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.

The movie had one simple story. The story was to be told by 12 men. As they examine the character and the plot of the movie, their characters are examined and developed. Jack Lemmon's performance in this movie was amazing. Even better was G.C Scott's performance. The frailties and the strengths of each character made their stories very believable. I thought some actors could have done better, but in a weird way, their character in the movie supported the weak performance. I know, it sounds weird but that is my observation. Space-wise, the movie had very little to work with. It had an abundance of characters in that very little space and the script was so well written for all characters to have some relevance or the clear lack of it in that room. I will recommend this drama any day. For added effect (totally unnecessary), play this movie again with the monitor off and pretend you are eavesdropping on the jury. If that does not do it for you, nothing will.

These comparison notes resulted from something I've wanted to do for a long time – watching the two "12 angry men" back to back in one sitting. Obviously, a detailed comparison is not feasible with the length limit of IMDb user comments. A small monograph would serve better. Indeed the original movie has been used as material for corporate training courses on relating styles.The following comparison is therefore confined to the cast of the 12 jury members. The big picture was of course an updating of the times – while in 1957, it was an entirely White cast, the remake saw 4 Blacks (1, 2, 5 and 10). But colour is entirely incidental in this movie, as in "Lilies of the field" (1963) in which Sidney Poitier won his Oscar.For Juror #1, Martin Balsam plays a slightly tentative foreman, or at least not as self-assured as Courtney B. Vance's portrayal 40 years later. Both handle the sentimental scene of baseball-in-the-rain quite well.Juror #2, the people-generally-ignore guy, is handled quite differently in the two versions. John Fiedler plays a nerdy little man who can however turn cheeky at the right moment. Ossie Davis' portrayal is an out-and-out grass-root guy that is consistently humble in manner even when the content of his lines could be cheeky, like throwing back things said by Jury #3 right in his face.Juror #3, coincidentally or otherwise, is played by two great actors who both include the middle initial as part of their name. While portrayal of the "bad guy" is similar throughout most of the movie, the finale "breakdown" scene is handled slightly differently. Lee J. Cobb's version is slightly briefer and less emotional, with the breakdown triggered by catching sight of his picture with his son. George C. Scott's portrayal, however, is more emotional with thoughts of his own son triggered when he talks about the accused boy's purported shout to his father "I'm going to kill you". Interesting to note that because of the difference in the gentlemen's age when they took the role, in character in Cobb's case has not seen his son for only 2 years while in Scott's case it's 20 years.Juror #4, the most logical and analytical of the bunch, was played in 1957 by E. G. Marshall, as down-to-earth and dispassionate as the role requires. Armin Mueller-Stahl in 1997 comes across as a little more "academic" and less practical in flavor. Or maybe Marshall's persona for the role has been too firmly ingrained.The man-from-the-slumps, Juror #5 who is the third to change his vote to "not guilty", comes across very much alike in the portrayals by Jack Klugman and Dorian Hare and as I said, the colour difference is just incidental.Juror #6 is the typical blue-collar worker who claims that he "lets the boss do the thinking". But don't be deceived because he is also the one who comes up with the sharp retort to Juror #8 in the washroom, "Suppose we come up with a not guilty verdict and the accused did kill his father." He and Juror #6 change their votes to "not guilty" together, turning the result to a dead even 6-to-6. Ed Binns (a versatile actor who a few years later played a Senator in "Judgment at Nuremberg") plays the role more ore less on face value while James Gandolfini displays just a little more subtle intelligence and authority.Juror #7, the man whose interest is only in catching the baseball game in the evening, is a somewhat superficial character, and the role is handled effectively by Jack Warden and later Tony Danza.Henry Fonda's Juror #8, the hero of the story, makes such a deep and long impression that it's difficult to imagine anyone else playing it. It requires some effort to give Jack Lemmon an unbiased consideration. It seems that Juror #8 forty years later has become more emotional, angrier and louder. Come to think of it, you can say the same thing about the entire mood of the remake, which may simply reflect the change in the times.Juror #9, the "old man", is the first to change his vote to "not guilty" in support of Juror #8's gutsy "gamble". Joseph Sweeney plays this character with such confidence that you'll forget about his age. Hume Cronyn plays it with a little more fragile vulnerability.Juror #10 is the uncontested top ass**** in the story, with prejudice and discrimination written all over him. Ed Begley brings out the cold, dry, contemptible character well. Mykelti Williamson (who plays an excellent "Bubba" in "Forrest Gump"), tackles the character somewhat differently, with a trace of I-don't-really-give-a-sh** resignation that is not seen in Begley's portrayal.Juror #11, the European immigrant watchmaker, the fourth man to change his vote to "not guilty", is a character with matching precision – patience, mannered upbringing, clear sense of right and wrong. Both George Voskovc and Edward James Olmos have done an excellent job, with the latter displaying a touch more of icy coolness.Juror #12 the salesman is well played by both Robert Webber and William L. Peterson in the portrayal of the indecisive character and disinterest in the court case. He, together with Jurors # 1 and 7, are the most "undecided" three, forming the bunch that is the next to change their vote to "not guilty" after the 6/6 split. The remaining 3 are the die-hards.

Some people may not think that this movie is as good as the original version, however, even though there are changes in the script, this movie depicts the view of our society. The cast, language and and scenario are more familiar in our modern world. Many times we get turned off by the black and white movies, just because of the black and white fact, but this movie brings the same idea and at the same time we can relate to the way we live nowadays. The fact that Henry Fonda is still alive to redo this movie is what impresses the most, specially if people watch both versions. The original movie is incredible, may be even better than the 1997 version, but owning both copies and watching them one after the other is a treat for all. Tony Danza was the perfect actor for the role of the baseball fan and the fact the there is a female actress brings more credibility to our times. This movie was printed on DVD in Australia (Region 4) and on VHS in America. Does anyone know if this movie is printed on DVD in USA and Canada (Region 1)? If so, Where could it be purchased? You may mail me at [email protected] and I would write this information on this site for all interested in purchasing such DVD.