This remake of ''12 Angry Men''is awesome! I didn't watched the original version of this movie, but I liked very much this version,so I guess the first one is so great or even better then this one.(I will watch it eventually) 12 jurors need to conclude if a boy accused to have killed his father, is guilty or non guilty. The majority of them believes that the boy is guilty, with the exception of only one of the jurors (the juror number 8). Since the boy's penalty will be death sentence, the juror number 8 wants to know the arguments and reasons before giving a conclusion,making everybody to think very well about all the case and to forget their hypocrisy.

This movie is spectacular and make us think very well about the process of the things,specially in Court. I liked the cast very much as well, even not knowing many of the actors, I think their job was terrific!

If you have seen the original "12 Angry Men," it's hard not to classify this film as inferior. The acting was better, the cinematography was better, the pace was faster. The cast in the remake is talented, just not as talented. Even the great George C. Scott couldn't quite measure up to Lee J. Cobb. Even the great Jack Lemmon couldn't compare to Henry Fonda. The only actor I felt was an improvement was Mykelti Williamson, who delivers a powerful and disturbing speech towards the end. I see him in mostly small, supporting roles, where he doesn't really get to show off his talent. In this film, Williamson gets the chance to flaunt his overlooked acting chops. One actor who I felt was a big step down was Tony Danza, who doesn't measure up at all to Jack Warden. Danza does an OK job, but dramatic acting isn't his forte. Sitcom acting is his strongsuit. Edward James Olmos does a fine job, but it took time getting over his phony accent. That's right, he's been in this country so long that his Latino accent sounds phony.

Nevertheless, the acting is good and the film really muscles up during the third act. If the director sped up the pace and the camerawork wasn't as clumsy, this could've been a much more compelling film. But to be fair, it's a tough job measuring up to the original. We've all seen and heard much of the dialogue (which is almost word-for-word from the original script, only with a few obscenities, one racial slur and modern references like "Fat Albert" added),so hearing it again is like listening to a stand-up comedian using his old material. Funny stuff, but we've heard it before. Only a good comedian will usually maintain a good delivery of the joke, while the delivery of some of the old dialogue is limp this time around.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott lead another troupe of players in that classic about men on a jury in a capital case 12 Angry Men. As I said in my review of the original film, it's a wonderfully acted but inherently flawed classic.

It's been updated somewhat as the original dozen were 12 angry white men. No women, but that would compromise the title. At one time just being a woman was an automatic out. Here we have Mykleti Williamson, Courtney B. Vance, Ossie Davis, and Dorian Harewood on the jury.

The fault with the first is repeated here. No way to get around it, the moment was a dramatic high point. Jack Lemmon in the Henry Fonda part announces to his fellow deliberaters that he visited the neighborhood of the crime and produces the exact same make and model of the switchblade weapon used in the murder.

Sorry folks, but it is still standard jury instructions that jurors NEVER visit the scene of the crime or the neighborhood of same. And you never do ANY independent investigating. When Lemmon produces that switchblade an immediate mistrial should have been called. Besides how did he get it through the metal detectors?

This version of 12 Angry Men, still wonderfully acted and directed, still inherently flawed.