I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

One of my all time favorites.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

January 3, 2017 - There are movies that remind you why you love movies.The deliberations of a jury in the case of a homicide: a young man with a difficult course is accused of the murder of his violent father. From the beginning, the case seems clear: the son is guilty because everything accuses him. A first round of voting is requested. All vote "guilty" except one man. Thus begins a discussion of one hour and fifty which will reveal the reasons for the act, the unresolved issues of the investigation, the various motives of the members of the jury. Everything happens, everything explodes because of a single individual who did not say "guilty". A man who wanted to know more, because he was not convinced in his soul and conscience of the guilt of the young man. As simple as it is, 12 Angry Men is an exceptional story, which tells so much about the human, his social relationships, his relationship to the truth, what he believes to be the truth, the interference of personal experiences in his perceptions and on the strength of doubt and dialogue. The 1997 version by William Friedkin (The Exorcist, French Connection, Sorcerer, To Live and Die in LA, ...) is splendid. 2 hours of dialogue in a closed room that keeps you in suspense, you have to do it. The plot focuses on the arguments and gives no conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. It's very strong because the point of view of the film is precisely what is said about the act, and not its nature.January 12, 2017 - I just saw the 1957 version of Sydney Lumet with the splendid Henry Fonda.Surprised: I find that the version of William Friedkin of 1997 is better than that of 1957. Longer than 20 minutes, better staged, better characters, the tension is more palpable. But seeing the one from 1957, I remember that I clearly felt the progress of the tension thanks to the very subtle work of Friedkin's camera. If you look at it (look at it!), Observe when it is tight or wide, when it moves the camera or not and how the Fa4on to show the scene influences the emotional intensity. I just saw it for the fourth time in 6 months and I do not get tired.It reminds me that this great director and not known assz has made a better remake of another classic, the Salary of Fear. His version is called in French The Convoy of Fear (or Sorcerer in VO) and it is extraordinary. Re-released on DVD / Blu-Ray recently thanks to its status of cult film.Decidedly this guy is an unknown genius. He has to his credit a flop of intriguing and sometimes disturbing films.Praise of doubt: faced with 11 certainties, 1 man gives a doubt and that will save the accused. Jack Lemmon, the ordinary and modest man who said no.This story seems to me very important in our time when the media is on the alert because of the explosion of information sharing methods. We must more than ever be cautious when appearances, labels, reputations. We must never believe, we must examine, always. Alain -

It's amusing how everyone here reviewing this movie says that the original is better, and probably because they think they are just supposed to think that way. This new version is FAR better than the old version. In the old version they are doing that old 50's stage-acting way of talking real fast, which of course today does not sound authentic at all!! The new version's actors are so much better at acting and therefore much more believable. All of these actors in the new version were tremendous in their roles, making this version light-years better than original version.

This film and its concept are eternal to our political process. In fact, 12 Angry Men should be remade every 10 years...with federal and private funds. Why?It is an insight to our most fundamental democratic process...the JURY. This remake brings to fore our contemporary morals and cultures (and clashes) and is most definitely worth watching not only for it's concept but for the stellar contemporary cast and Billy Friedkin, the director.Just think if were remade again today, with current stars, styles, morals, fashion, new legalities, maybe women on the jury, a few more immigrants, etc.Filmmakers remake and add forever editions (like Friday the 13th), to movies, but this movie ABOVE ALL should be remade. l want to see 12 Angry Men III, made in 2010, NOT 12 Angry zombies.12 Angry Men is America, and is at the heart of our very existence, especially in light of today's political situations.Come on producers let's get 12 Angry Men III the green light for a remake and show it to this generation. The background music could easily be Mellencamp's, "Ain't that America". And it is.

This is a movie that will not be appealing to everyone. It is not an action movie, and except for the bailiff and for the very end of the movie when they go into the courtroom, you only see the twelve men, who really do turn into twelve angry men. Among these, are some very famous and well seasoned actors. George C. Scott, Jack Lemon, Hume Cronym are the ones that I recognized from old times, and then there are also Tony Danza and James Gandofini when they were very young and "wet behind the ears". Sorry, but I do not recognize any of the others.In addition, the scenery does not change either, for they are all locked in a room and the entire two hours of the movie is about the deliberation that goes on in that room. It is far from boring though, for they all raise some very interesting points to consider when convicting a man accused of a crime.The movie opens in the courtroom for just a brief moment as the attorneys are both resting their case and the judge is instructing the jury to deliberate. Douglas Spain, as the accused boy, is hopelessly looking up at the ceiling fan as he is anticipating the guilty verdict that would ultimately come to him. It seems that he had been accused of stabbing his own father to death, going to a movie afterwards, and then returning home at 3AM to be arrested by the police. There were two witnesses who both claimed that they saw him. The first was a woman who said she saw him through the window as he stabbed his father, and the second was an old man who lived there, who claimed he saw him leave the apartment afterwards and run down the stairs.Once all the men were in the jury room, it seemed to be an "open and shut case". All were SURE that he had committed the crime. All except for one: Juror #8, played by Jack Lemon. He never said that he thought the kid was innocent. In fact he said that he was PROBABLY GUILTY, but what if--just WHAT IF we are wrong? What if he really HAD gone to the movies that night, so he was not even there when it happened? What if he really had been telling the truth all along? that he had not killed his own father? This was a capital crime with capital punishment involved. He could be put to death for this crime. Could these jurors afford to be wrong and have it on their consciouses if they later discover that they had convicted the wrong man and sent him to death? After all, it had been done before.(The name Dr. Richard Kimball (The Fugitive) comes to mind. This TV Series/Movie was based on a true story. He hadn't been put to death, but in real life, he lost I think about 20 or so years in jail before he could finally prove his innocence.)I had to laugh as I saw some of these jurors vacillate from "definitely guilty" to "innocent", to "probably guilty", and then to "innocent" again as they are confronted by the others for changing their minds. Some of their reasons for "knowing" that he was guilty are funny too. One man, a black man, was sure that he was guilty just because he was a Mexican, and he said that "everybody knows that the Mexicans are benefiting from the years of hard work that the blacks had done to gain equality". Another man saw his own son in this kid, and he was mad at his son, so he was mad at this kid and therefore the kid was guilty. Another funny thing were their reasons for "getting it over with" so they could go home. Tony Danza, for example, wanted it over "in about 5 minutes" because he had tickets for the ball game and that was more important.The movie was filled with suspense as it moved along: Suspense that made you wonder if they would EVER come to a verdict. (The voting MUST be unanimous.)I do not normally watch this type of movie, but I enjoyed this one. I give it a 10, not just because of the acting, the suspense, and the drama involved, but also because it is an excellent tool for anyone who is chosen to serve on a jury. I think that every juror should have to watch this movie beforehand as a prerequisite so he/she would keep the seriousness in mind of the possibility of making the wrong decision.