Change Your Image
ApplCin
Reviews
12 Angry Men (1997)
Watch the original if you haven't already
Admittedly, I went into this one with a strong predilection for the 1957 classic as it is one of my favorite films which I can easily watch over and over. So it was very hard for me not to continually compare the two films, the casting choices, the performances, the oh-so familiar dialogue, against their earlier counterparts. Perhaps, had the original not been so burned into my brain, I might have enjoyed this version more but, as it was, I found that it didn't draw me in or move me in the least and it wasn't just a question of being so used to, and enjoying, the original so much. I've seen a number of versions of "The Christmas Carol," for instance, and there are several I enjoy tremendously, including, ironically, the version with George C. Scott.
So I guess I'll start with Scott's performance because, as it were, one of the things that blew me away in the original was his counterpart, Lee J. Cobb's, performance. Juror #3's intensity, sadistic tendencies, blustering mingled with the "just the facts" attitude, yelling and threatening were gloriously and utterly believably played out by Cobb. Cobb *was* Juror #3. Take those same qualities and hand them to a 70-something year old actor who is obviously in declining health and you get mostly words without the passion to back them up. Plus, as others mentioned, the dialog and actions required of this character seemed out-of-place and, sometimes, outright pathetic coming from an old man. Threatening to kill Davis only to be restrained by several(?) men younger than himself, talking disrespectfully to McCardle only to be threatened by much younger and beefier James Gandolfini would have been laughable if the whole thing hadn't been painful to watch. Ironically, this would have been a great role for George C. Scott in his 40s or 50s.
As in the original, a number of the characters had so little to do or say that I found it didn't matter to me in the slightest who the actors in this version were and since most of them were now being played by African-Americans, it seemed more like tokenism than anything else. Oh yeah, and an opportunity to insert the word "brother" into Mykelti Williamson's dialogue. In the original, Martin Balsam, Edward Binns, and John Fiedler had very little to do and Jack Klugman fared only a little better. In this version, their counterparts, respectively, Courtney B. Vance, James Gandolfini, Ossie Davis (was he trying to channel John Fiedler's nebbish demeanor??) and Dorian Harewood could have easily been played by other actors (or even actresses, had the movie been called "Twelve Angry Men and Women"). Likewise, Robert Webber was practically a non-entity in the original and William L. Petersen fared the same. If the racial and age diversity of this cast was meant to be politically correct or reflective of society, it would have been better served in a film which used that diversity to full advantage and, in cases like Scott's and, to a lesser degree, Jack Lemmon's (whose Davis seemed bored and tired half the time compared to Henry Fonda's deeply compassionate and thoughtful portrayal), one wishes, as I mentioned earlier, that these actors had been about 20 years younger. As for the others, Edward James Olmos was adequate, Hume Cronyn & Armin Mueller-Stahl were good, Tony Danza was...well I won't go there. Obviously the character of Juror #10 was the most altered, from an old white man (Ed Begley) to a younger, angrier, African-American Muslim (Mykelti Williamson). One of the things that I enjoyed about the ending of the 1957 film was that many of the characters emerged at the end seemingly a little bit wiser (and maybe sadder) from the experience. Begley's character, after the scene where they all turn away from him, seemed utterly stunned at the reaction to him from the others and sat with a look that indicated that maybe he had just gotten a glimmer of understanding about his prejudices. In this film, they chose to portray the character in a more defiant and unrepentant way. More realistic of today's society? Who knows? I just found it one more disappointment about the film.
Oh yes...how can I forget, the token female? Look, a lady judge! It must be the 1990s!
If you haven't seen the 1957 version, I strongly recommend it over this version. Strong performances by, first and foremost, Lee J. Cobb, followed by Henry Fonda, Ed Begley, E.G. Marshall and Jack Warden, buoyed by able and believable performances by Jack Klugman, Ed Binns, George Voskovec and Joseph Sweeney make you totally believe in their characters. Granted, there are very few non-whites (save for a European(?) Voskovec & the Hispanic defendant) and no females but a good story performed by actors who seem to become their roles is a joy to watch.
Take Me Home: The John Denver Story (2000)
Best thing about it was the music.
I like John Denver's music and, ultimately, that was the only thing I liked about this film. Chad Lowe, though a fine actor, I thought was miscast. Not once in the entire film could I "suspend disbelief" and buy him as Denver, especially in John's later years when his 2 older children were teens/young adults and John was 50-ish. Lowe looked even younger than his own 32 years; never mind portraying the 50-ish father of 2 teenagers!
I also found the writing/dialogue to be stale and cliched and scenes/events oftentimes rushed, packing zero emotion. It was more like watching actors do re-enactments on those biography shows than a film.