12 Angry Men Reviews

An excellent cast and intelligent direction by William Friedkin are more than sufficient reasons for this made-for-cable remake of a classic American drama, first produced for television and later adapted for the movies by Sidney Lumet in 1957. After receiving instructions from the judge (Mary McDonnell), twelve men enter a jury room to pass judgment on a Hispanic youth accused of murdering his father. Everyone is immediately ready to vote guilty, except for Juror Eight (Jack Lemmon), who argues that a case which potentially involves the death penalty at least deserves some discussion. He reminds the others of the judge's instructions, that in order to hand down a verdict of guilty they must be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt of the boy's guilt. The foreman (Courtney B. Vance) agrees, despite grumblings from the others, particularly Jurors Three (George C. Scott), Seven (Tony Danza), and Ten (Mykelti Williamson). Examining the evidence and the testimony of the two witnesses, Juror Eight provokes discussion in a way that the boy's attorney, a public defender who seemed to assume that his client was guilty, failed to do. He begins to receive support, first from Juror Nine (Hume Cronyn), who thinks the boy is guilty but feels Eight should have his say, and then from others who come to doubt the state's case. As the more reasonable jurors come around, others become more stubborn, revealing the prejudices that blind them. Losing his temper, Juror Ten reveals himself to be a racist, while Juror Three is seen to be taking out his frustrations with his own son on the defendant. No longer convinced by any of the evidence offered against the defendant, the jury returns a verdict of not guilty. The deliberations of a jury trying a criminal case is such an excellent source of drama that it's surprising it isn't used more often. But then, why bother when it was done so well here? Although writer Reginald Rose made minor adjustments for this adaptation, the issues addressed in 12 ANGRY MEN are as important as they were four decades earlier. (They may even be more so, in an era when publicity generated by the mass media so often affects trials.) Although Jack Lemmon initially seems an odd choice for the role taken by Henry Fonda in 1957, it turns out to have been wise casting: his age and his characteristic reasonableness are an appropriate tonic to the era, and Lemmon gives one of his best performances in years. Rose gets good use out of all 12 characters, continually finding new ways to juxtapose them. It's a mark of the teleplay's quality that excellent actors like Ossie Davis were willing to appear in smaller roles. As did Sidney Lumet in the 1957 film, director William Friedkin works with the claustrophobic environment rather than against it, making the oppressive setting a 13th character in the drama. (Profanity.)