Watch 12 Angry Men For Free

Best movie of this year hands down!

Awesome Movie

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

I vote with the majority (and not because I lack the courage to stand up for my conviction!) and hereby decree the older version better than the newer. I have to admit, though, that while there are several solid reasons to prefer Fonda's show to Lemmon's, a good portion of my bias comes from having known and loved the earlier one for so long a time. I really mean it when I say I *love* it; I watch it a couple or three times every year, sometimes more, and come away from each viewing with something new that I had not appreciated before.Now that I've clearly pronounced the winner, let me take a little space here to extol and console the also-ran. It's a great piece of work, and it comes up even greater when you consider it was a made-for-TV project. The unfortunate thing is that any viewers who're familiar with the first film watch the re-make while visions of sugarplums dance in their heads, Fonda et al being the sweetmeats in mind here. This is not to say that the Lemmon bunch wasn't a juicy treat in its own right (has it EVER been less than a treat to watch Scott or Davis?). But it's hard to give the new kids your undivided attention when comparisons to the old are being simulcast by your brain, despite your best attempts not to notice.A few observations that serve to raise the later version above the earlier in specific places were inescapable, however. The highly experienced Cronyn was more insightful, even when not speaking, than was Sweeney, who had fewer major screen credits under his belt at the time he appeared as the elderly juror in the first film. The same is true, though less so, of the well seasoned Davis as opposed to Fiedler, much Davis's junior and whose performance was pretty much perfect to the degree the role allowed. Davis was brilliant, but more importantly, the role morphed into something fleshier by the time he undertook it. For him, the part was that of a racial minority member who had been recognizing and surviving prejudice longer than the other African American jurors. It was as if he became, right before the viewers' eyes, a revered elder sage, capable of offering counsel and/or chastisement to the hotter blooded Williamson. For my money, nobody but nobody serves up a more convincing bigot than Begley, but as with Davis's, Williamson's role included the additional dimension bestowed upon a character in a story about racism who is himself from a racial minority. Jurors 2 and 10 were just plain different characters from one film to the next, and all 4 actors were admirable.Keep in mind that as dear as you may hold Pepsi and Oprah for their own stellar qualities, the truth is that they followed and imitated Coke and Phil Donahue. There's nothing wrong with being a truly talented new kid as long as you can accept that when the original you trail was not merely exceptional but groundbreaking, your uniquely crafted attributes will never appear all that unique.

After 40 years of 12 angry men in B/W starring Henry Fonda - it was time to try again. Henry F and friends ,- did an excellent job in 1957 , no doubt about it. But this is even better. It has an even more emotional and spirited atmosphere , with even more feelings to each actor. Jack Lemmon is brilliant as the knight and warrior of righteousness and gives his character Davies the exact expressiveness and life that is needed - a bit more than Fonda who was a bit more silent and concerned as a person. Nothing wrong about him - Lemmon does however make his man stronger with a touch of a temper - he can get a little angry an it looks good. It's the best!

