This is, of course, a remake of the 1957 Academy Award-nominated feature film, directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Henry Fonda. The twelve angry men are jurors deciding a murder case. It appears open and shut. A troubled Hispanic teen has apparently killed his father after a heated argument. Evidence is stacked to the courthouse rafters, and eleven of the jurors waste no time in voting for a conviction. It's up to one determined juror, played by Fonda in the original, and Jack Lemmon in this new version, to open the others' eyes to his nagging doubts.
Of course, Lemmon doesn't have an easy job. The other eleven have their good reasons for voting guilty. However, some of them, as we soon learn, have some personal scores to settle. In the original film, all twelve jurors were white, but the different ethnic backgrounds of the remake's jury adds riveting fireworks to an already strong story.
The best way to not give away the ending, and yet give you a decent description of each juror, is to describe them all down the line, from the foreman to juror #12. The foreman is now played by an African-American, Courtney B. Vance. Vance turned in an understated gem of a performance in "The Preacher's Wife," and here, as the calming presence amid the constant bickering, he reminds us that the judicial system can overcome chaos.
Juror #2 is portrayed by Ossie Davis. He has listened carefully to the evidence, and is initially timid during deliberations. However, Davis brings across the fact that he is shy on the outside, yet strong in his convictions.
Juror #3 is the strongest supporter of a guilty verdict. George C. Scott brings him to life, and lively is certainly a fit description of #3. His tirades and pleas for the conviction of the accused are driven by strong personal demons. Scott is as commanding as always, but well-publicized recent illnesses may have taken a slight toll on him during filming, as he appeared rather pale and periodically groggy.
#4 is the intellectual of the bunch, a broker played by Armin Mueller-Stahl. Mueller-Stahl took a different approach to #4 than his original counterpart, E.G. Marshall. Marshall felt arrogance was the key trait to this juror, whereas Mueller-Stahl is reserved, as if the broker is trying to hammer out details of a routine business transaction. Advantage: Mueller-Stahl.
Juror #5 is a Harlem hospital worker, played by Dorian Harewood. Harewood is not as well known as the original #5, Jack Klugman, but in my opinion, he's better in the role. He fights back against racist and ignorant remarks, and gives a first hand look at life in the slums, where the accused teen lives. I'm sorry, but it was really hard to believe the clean-cut Klugman when he talked about the daily knife fights outside his childhood home.
#6 is the average working man, played by James Gandolfini. This guy listens to the arguments, adds his two cents, and respects old people. What's left to say? He's a good juror.
Tony Danza fits like a glove into the role of #7, a guy who would rather be at Yankee Stadium than the jury room. He is good natured, but stubborn and slightly prejudice. Danza really displays an admirable range in this role, and it's a welcome change from "Who's the Boss."
Jack Lemmon, as justice-seeking juror #8, is the jewel in this ensemble crown. Lemmon is best known as a bland second banana to Walter Matthau, and Henry Fonda created a high standard with this role in the first film. Well, watch Lemmon become Perry Mason for 90 minutes, and you'll all but forget Fonda. He springs into action at every turn, conducting his own trial for the truth. It was a great performance, and one that should be remembered in next year's Emmy nominations.
Another veteran actor, Hume Cronyn has still got his theatrical chops, and he puts them to work as #9. He is the elder, feeble juror that the rest of the panel ignores. That is, until his extensive photographic memory helps prove some major theories during deliberations. His fine turn should help Cronyn find more roles well into the next century.
I don't think it's to early to consider Mykelti Williamson for a supporting actor Emmy. In the original film, #10 was a white man who disliked Latinos. Here, Williamson, robbed three years ago of an Oscar nomination for Bubba in "Forrest Gump," fleshes out the role considerably. #10 is now a former Nation of Islam member who truly hates just about everyone but himself. Good heavens, his views are so radical that he was booted from the Nation of Islam! If you've been reading this up to now, and wondered how these jurors could've produced such racially charged spats, look no further than #10, the eternal instigator. Williamson took major creative liberty with this role, and hits the bullseye with his disturbing portrait.
Edward James Olmos is also exceptional as #11, a quiet watchmaker of European descent. He is intensely focused on the case at hand, and will not stand for the jurors' quabbles while a man's life hangs in the balance. #11 broods often, in obvious disgust with the breakdown of the deliberations. Olmos can do brooding in his sleep, but he gets to deliver some inspirational justice messages as well, so it balances out.
Rounding out the jury is William Petersen as #12, an advertising executive whom I identify with the most. He is perplexed by the contrasting arguments, and is put under the gun by both factions to make a decision once and for all: guilty or not guilty? A tough choice, indeed.
To wrap up, Lumet's 1957 version of "12 Angry Men" certainly made for great drama. However, 40 years later, the remake couldn't be more relevant. It's topical, it's star-studded, and it's high quality cinema. By all means, try to catch the new "12 Angry Men." Who knows? It might pop up on Court TV very soon.
Comments? I'd love to hear them. art@benzene.net
Get your ownFree Home Page