Directed by William Friedkin
Written by Reginald Rose (based on his teleplay)
Starring Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Edward James Olmos, Mykelti Williamson, Tony Danza, Ossie Davis, James Gandolfini
Runtime: 1 hour 57 minutes
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Now available on 4K Blu-Ray from Kino Lorber

by Ian Hrabe, Staff Writer

I tend to reference my cinephile origin story a lot. Like ad nauseum a lot because it’s still the frame of reference I use for every movie I watch. Everything I see is filtered through a couple of summers I spent working through the IMDB Top 250, pulling in everything from my neighborhood library (an experience that was so powerful I now work as a professional librarian). Those summers in the early ‘00s watching three or four movies a day when I wasn’t slinging popcorn at the local multiplex were some real primordial ooze shit. I mention this (again), because when it came time to watch Sidney Lumet’s classic 12 Angry Men I accidentally requested William Friedkin’s 1997 TV Movie version, and it was only when I went to cross it off my tattered list that I realized I had just watched the wrong version. To confuse matters more, I absolutely loved it. 

So, seeing Friedkin’s underseen version of Reginald Rose’s television play get the Kino Lorber Blu-Ray treatment warms my heart, if only because this version remains largely underseen due to bearing that scarlet letter of the TV Movie. I mean that and the fact that Lumet’s 1957 version starring Henry Fonda is a superior work of cinematic art (and currently ranks at #5 on IMDB’s Top 250) and if you’re going to watch one version of this story, that’s the one you should watch. That said, one of the reasons why 12 Angry Men is an enduring classic is that it’s a story about the American Criminal Justice System, its flaws, its inherent biases, and morality, themes which feel evergreen. The problems you see in Lumet’s 1957 version– namely eleven jurors wanting to quickly turn in a guilty verdict and one holdout wondering if they aren’t rushing to condemn a potentially innocent man– are still happening in America’s courtrooms because the Justice System is still as irrevocably broken as it was 60+ years ago (watch the heart-stomping documentary Dear Zachary or just look at people like O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony going free if you need further proof). 

While Friedkin’s update keeps the script largely unchanged with the exception of some timely updates, here he integrates the cast which gives the film a racial element that makes it feel like something more than a ho-hum remake. This isn’t a mere diversification either, as the person on trial is an 18 year old Latino man from the slums, and there is a racially charged tension that runs under this thing until it eventually explodes. Anytime I see that a movie is being remade, my initial reaction is “Why now?” and nine times out of ten the answer is “because it will turn a quick buck and we are too lazy to come up with new ideas.” The reasons for this remake, however, are clear as day.

One thing that Rose’s script has going for it, besides being both an excellent courtroom drama and a murder mystery, is that it gives each of the 12 jurors a moment to shine. Sure, there are some who establish themselves as bigger characters than others, but every character has a different angle that adds something to the story. That said, despite the incredible supporting cast, 12 Angry Men is essentially a showdown between Juror #8 (Jack Lemmon) and Juror #3 (George C. Scott). Juror #8 is the one holdout in the group of jurors wanting to quickly convict the man of murder and potentially send him to death row, where Juror #3 has his heels dug in to convict the man that is rooted in his own personal baggage. While the overall plot is about how one man can change the minds of eleven other men, at its heart there is a clear protagonist/antagonist battle that carries the bulk of the film’s thematic weight.

Which is to say, watching two film legends like Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott spar with each other for two hours is as good as it gets. Juror #8 and Juror #3 were among Lemmon and Scott’s final screen roles, and they leave everything on the field here. When you watch them work here it’s like you can see the entirety of their careers boiled down into these two roles. I can see Lemmon’s affability from The Apartment and his desperation from Glengarry Glen Ross. I can see Scott’s gravitas-laden George S. Patton and wild-eyed General Buck “They’ll see the big board!” Turgison from Dr. Strangelove. This film is an actor’s showcase, and these two elevate this version of 12 Angry Men from a humble TV movie into an underseen classic. 

Speaking of that cast, it’s hard to say that everyone is outstanding without that coming across like hyperbole. And yet, well, everyone is great. Even Tony Danza does excellent work as the juror who has tickets to that evening’s Yankees game and wants to convict as quickly as possible so he can get there by first pitch. Pre-Sopranos James Gandolfini brings heart and soul to his Juror #6 who is, for all intents and purposes, a lunkhead. Dorian Harewood (Eightball from Full Metal Jacket) shines every time he has to explain what it’s like being underprivileged in America. But the person who really goes above and beyond is Mykelti Williamson (Bubba from Forrest Gump) who steals the show every time his ex-Nation of Islam Juror #10 makes the case for Guilty. It’s hard to explain just how much fire Williamson brings to this role. The way he expresses indignation at the notion that anyone would even consider the man on trial is not guilty is masterful, and when he reveals his true motives for delivering a guilty verdict via a vile, racially-charged tirade in the film’s third act, you just sit there in awe wondering why he never became a superstar. 

One thing that struck me about watching this 25-year-old rendition of a nearly 70-year-old story is how relevant it still feels. The overall agenda of this story is to express the importance of being willing to change your mind, and the danger of being set in your ways out. A movie like this feels so important right now where there is a kind of stigma for some people (especially men, and there is more than a little toxic masculinity on display here) to admit they are wrong, and a tendency to dig in and create a false reality to prove one’s rightness. Sound familiar? Given how polarized things have become in America, the notion of one man changing the minds of eleven others seems a little more far-fetched now than it did in 1997. While that’s definitely true when it comes to the bulk of our discourse happening online, it’s fair to wonder if 12 people from the ever broadening spectrum of political ideology couldn’t find some common ground if they were locked in a jurors’ room together. That’s probably too much to ask given the nature of the division we are currently living through, but a movie like 12 Angry Men makes you hope that maybe, just maybe, common sense can prevail.