These comparison notes resulted from something I've wanted to do for a long time – watching the two "12 angry men" back to back in one sitting. Obviously, a detailed comparison is not feasible with the length limit of IMDb user comments. A small monograph would serve better. Indeed the original movie has been used as material for corporate training courses on relating styles.The following comparison is therefore confined to the cast of the 12 jury members. The big picture was of course an updating of the times – while in 1957, it was an entirely White cast, the remake saw 4 Blacks (1, 2, 5 and 10). But colour is entirely incidental in this movie, as in "Lilies of the field" (1963) in which Sidney Poitier won his Oscar.For Juror #1, Martin Balsam plays a slightly tentative foreman, or at least not as self-assured as Courtney B. Vance's portrayal 40 years later. Both handle the sentimental scene of baseball-in-the-rain quite well.Juror #2, the people-generally-ignore guy, is handled quite differently in the two versions. John Fiedler plays a nerdy little man who can however turn cheeky at the right moment. Ossie Davis' portrayal is an out-and-out grass-root guy that is consistently humble in manner even when the content of his lines could be cheeky, like throwing back things said by Jury #3 right in his face.Juror #3, coincidentally or otherwise, is played by two great actors who both include the middle initial as part of their name. While portrayal of the "bad guy" is similar throughout most of the movie, the finale "breakdown" scene is handled slightly differently. Lee J. Cobb's version is slightly briefer and less emotional, with the breakdown triggered by catching sight of his picture with his son. George C. Scott's portrayal, however, is more emotional with thoughts of his own son triggered when he talks about the accused boy's purported shout to his father "I'm going to kill you". Interesting to note that because of the difference in the gentlemen's age when they took the role, in character in Cobb's case has not seen his son for only 2 years while in Scott's case it's 20 years.Juror #4, the most logical and analytical of the bunch, was played in 1957 by E. G. Marshall, as down-to-earth and dispassionate as the role requires. Armin Mueller-Stahl in 1997 comes across as a little more "academic" and less practical in flavor. Or maybe Marshall's persona for the role has been too firmly ingrained.The man-from-the-slumps, Juror #5 who is the third to change his vote to "not guilty", comes across very much alike in the portrayals by Jack Klugman and Dorian Hare and as I said, the colour difference is just incidental.Juror #6 is the typical blue-collar worker who claims that he "lets the boss do the thinking". But don't be deceived because he is also the one who comes up with the sharp retort to Juror #8 in the washroom, "Suppose we come up with a not guilty verdict and the accused did kill his father." He and Juror #6 change their votes to "not guilty" together, turning the result to a dead even 6-to-6. Ed Binns (a versatile actor who a few years later played a Senator in "Judgment at Nuremberg") plays the role more ore less on face value while James Gandolfini displays just a little more subtle intelligence and authority.Juror #7, the man whose interest is only in catching the baseball game in the evening, is a somewhat superficial character, and the role is handled effectively by Jack Warden and later Tony Danza.Henry Fonda's Juror #8, the hero of the story, makes such a deep and long impression that it's difficult to imagine anyone else playing it. It requires some effort to give Jack Lemmon an unbiased consideration. It seems that Juror #8 forty years later has become more emotional, angrier and louder. Come to think of it, you can say the same thing about the entire mood of the remake, which may simply reflect the change in the times.Juror #9, the "old man", is the first to change his vote to "not guilty" in support of Juror #8's gutsy "gamble". Joseph Sweeney plays this character with such confidence that you'll forget about his age. Hume Cronyn plays it with a little more fragile vulnerability.Juror #10 is the uncontested top ass**** in the story, with prejudice and discrimination written all over him. Ed Begley brings out the cold, dry, contemptible character well. Mykelti Williamson (who plays an excellent "Bubba" in "Forrest Gump"), tackles the character somewhat differently, with a trace of I-don't-really-give-a-sh** resignation that is not seen in Begley's portrayal.Juror #11, the European immigrant watchmaker, the fourth man to change his vote to "not guilty", is a character with matching precision – patience, mannered upbringing, clear sense of right and wrong. Both George Voskovc and Edward James Olmos have done an excellent job, with the latter displaying a touch more of icy coolness.Juror #12 the salesman is well played by both Robert Webber and William L. Peterson in the portrayal of the indecisive character and disinterest in the court case. He, together with Jurors # 1 and 7, are the most "undecided" three, forming the bunch that is the next to change their vote to "not guilty" after the 6/6 split. The remaining 3 are the die-hards.

This remake of ''12 Angry Men''is awesome! I didn't watched the original version of this movie, but I liked very much this version,so I guess the first one is so great or even better then this one.(I will watch it eventually) 12 jurors need to conclude if a boy accused to have killed his father, is guilty or non guilty. The majority of them believes that the boy is guilty, with the exception of only one of the jurors (the juror number 8). Since the boy's penalty will be death sentence, the juror number 8 wants to know the arguments and reasons before giving a conclusion,making everybody to think very well about all the case and to forget their hypocrisy.This movie is spectacular and make us think very well about the process of the things,specially in Court. I liked the cast very much as well, even not knowing many of the actors, I think their job was terrific!