The film “12” by Nikita Sergeyevich Mikhalkov became a Russian remake of the foreign film “12 Angry Men” (1957), considered a cult “legal” cinema. In the original film, twelve jurors in the deliberation room decided the guilt of a teenager accused of murdering his own father. I did not watch the old film, so I will not compare our Russian remake with the original.
I have a positive and respectful attitude towards the film “12” by Nikita Sergeyevich. I liked the movie and have watched it not once. The game of all actors flawless, for which they all deservedly received the Golden Eagle award, and N. S. Mikhalkov, in addition to this, also the special Golden Lion of 2007.
The number of acquittals in Russia, including those handed down by jurors, is extremely small compared to the number of indictments. In addition, when the case is aggravated by the presence of national caution to representatives of persons of Caucasian appearance, to their bright temperament, this stone is counted not in favor of the accused - a Chechen teenager.
All the evidence in the case, plus a sign of national caution, plus the murder of a Russian officer, in which one can find an ethnic background, testified that the accused Chechen was guilty. However, not everything is as simple as it seems at first glance.
When one of the jurors in the performance of Sergei Makovetsky says at the very beginning of the jury session in the deliberation room that before voting, let’s at least first understand, read the case, carefully study the arguments of a “strong” accusation and “weak” defense, everyone will not rush into their own cases, and we will not in a few minutes dashingly decide the fate of the accused – that’s the whole point of the jury trial: the presence of discussion of the people, not lawyers.
I will not go into details of the criminal procedure legislation of Russia that the verdict of the jury is taken by a majority vote, but the jury should strive to adopt a unanimous verdict, the point is not this.
The bottom line is that one person was able to create a grain of doubt in the prosecution's arguments and radically change the firmly established positions of the remaining 11 jurors about the guilt of the accused.
Nikita Sergeyevich, as always, by the right of the director and producer, took the final, last word of the sergeant, and gave the jury a new ground for rethinking the now common position, but only through the everyday prism.
The film “12” was shot for a long time, was released noisily and the audience was promised a star cast: Efremov, Stoyanov, Garmash, Gaft, and at the head of the master Nikita Sergeyevich. In this genre, the remake does not mean worse, so the premiere was expected. Did you get into the same river twice?
The idea of twelve jurors is that they are equal during the debate, that they destroy social status during the trial. At first, this idea was present in the film. Heroes argued, decided, changed their minds. Actors with their own responsibility approached the reading of monologues, many even succeeded. But here comes Nikita Sergeevich. Director, writer and actor of this film at the same time. And he decided that since he was Mikhalkov, he could not just be a jury. Therefore, he will become a sort of disguised “Jesus” among the “apostles.”
Because by the end of the film, all the trump cards like the heartfelt dialogue of the hero Sergey Garmash or a practically theatrical scene from the hero Yuri Stoyanov seem to have been laid out, and the decision has already been made, Mikhalkov’s hero suddenly burst into pathetic tirades. He brought everyone to the clean water, showing that they are not benefactors, explained that neither prison nor the sum of a teenager will not save. Then, in passing, he explained that he had already organized everything and was ready to contribute to the guy. Almost like a Hollywood action movie.
But as we remember from the Bible, the one disguised among the twelve is Judas, not Jesus. That's what happened this time. Mikhalkov’s desire to give himself the decisive part killed the whole idea of equality – how to believe this when you see the director, screenwriter and the same name in the front line of the cast?
The joint “purification” of the characters through overcoming indifference, stories about themselves, attempts to find the answer to the question, and not just raise your hand when voting – all this after the lofty speech of the hero Mikhalkov turned out to be just a fiction, all of them are spoiled and cowardly people. And that would be a wonderful ending, but a juror superhero will save everyone. Probably, then he still has to take the girl Julia away from one of his colleagues - according to Hollywood rules, beauty always goes to superheroes.
Nikita Sergeevich is a talented person. This is proved by his play in “Cruel Romance”, and the excellent directorship of “Unfinished Play for Mechanical Piano”, and the scripts for “Siberian Barber”. However, this does not mean that trying to sit on three chairs will be successful. Such a trick with the simultaneous combination of the role of director, screenwriter and lead actor was succeeded by the master only once - in the Oscar-winning film "Burnt by the Sun" back in 1994.
