Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Ian (Flash Review)A quality take on the 1957 classic of 12 Angry Men. (I'll hold my tongue on the Tony Danza version. Ha.) This film heavily models the original while putting its own stamp on the story; its own stamp being interspersed flashbacks and action snippets. In this version, a young boy is on trial for murder of his stepfather and all 12 jurors are once again stuck in a single room, this time a school gymnasium with more props, while they deliberate. If you have seen the original, how plot points play out will feel very familiar. Which characters will drive the discussion or throw out wrenches this time? Each character is given time for a rich and detailed monologue which helps the viewer understand their personal perspective which helps to weave the story together. Even at a 2:40 runtime, the pacing is brisk, the acting is solid and believable and the glossy production value is appealing. Overall, this is a nice twist with proper drama and I feel I've strengthened my film geek chops with this one as the subtitles were rapid fire for most of the duration. Ha.

krstanic-47084 This movie could be easily transferred to Theater if you want to watch it a live show. 12 people and one room is enough for a great movie (although there are movie with even less actors that are good as this one). If you feel that the plot is going slow, you probably will go over this when watch it for second and every time after. And you'll notice more and more good details that support this story.The message that is sent is what most of us sense that art serves for - to give you nice feeling of importance of every life, to inspire you.

kiramorena I watched this movie because I had nothing better to do at the moment. I wasn't really paying attention at the beginning, but then, it sucked me in... somewhere around the middle, I was sitting speechless, with my mouth open and in shock - how come I never heard anything about this masterpiece before?! The movie easily made it's way to my 'top 5 movies of all time' list, and I recommend it to everybody who like inconvenient, intelligent and brave stories. One more thing - try to stay out of the 'political background', 'propaganda', 'bad copy of a classic' talking, just enjoy the magnificent acting and the touching story that leaves all of us with divided opinions, but forces us to think about it, over and over again. That's the whole point!

imxo I found this movie to be a theatrical feast, but with a couple of nagging annoyances.I want to get the annoying parts off my chest first, because chronologically that's how I encountered the movie. It seems to me that Russians have never mastered the art of sound mixing. Whether in old Soviet films or in this modern Russian one, there is always something not quite right with the sound.As the film began I found that the background noises were much louder than the speech of the actors. The sounds of doors slamming, children yelling, workers working, and so on were loud and clear, but the actors' voices were practically whispers in that maelstrom. I don't know why that is. Could it be only in the foreign, sub-titled version of the film? I don't see complaints about the sound levels from anyone else, but I'm pretty sure it's not just me. I desperately wanted to listen to the Russian dialog, but the low audio level of the voices forced me to read the sub-titles throughout most of the film. It was a bit like walking with a small stone in my shoe.Not having seen the "12 Angry Men" movie on which this current film was based, I was forced to accept "12" on its own merits. Thus, I experienced this film not as a remake of a previous movie, but as a filmed a stage play with phenomenal actors. Perhaps as a result, I unequivocally enjoyed this acting extravaganza. There may have been some occasional carpet chewing, but overall the performances were astounding. I certainly wish the IMDb list of players had more information about who played which role and had more biographical information about the individual actors. Perhaps someone familiar with Russian films and actors could throw more light on the matter. Much the same criticism, of course, could apply to IMDb's level of information on foreign films in general.Frankly, I didn't take the matter of the guilt or innocence of the "accused" very seriously. With all the theorizing the jurors were doing, and with the serious lack of real information for us in the audience, there was absolutely no way to determine real guilt or innocence. If anything, the flashback scenes were more confusing than enlightening. So, as far as I was concerned, it was the jurors, particularly the "Great Russians" among them - who were at the center of the film. Watching their "paralysis by analysis" was the real treat, irrespective of whether they reached the right conclusion in the end. As far as that conclusion is concerned, I have no idea what Mikhalkov means by it. His own screen character was obviously implying that he has a unique insight into things, intimating that perhaps he had been at one time in the KGB, GRU, or had been a member of some other allegedly all-knowing organization? Frankly, this was a bit off-putting and seemed to imply that the State and its workers knew things that the average citizen just hadn't a need to know. In any event, despite having a relatively modest role for most of the film, at the end Mikhalkov came a little too much to the fore for my taste. I'd be very happy to read a Russian reviewer's explanation of Mikhalkov's character.A word or two about the depiction of Chechens. The music, dancing, and overwhelming maleness of Chechen culture were solidly, if briefly, presented. One certainly cannot stereotype all Chechen men as being similar to the Chechen fighters depicted in this film, but the characterization of those fighters was phenomenal. In this film the Chechens fighters' raw power to intimidate, threaten, and attack their enemies those was palpable. I'm aware that even Alexander Solzhenitsyn praised the indomitable culture of Chechens in the Gulag. They just never, ever, yielded to the Soviets.So, I rate this film very highly. Perhaps I'm missing the film's more subtle propaganda that some here have mentioned, but that's something I can continue to think more about. I highly recommend "12."