I saw this one with an open mind after seeing the original a few times. I wanted to like it. I really did. But........
This movie did nothing for me. It was OK, just because the story is a very interesting story. I admire all of the actors in this movie...even Tony Danza to some degree. But the modernization of the original costs the movie valuable atmosphere points, which was what made the earlier version one of the best movies I've ever seen.
In the original, you couldn't help but feel the heat of the room, the rising anger, and ever-increasing claustrophobic state. A few director's "tricks" helped with that. I felt no heat and claustrophobia in this one...and the anger felt more forced.
I agree with the reviewers who stated that it was not a good idea to have older actors in so many roles, including Lemmon, Scott, and Davis. It ruins the storyline around the age of Juror #9, and doesn't allow Scott to be as forceful as Cobb was in the original. And Scott does not do nearly as good a job with his end of movie rant as Cobb did. I was totally unmoved, though I must admit while watching the remake that all I could think about was Cobb's masterful gut-wrenching speech. That's not to say that the acting wasn't good. It just wasn't great.
Other little things that annoyed me (ONE SPOILER):
Gandolfini was vastly underused.
Juror #10 never realizes his idiotic behavior, so it's totally unbelievable that he would change his vote for no reason.
We see a totally unnecessary and overly dramatic speech by the judge at the beginning of the movie.
We also see a shot of the defendant, which takes away from the imagination factor of the original.
I give this movie a rating of 5/10. If it were an original and not a remake, I'd give it 7/10 for the story alone. I gave the actual original movie (albeit a remake of a play) a 10/10. See the original and forget this one.
This movie did nothing for me. It was OK, just because the story is a very interesting story. I admire all of the actors in this movie...even Tony Danza to some degree. But the modernization of the original costs the movie valuable atmosphere points, which was what made the earlier version one of the best movies I've ever seen.
In the original, you couldn't help but feel the heat of the room, the rising anger, and ever-increasing claustrophobic state. A few director's "tricks" helped with that. I felt no heat and claustrophobia in this one...and the anger felt more forced.
I agree with the reviewers who stated that it was not a good idea to have older actors in so many roles, including Lemmon, Scott, and Davis. It ruins the storyline around the age of Juror #9, and doesn't allow Scott to be as forceful as Cobb was in the original. And Scott does not do nearly as good a job with his end of movie rant as Cobb did. I was totally unmoved, though I must admit while watching the remake that all I could think about was Cobb's masterful gut-wrenching speech. That's not to say that the acting wasn't good. It just wasn't great.
Other little things that annoyed me (ONE SPOILER):
Gandolfini was vastly underused.
Juror #10 never realizes his idiotic behavior, so it's totally unbelievable that he would change his vote for no reason.
We see a totally unnecessary and overly dramatic speech by the judge at the beginning of the movie.
We also see a shot of the defendant, which takes away from the imagination factor of the original.
I give this movie a rating of 5/10. If it were an original and not a remake, I'd give it 7/10 for the story alone. I gave the actual original movie (albeit a remake of a play) a 10/10. See the original and forget this one.