And it is very sad that, having taken such good, capable artists, Mikhalkov still could not resist the temptation to put himself above them, could not trust them. And they, knowing the ending, rise like schoolboys with poems, taking turns issuing their "quadriple" in anticipation of his party. At the beginning of the film, an interesting quote appears: “You should not look here for the truth of everyday life, try to feel the truth of being.” But heroes don't have time to be. They save the accused. And the country is at the same time.
The tagline of the film is “They have twelve scraps of paper and... twelve chances to kill!” And the film is not about a boy – it is a picture about people, about the difficult choice to consciously take or leave the life of another person. It’s about how their past mistakes affect their choices, and how twelve less fortunate men in their lives must face the problems of the country – the dominance of migrants, the consequences of internal conflicts, the imperfection of the judicial system – and solve them for one single accused.
But all this is erased by the ending of the remake, and this is the problem of any large-scale idea - to see humanity, but not to see Man.
For a great composition, excellent script and high-quality shooting against the background of killed ideas
7 out of 10
Once upon a time, in the fifties, the case of a Puerto Rican teenager accused of murdering his father was heard in America. The evidence was there, the guy did not cause sympathy, everyone was in a hurry somewhere, and the jury did not want to sit in a stuffy room. Suddenly, one of them, architect Davis, voted "innocent." Why? He thought that the teenager still deserved a comprehensive review of his case, and it did not happen. Davis thought it over and found the evidence for the prosecution not ironclad. He wants to discuss it. But if everyone just can’t wait to put a guy on the chair, he washes his hands. And then another jury supports his position. Most people get discouraged, but there is nothing to do - you have to start a discussion.
That's what Sidney Lumet did. Mikhalkov did not do so at all.
Not on a hot summer day, but on a snowy winter night, 12 Russian jurors were supposed to deliver a verdict in the case of a Chechen guy who stabbed his adoptive father, a spetsnaz officer in reserve. The marble palace of justice, where bailiffs pull over the noisy, was under renovation, and went to the gym of a neighboring school. Unexpectedly, one of the jurors voted "innocent." He felt sorry for the boy. He wants to do something for him. He, the jury, was once in a binge, but one woman felt sorry for him - and he reformed. It is this heartwarming story, not the words about civic duty and the inconclusiveness of evidence, that sets off a chain reaction. And if the American jury at Lumet during the film argue about the case – Mikhalkovskaya poison each other stories on the topic “everything happens in life” and each such story suddenly convinces another jury of the innocence of the accused. The teenager is acquitted not because it is impossible to imprison on the basis of circumstantial evidence, and “it is better to exonerate a criminal than to imprison an innocent.” They are justified because one juror’s sympathy cured alcoholism, another’s unsympathetic father married a beautiful woman, and the third graduated from the institute with a red diploma, barely speaking Russian.
How's the discussion going? In Lumet, the jury that provoked the discussion remains the spring of action, trying to involve everyone, demanding that nothing be forgotten. And if someone changes his mind, he does it under the influence of logical arguments. Mikhalkovsky "shooter" goes into the shadow immediately. "Discussion" moves with the filing of the most stubborn opponent. He throws tantrums on the topic “how do you not see that he is a murderer”, someone objects to him with another story “about life”, someone changes his opinion. Repeat. And about how the role of the headman has changed - I will be silent, because the spoiler.
Thus, the story of the triumph of justice turned into a politicized fable that justice does not exist and does not exist.
Everyone knows that Mikhalkov cannot be occupied in love with himself. And even from such a human story that happened to one of many people.
Mikhalkov managed to make a pathetic, “sweet little movie”. When viewing it was the impression that apart from this table in the gym, nothing in the world is more important and there is no, as if this table with 12 men is not somewhere, but on the Olympus itself and the whole world revolves around it.
Simplicity and soulfulness were not enough, the actors were not selected quite successfully, although loudly, and Mikhalkov himself did not miss the opportunity to star in his own room, so everyone would know who is in charge here.
Perhaps the Spanish version is better because it has the same simplicity and complexity at the same time, the psychology of the characters reveals much more deeply. Not in every movie, that’s a good thing.
