The woman saw the kid through the window of a moving elevated train. Juror 9, seeing Juror 4 rub his nose which is being irritated by his glasses , realizes that the woman who allegedly saw the murder had impressions in the sides of her nose, indicating that she probably wears glasses, but did not wear them in court out of vanity. What kind of bum is he then? Well, what's there to talk about? For another example: Whilst the bigotry may have been updated, the actual discussion of the case has not.
‎12 Angry Men (1997) directed by William Friedkin • Reviews, film + cast • Letterboxd
I mean, expecting normal people to believe that kind of bullshit. Isn't that the dumbest thing you ever saw? I don't think a couple more hits in the face would provoke him to murder. He was a mean, cruel, primitive kind of man. The plot of the film revolves around their difficulty in reaching a unanimous verdict, mainly due to several of the jurors' personal prejudices. The jury is further instructed that a guilty verdict will be accompanied by a mandatory death sentence. My little grandson has the mumps, face up to here, my wife says he looks like Fat Albo.
Foreman, let's see how great you run this show. The film is adapted by Reginald Rose from his own 1957 film version directed by Sidney Lumet and from the Westinghouse One television production that predated it. He yells almost every other line. What the hell does that got to do with anything? I'm a very excitable person, I mean. A 2015 Chinese adaptation, , follows the plot of the original 1957 American movie, while including characters reflecting contemporary Beijing society, including a cab driver, guard, businessman, policeman, a retiree persecuted in a 1950s' political movement, and others. I don't see how you can argue with that. So does the incredible cast that Friedkin assembled to fill out his jury; Jack Lemmon, Ossie Davis, George C.
Now listen to me people! Juror number 8, the lone dissenter, states that the evidence presented is circumstantial and the boy deserves a fair deliberation, upon which he questions the accuracy and reliability of the only two witnesses to the murder, the fact that the knife used in the murder is not as unusual as testimony promotes he produces an identical one from his pocket , and the overall shady circumstances. I could kill you for that darling, or. An initial vote is taken and eleven of the jurors vote for conviction. I'm waiting for the second hand to reach sixty. Plot After the final closing arguments have been presented to the judge, she gives her instructions to the jury, all of which are men. I wouldn't mind telling that. I urge you to deliberate thoughtfully and honestly.
At 10 he's at juvenile court, he threw a rock at a teacher, at 14 he was in reform school cause he stole a car, he's been arrested for muggin', he's been picked up twice for trying to slash another teen with a knife, he's real good with that switchblade you know. You have no right to just walk. Let me ask you another question gentlemen. I sure hope they let us go home in case we don't finish this case tonight. As with many such remakes, this film consequently suffers from anachronisms and from bizarre reinterpretations of the original story.
My recommendation, to those who have never seen either film, is to watch the 1957 version first to enjoy the dialogue and the gradual character development and interplay to their fullest in a historical setting where both the particular racial and social prejudices that underpin a lot of that interplay and the discussion of the case at least make sense, and then to watch this one to enjoy George C Scott's performance. Well, there was this whole business about the stab wound, how it was made, the downward angle, you know? I'm sorry, I was just letting off steam. I never knew they locked the door. We're trying to put a guilty man where he belongs and somebody's telling us fairy tales and we're listening! Where were you last night? And I wanna stop wasting time. Juror 4 doubts the alibi of being at the movies, because the accused could not recall it in much detail. One thing that always amazes me is how these lawyers can talk and talk, even on a case as obvious as this one. Written by Whether or not we really needed a remake of the famous Henry Fonda film, updated with a range of nationalities and transferred to television, this is a well-enough done update benefiting from some strong actors in the cast.
I told you I work in an ad agency, didn't I? We're not going to get anywhere like this. This tells the story of a of 12 men as they deliberate the conviction or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of , forcing the jurors to question their morals and values. Let's try to get this air conditioning working in here, what do you say, eh? He goes off on a tirade, presenting the evidence in haphazard fashion, before coming to what has really been bothering him all along: the idea that a son would kill his own father it was established earlier in the film that Juror 3 had a bad relationship with his son. This man is a dangerous killer, you could see it. An important point the prosecution raised, was the fact that the boy, having said that he was at the movies, during the time the murder occured, could not remember the names of the films or the stars that were in them. Hey look, let me ask you a question.
