MovieChat Forums > 12 Angry Men (1997) Discussion > The original actors must be rolling in t...

The original actors must be rolling in their graves.

posted 14 years ago by coughlinj87
11 replies | jump to latest

I tried watching this as an independent movie, that had no relationship with the original, but in the end that only made it worse. This movie was abysmal. The acting was terrible, the characters did NOT make the racial transition well, and good god, Tony Danza? Not to mention the fact that the script carries a generational language gap, that's made WORSE by the terrible acting, and poorly written changes. In fact, the original carries better into this century than this travesty of a film could ever hope to match. The director should be shot for disgracing a masterful film's legacy.

[–] jmnh109 14 years ago

Agree. As much as I love Jack Lemmon, he goes way over the top - really overacts. Henry Fonda was so much better in the original. And whose idea was it to give Tony Danza a role? Don't mess with the original - this one is atrocious.

[–] nimstic 14 years ago

Well, your personal opinion is well respected. I do not believe this was a bad remake. I love both equally and refuse to question either on petty grounds.

Jack Lemmon was phenomenal. So was George C. Scott.

I simply reject this debate. This was a movie made in a different time. It has to be different, for better or worse. I simply do not buy any argument that goes in favour of 1957 film only because it was made 40 years earlier than this film. Many of us discount many things when we compare a old and new film remakes. Tell me one new remkae people happily admit as way better than the old/original. If you want a fair comparison, then forget the timeline.. bring them both to the table as plain films and assuming 'all other things remain the same' and then compare. I see a lot of people are simply being sympathetic because it's an old film, it's got to be an 'untouchable'. and I resent anyone's claim that Jack Lemmon wasn't fit for the role... I believe he's fit for the role as much as Henry Fonda was!

[–] ovpower 13 years ago

First off, let me say that I like both versions, but prefer the original. I don't think anyone is saying the original is better because it's older. The original is better for many reasons. Mainly the actors and how they work so well together. There is a connection between these actors that isn't quite there in the remake. Perhaps they rehearsed their parts more, I don't know. Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott are by far the strongest characters in this remake, but for me, they can't save this film by themselves. I lay the blame on the script and director. Where the original is subtle, the remake clubs you over the head. For example the racist black guy. A very cringe-worthy performance, but it wasn't his fault, it was the script writers. The actor is obviously capable of a good performance, but he was given some awful lines to deliver. The scene with him and the Gandolfini juror is just painful too watch. Now, Tony Danza is completely unwatchable. What on earth was the casting director thinking? Enough has been said in other posts about this performance. Besides these faults and many others, it's still a pretty good film, but in my view, not near as good as the original.

[–] macanangop 13 years ago

Agree. I just don't understand why the newer version could've won Globes and the the original just nominated for Oscar. Hell, I wonder why the TV version could've won anything. The characters is simply just copying the tensions and emotions that has been built by the old casts and they are NOT executed it well, it came out being cheesy. They're even trying to follow the intonation of the old actors, but again, I don't like the sound of it.
Maybe if they are not pushing too hard to become as good as the original and trying to make different way for this but with the same storyline it'll be okay.

[–] ViolentRhapsody 13 years ago

The problem is that the first 12 Angry Men, with Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, et al is a classic. Nothing can compete with that much of a legend.

However, based on acting alone the new version does not even come close in intensity and being able to just watch the performances and say, "Wow".

Henry Fonda aside, Lee J. Cobb was the quintessential "angry man" in the original. But not only that but the ensemble cast (or should I say ensemble "class") made the original. From Martin Balsam, Jack Warden, Jack Klugman...even the subdued performance of E.G. Marshall...I mean, "wow"!

I bet a lot of current so-called "actors" and part-time pop singers in Hollywood haven't even seen the original because if they had they they would be humbled.

Strangely, I thought Tony Danza actually gave a good modern interpretation of the baseball obsessed juror originally played by Jack Warden.

Unfortunately, I did not like Jack Lemon's interpretation because it was too passive. Henry Fonda's character was quiet but strong at the same time. Jack Lemon would have done better as the foreman of the jury (originally played by Martin Balsam).

[–] SnoozeAlarm 13 years ago

This remake of a classic was horrible, and should not have been done.

And it's not Tony Danza's fault. Most of the actors involved delivered the worst performances of their careers.

Actually, this production does serve one useful purpose: it makes me appreciate the original even more.

http://tinyurl.com/cjsy86c

[–] hackerman6731 (89) 5 years ago

It was so awful, that Ving Rhames gave his Emmy to Jack Lemmon.......

No idea what movie you watched, but IMO the 97 version was excellent.

[–] bluerisk 12 years ago

I like the new version far better.

Ich bin kein ausgeklügelt Buch, ich bin ein Mensch mit seinem Widerspruch.
Conrad Ferdinand Meyer

[–] koffeenkreame41-1 12 years ago

I kind of shocked when some people say that the actors in this film gave the worst performances of their careers. This film wasn't horrible at all. I think most people went into this film wanting to hate because in their opinion, nothing can beat the original. I know some people that rag on the Dawn of the Dead remake and prefer the Romero original. Doesn't make it bad or horrible. People are just used to the original and didn't like the idea of a remake, which is a shame because this remake was quite quite good. To the poster that said the scene with Gandolfini & Williamson was awkward, it was supposed to be awkward. It was intentional, it was to show that Mykelti Williamson's character didn't like Gandolfini and didn't want to talk to him. Compare the intensity of Ed Begley's prejudice character in the original to Williamson's in this film with Ossie Davis, Gandolfini & Armin Mueller-Stahl telling him to stop. THAT scene was intense, his version of Juror #10 was more despicable than Begley's.

The scene with Danza giving the reason for changing his vote was very good as well. There's no way anyone could say that his acting in that scene was "abysmal" All the actors did good and they all were believable, this remake is a more modern take. It wasn't a remake for the sake of being remade. If people took this as a modern take of the original and still didn't like it, to each his own.

"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit me!"- Hudson in Aliens.

[–] SnoozeAlarm 10 years ago

I think the original is a great movie and this stinks. To me, it's so blatant, that I'm mystified how anyone who's seen the original can like the remake at all.

It should be against the law to use 'LOL'; unless you really did LOL!

[–] Darthnixa 9 years ago

Tbh this one looks like an amateur video made by some friends as a tribute. Bad camera, bad lightning, bad acting, exact same screenplay, weird racist Nation of Islam juror (look this film is so relevant and progressive)... everything is so weird and lame in this one.