Eugene Ainur It should have been a great movie for several reasons. Because it is a remake of a great movie. Because all the best Russian actors star in it. Because it is a film by Nikita Mikhalkov. And most importantly, because it is a psychological drama, not a big budget historical epic like "The Barber of Siberia" or "Burnt by the Sun".I suggest that it is legally prohibited for Nikita Mikhalkov to film big budget historical epics, because he invariably turns all this big money to crap. He is not able to film epic. His greatest talent lays in meticulous representation of psychological soul movements. It was breathtaking to watch his early (anti-)soviet movies with every character's development expressed finely to the state of the art. I was really amazed. Alas, now Nikita Mikhalkov can attract infinite sums of money from the government for his films, which works for the worse.As I have stated, it should have been a great movie, but it isn't. It is only by a thin hair above than mediocre. Why? 1. The characters don't develop. They stay as they were presented in the beginning – a group of standard types of Russian men. Their character traits are simplified as much as possible, which means that Mikhalkov became lazy and relaxed. There is only one type of truth in the film – Nikita Mikhalkov's truth, and other truths are nowhere to be seen.2. Juryman mostly tell their stories, which explain their past, but hardly help investigate the case. Their solution in the end seems groundless, and there are a lot of questions left. Why did the suit buy this awesome knife – for a present, or was he planning something? And how did the Chechen boy got not to know Russian if he lived in Moscow for so long? Did he even attend school or something?3. Chechnya reminiscences were absolutely needless. They even were harmful, because they distracted my attention from the boy's case. Well I see that if you have some extra money it may be difficult not to spend them somehow. But next time, if you have that extra money, would you please give them to me, Nikita? 4. I was very disappointed of Mikhalkov's getting even with his personal enemy by casting the most famous clown for the role of the TV producer. After watching all those "Gorodok" TV shows I cannot observe Oleynikov's performance without a grin, which is probably Mikhalkov's exact intention. That's not fair, Nikita. If you want to make fool of your personal enemies, you should do it elsewhere, but not in your films.Eventually, the film title is too translucent of Alexander Blok's "12", which actually means that Nikita Mikhalkov plays a role of Jesus Christ Himself. But you are not Jesus Christ, Nikita. You are just an old man with a glorious past. Maybe you have become too old for this. Maybe you should try getting yourself some rest already.

samuelsson91 A movie which is worth of seeing at least because of the ending- 12. Unfortunately the beginning is not as genial. Paradoxically it is the only thing I upbraid with. It seems like the whole jury would be totally stupid and the first vote is being lengthening with no purpose. As the time goes, this feeling will disappear and we will hear everybody’s opinion about the crime which the boy/ accused did/ did not. The film is engaging, because the decisions of the jury are not always the same, but they are changing from one side to another. I must say that the opinions of the jury are made on the basis of each personal story. The actor- performances are natural, there is no simulation there. I also must write that some shots are very original, for example the burying piano. I personally unfortunately did not understand the symbol of the sparrow. I have not seen the previous version, but I think 12 is a great movie…

imdbfriend 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!

volchara17 Characteristic feature of Russian philosophy - self-criticism and not stopping internal struggle. Can therefore we have replaced less than for hundred years at least 3 forms of government. Of infinite search think also feelings. 12 Mikhalkovs, certainly it is impossible to name ideal expression of Russian soul, but the certain features and qualities the director everything, has managed to express, having put 12 person before a dilemma to rescue the person from prison and to give on worry of businessmen from the hypothecary company and thus to hammer in a voice of conscience somewhere deeply or to charge the shoulders with the responsibility from and its destiny. To rise on its protection not only in court where from them it is required to answer only, it is guilty or not, but also still to begin cares of the child until the Office of Public Prosecutor will not undertake the present murderers. Mikhalkov the actor certainly above Mikhalkov of the director, likely because even when it stages film, it remains the actor, creates a role, instead of all film. The open end, sad, but leaving confidence that indifference - a shaving flies from soul. The American cinemas academicians have not given it "Oscar", likely and the truth, will suffice from it 12 premiums from the Russian cinemas of academicians, it is too much premiums harmfully for creativity of the director and the actor then they still have that internal not calmness and неустройство which allows them to do masterpieces.