Originally, "12 Angry Men" was a live teleplay which was performed in 1954 for "Studio One". A few years later, many of the same cast members returned...and this time with Henry Fonda in the lead. The film turned out to be a masterpiece...one of the strongest movies of the 1950s and one that proved that WRITING and CHARACTER ACTORS are more important that action and big budgets. In 1997, for some inexplicable reason, some folks decided to remake it. Why? Were the TV version or first film flawed in some way? No way! So why did they produce this remake? I dunno...laziness?! Perhaps.
In most ways the film is like the previous versions, though when the story begins, you have a courtroom scene...something NOT in the other versions and something that is really unnecessary. Not bad...but unnecessary. Likewise, the portion about the psychiatrist is new...not in the originals. Why was it so otherwise similar? Well, the same guy who wrote the teleplay ALSO wrote this updated version.
So is the film necessary? No. The first film was perfect and featured some of the best character actors Hollywood could offer...as does this remake. But why see a remake when the first movie was perfect? In other words, there's nothing wrong with this 1997 version...but it just isn't necessary when we have a classic film already. The only big improvement in this 1997 film is that it's nice to see a more racially diverse jury...though it does exclude women...and as IMDB indicated, it was because the title "12 Angry People" wouldn't have the same impact.
Overall, an exceptionally well made movie...one that deserves to be seen...but only if you try one of the earlier versions first. It has many powerful moments...and I cannot discount that. It just isn't exactly original.
In most ways the film is like the previous versions, though when the story begins, you have a courtroom scene...something NOT in the other versions and something that is really unnecessary. Not bad...but unnecessary. Likewise, the portion about the psychiatrist is new...not in the originals. Why was it so otherwise similar? Well, the same guy who wrote the teleplay ALSO wrote this updated version.
So is the film necessary? No. The first film was perfect and featured some of the best character actors Hollywood could offer...as does this remake. But why see a remake when the first movie was perfect? In other words, there's nothing wrong with this 1997 version...but it just isn't necessary when we have a classic film already. The only big improvement in this 1997 film is that it's nice to see a more racially diverse jury...though it does exclude women...and as IMDB indicated, it was because the title "12 Angry People" wouldn't have the same impact.
Overall, an exceptionally well made movie...one that deserves to be seen...but only if you try one of the earlier versions first. It has many powerful moments...and I cannot discount that. It just isn't exactly original.