Exam which came out last year takes place all in one room. They even do the whole “don’t reveal anyone’s name” part.
I think a lot of people on this board based their entire opinion of Hollywood movies on three months of summer blockbusters. There’s plenty of successful movies out there without CGI, explosions, or fart jokes.
You lousy rotten kid. I suppose yours is a valid opinion, but it’s such a great movie, IMO, when seen as an actor’s movie – these outstanding actors had not much to go on, and they keep the audience riveted.
Yeah, nobody cares about whatever kid cut somebody or didn’t, but that’s why it’s such a great movie – it’s not even about the relationships among jurors, but each man for himself. For that reason – q.e. the iconic performances, it shouldn’t be remade, and probably wouldn’t (pace the remakes cited above).
Quoth RealityChuck:
The play is all on one set, but the movie has a fair number of scenes at the university, too, plus one in a church for the funeral.
It wouldn’t be a blockbuster money making movie by any means but it would be a pretty successful film to the limited audience that tends to follow independent films and cares about the acting and story involved.
It could certainly capture awards, things like the Academy Awards rarely depend on mainstream success. Many films survive on having simply good acting. An original story to get people watching to begin with helps too.
Of course the story now has already been used so it can’t get any credit for a new or original idea so it’s kind of a hopeless cause to try and draw interest. If people want to watch the film, the actors the first time around were as good as any group you could put together today, no need to try and improve on it. Aspects other then the acting are limited and unimportant.