Last night I rented the latest version of “12 Angry Men”. It starred Jack Lemmon and Tony Danza. I was not clear on what year the movie was supposed to take place in, or if it was a new version on the original movie, or just a remake with different actors.
But, now that I have seen the newest version I might still rent the older one just from shear curiosity. All of my friends and I agreed that this was not a very entertaining movie. It was pretty slow and non-eventful with no action. I found it to be a very predictable movie, which made it a little difficult to pay attention to. I understand why this movie would pertain to a psychology class, and caught a lot of situations in the movie that were textbook scenarios. But, mostly I was too busy noticing how most of the actors and their characters overacted and were too stereotypical.
Towards the middle of the movie I did start to wonder what the verdict would come out to be. But, since the beginning of the movie was so predictable I kind of already knew. One thing that I did find quite interesting is all of the testimonies and evidence that they went through and found errors in. All but one of the 12 jury men were ready to convict this young man for murdering his father without looking at the case closely.
It made me wonder if this type of situation has ever happened in real life, and if so, was there one person there in the jury room that had enough courage to try to change everybody else’s mind? I’m sure that this has occurred many times in our history. This definitely is a movie about persuasion and compliance. I put myself in the same position as Jack Lemmon and I found myself not sure that I would have enough guts to go against 11 other men that really didn’t care.