12 Angry Men

**A needless and unnecessary remake, but that was very well done and does not disrespect the original.** What usually happens when a remake of a film so acclaimed and so well remembered comes out that it's considered a classic? As a rule, we tend to think that the remake was totally unnecessary a ... nd that the original is always better. This film, in fact, is a remake that has everything to be considered unnecessary and, perhaps because of that, it was put a little aside by almost everyone. It wasn't a film that caught the attention, it went automatically to the television market without even going to the cinemas and disappeared quietly. I have to admit that this remake was not necessary. The original film is incredible value and did not lack for such a thing. However, this production for television also has some value and some merits that we cannot fail to observe, otherwise we are not being fair. And the cast is, perhaps, one of the greatest merits of the film, which will keep the characters from the original, taking extreme care in reinterpreting some of them and including greater racial mixing. And we can say that all the actors hired are good, and they all do a truly exemplary job. Jack Lemmon and George Scott deserve all the attention, with colossal and powerful interpretations, but it is also worth seeing the work of James Gandolfini, Ossie Davis, Hume Cronyn or Dorian Harewood. The movie also works pretty well considering it's a made-for-TV movie. I don't know if I can say that it has cinematic characteristics, but I wouldn't be shocked to see it in the movie theater. The cinematography is quite good, the sets and costumes meet what you expect to find, and the film is, in practice, a modernized copy of its old version. It was needless, it will never take the place of the original film, but it turned out to be a well done remake nonetheless. read more