How does this film hold up over time?

Or better said, thank God for the Blk&White as it's even MORE timeless ;)

Pierce,there is a fine line between fun and imbecility, and you just pole-vaulted over it...

juest watched it. Top film. I wouldn't say it is 'important' - no film is. But great acting etc.

I disagree it's a good film nothing more.

It certainly not very PC, that's for sure. As most of Juror, especially #3, played by Lee J Cobb's dialogue would not be allowed in our current PC climate. Until recently, I've only watch the remake with Jack Lemmon in Fonda's role and George C Scott in Cobb's role and it was good. But, after watching the original, I don't get the same claustrophobic feeling in the remake. The tension in the room, the sweating and the pacing back and forth by some of the characters gave the feeling of a cage tiger looking for away out of the room. Whether it was the black and white film or the changing camera angle or maybe both that gave it it's claustrophobic atmosphere. The original was far better. I'm not knocking the actors in the remake, they did an amazing job (with the exception of Tony Danza-- really? he was the best they could find?). The setting was much better in the original. The same sweating looked more real, whereas the remake looked like it had been applied by make up artist.



[deleted]

I will have to disagree with you. I've now watched both, the original black & white and the color remake. But, I think the b & w shows the claustrophobic feeling, the feeling as if the walls are closing in on the characters, and the longer they remain in that tiny jury room, the smaller the room gets, the more trouble they have breathing, loosing their collars, unbuttoning the top shirt button. I also love the changing camera angels. First, the camera are at eye level but as the film continues, they keep lowering the camera angle that continues to give that claustrophobia feeling. That was missing in the remake.