12 (2007)

Must See Movie...

i must have seen a different film!!

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Beautiful, moving film.

I really like the storyline. However it could be just me because I don't speak Russian but i thought half of the Jurors were over acting. Like i said, i watched it with English subtitles and i know translating a language could lose some of the 'gist' of what people are actually saying or meaning. To me, apart from the constant 'laughter and joke' majority of the jurors lacked emotion; or what they were saying didn't make sense with there actions. e.g: when each told there own story. There emotions didn't 'fit' with what they were saying or when one got hot headed it seemed it was over nothing. I do blame the translation. Overall I really enjoyed the whole storyline and the way it all headed. Although i must admit the 'near' ending shocked me. Thank God they made the decision that they did!

"12" is two title-words shorter and a full sixty-three minutes longer than "Twelve Angry Men," the 1957 Sydney Lumet classic on which this turgid Russian drama is based. Despite the obvious language difference, the Nikita Mikhalkov/Alexandr Novotosky/Vladimir Moiseyenko screenplay follows the Reginald Rose original - which began life as a "Studio One" teleplay in 1954 - fairly closely in form and outline. Again, eleven members of a jury stand ready to convict a young man of first-degree murder (in this case, for killing his foster father, an officer in the Russian army, for money) - until, that is, the lone holdout is able to sow enough doubt in the other jurors' minds to eventually get them to vote his way. And while in the original film the suspect faced racism and xenophobia on account of his being Hispanic, the suspect here suffers a similar fate for being Chechnyan.In the central role of the original dissenter, Sergei Makovetsky lacks the easily recognizable charm and charisma of Henry Fonda - and while this may make him a bit more believable as an "everyman" figure, it also makes him a less compelling focal point for a drama that takes far too long to play itself out. The extended length results, primarily, from the inclusion of brief flashbacks to the defendant's past, recounting the lead-up to the crime and the crime itself, as well as from individual speeches that drone on long past the point where any point can still be made. Each of the twelve jurors gets his moment in the spotlight to ham it up and declaim wildly on his theories about the case, his hatred of one ethnic group or another (in addition to anti-Chechnya sentiment, there's a great deal of anti-Semitism floating around the room as well), and the deplorable state of life in Russia - till the point where we no longer care about these people or the decision they're being forced to make. Eventually, we just want to get out of that place as badly as the men who are trapped inside it. And not all the talk about the Russian soul, not all the discussions of national politics or personal spleen-venting on the part of the participants can make us care one iota about the drama that's unfolding.The question one must finally ask when watching "12" is why anyone would want to take a work like "Twelve Angry Men," celebrated for its brevity and dramatic precision, and turn it into a lumbering, ponderous, elephantine bore - replete with endless speechifying and scenery-chewing performances. Why indeed!

Watching Nikita Mikhalkov'12 for the first time is a special experience depends on you watched the original masterpiece made by Sydney Lumet(12 Angry Men) or not.It is obviously an adaption wisely in accordance with Russian patterns,which in my opinion is an big advantage(to accordance fine movies to your country common methods and points of views and not just copy them).In both versions you can see the genuinely simple courtroom plot that can entertain audience and influence them.I should add that my favorite genre after Noir is Courtroom Drama(that may not consider as an independent genre by some critics)and I admit that 12 may not be one of the top movies of this genre but I recommend it to all of the genre fans and particularly to whom have seen the 12 Angry Men(1957),because it shows us how the classic film is eternal and fresh if you compare it to Mikhalkov's version and also teach us how to pay respect to fine old movies yet have something new to tell.

First and foremost the movie is 'almost' a remake (loose remake) of English classic 12 angry men, both dealing with 12 jurors attempting to make a judgment of teenager's fate with the limited information they have. This is the 3rd version of 12 angry men including original that I have seen and liked it equally; the other one is "Ek Ruka Hua Faisla" from India. I used 'almost' earlier because in this Russian version it's the politics/war (Chechnya-Russia relations) in the backdrop and also the ending is twisted to a certain extent. Now that being said, I will only talk about this movie here but do keep in mind that many points will actually apply to original one too (both pros and cons). The plot involves 12 jurors attempting to make an important decision on Chechnya teenager charged with the murder of his Russian step father. The jurors are accommodated in school gym, which for me was one of the major pros and works so well with the script, as the actors got some props like piano, soccer ball, wheel chair, weights and which are all used at one point or other to great success. Also the huge space allows the actors free movement around the gym, to reconstruct the crime scene based on floor plans, plus one of the best scene in the movie would not have been possible if not for the space. Pros: The characters are well defined, everyone gets chance to explain their situation and find relevance to the case, or why their vote is swinging from guilty to not guilty and so forth. The actors performing their respective characters are very believable. The film moves at a good pace and at times explodes out with some great acting. One of such scene is when a cab driver explains "what if" scenario to producer sitting on a wheel chair, it is as good as it gets and the actors performing this are in top form. The use of wheelchair, gym instruments, soccer ball and space just makes it even more worth watching. Then there is a scene where doctor starts dancing with the knife is again top quality. There are other scenes too which are equally good and wonderfully played by all the actors. Dialogues are at times really witty (esp. when taxi driver talks about his new girlfriend), dramatic, and emotional at times. Nikita Mikhalkov is at the top of his game, direction wise. Then there is a little twist towards the end which makes movie even good. Cons: The only con with the movie is the way jurors come to the decision which is solely based on the guess work and their better judgments of character and people. But again it is already made clear to us that the defense lawyer didn't present the case with great enthusiasm, so eventually all the jurors reasoning actually makes sense to us, even though not supported by actual evidence. But then in the end we know for fact that the boy is indeed innocent, and we can finally sigh, good work jurors!! You might really enjoy 12 even if either you haven't seen 12 Angry Men, or if you did watch English classic and don't fall in comparison trap. I enjoyed and liked both these movies!