Moments Mikhalkovsky 12 was quite perceived well, but the enthusiasm did not come out. Although it would seem a very successful theme for filming, and even a remake. But just our beloved Nikita Sergeyevich well, can not without his pathos and scale, like forty on gold and everything brilliant. All in the forehead and with tinsel.
Watch the Spanish version and you won’t regret it, but watch this one and forget it.
5 out of 10
The personality of Nikita Mikhalkov in Russian cinema is not just iconic, it is all-consuming, indisputable and large-scale. You can ridicule his films in numerous humorous and not-so-shows, make parodies on him and his works, talk about his high position, about his ambition, "tsarism" and excessive love for himself and his favorites in the person of Menshikov, two daughters, but Mikhalkov was powerful, he is powerful now and hardly anyone will doubt that he will not be so until the end of his days. You can love and not love this person, but we will continue to look at his work, even with one eye. Chairman of the Russian Union of Cinematographers, creator of the film award “Nika” (in whom the name of this award is not difficult to guess), director, producer and actor Nikita Seregeevchi Mikhalkov in 2007 presented his work, nominated no less at the “Oscar”.
For lovers of pricking Nikita Sergeevich, it will be pleasant to learn the information that Mikhalkovskaya “12” is plagiarism. Yes, yes! Not a remake, not a story created by Mikhalkov himself, but ordinary plagiarism, retouched under our realities. Plagiarism of what? "12 Angry Men"! I don’t know what the film is about, but the main theme of “12” is the trial of a Chechen boy who killed his father. I don’t know why this topic is... Perhaps, as the critics claim, this is an ordinary ideological order (something similar was observed in the Christmas tree 2 in the novella with Bezrukov), perhaps Nikita Sergeyevich himself decided to choose this topic. But what we have, we have.
In fact, the film consists of 12 short stories, where the main characters 12 jurors. These novels have one common location, the school gym is a meeting place. Every once in a while, each person comes up with his or her own word, his or her own history, and in his or her own way influences the opinion of the majority: to execute or pardon. Periodically, these speeches are broken by memories from Chechnya of the accused, probably in order to somehow diversify the picture. Also helps not to get bored while watching not only fashionable play of actors (about it a little later), but also sharp cliffs, musical inserts, entrances and exits of the bailiff.
Before watching, I was confused by the fact of the long delay of the film - 2.5 hours for one location is a lot, but I warn you right away, nothing terrible happened in this, moreover, this fact played a good role in the moral tension of the viewer. Sometimes there's something to flinch about. Mikhalkov gathered in one place not just famous Russian masters of theatrical scene and cinema, he gathered a talented, high-quality group of actors of the highest level, each of which took place independently and needs no introduction. Garmash, Makovetsky, Stoyanov, Gorbunov, Petrenko, Gaft, Madianov ...a, the undisputed hard worker Mikhail Efremov... Everybody was perfect. It would probably be wrong to single out any of them.
Mikhalkov would not have been Mikhalkov if he had not left himself a central role. After most of the film had passed, I was in disarray: how is it that Mikhalkov’s film is almost invisible?! But the surprise was already close, and yet apparently the megalomania of the famous Russian director. He gave himself an episodic role, but its significance overshadowed everyone and everything. At first, in the film itself, he elevated himself to the role of chief juror, but at the very end he stunned everyone with his conclusion and a short monologue, but that’s not all. The character of Nikita Sergeevich (and for some reason the hand does not turn to print) as the most decent and best of the jurors takes the problem of a lonely boy on his officer shoulders and undertakes to solve it, simultaneously urging the former defendant to live with him. What can I say here, a noble soul man, however...
Surprising in the film a considerable number of wigs, which along with the actors have become one of the main characters, because to see, for example, Makovetsky with a bald patch was not previously possible in principle! Gaft was turned into a professor, Mikhalkov... even words like this can not be found. There was also a computer sparrow with which Mikhalkov tried to say something. Sometimes, and quite often there were comedic moments and very funny. I was confused: either it is necessary, or Mikhalkov is getting old. I thought I should. But when I saw the make-up Stoyanov in the female wig in the photo as his mother! He was, to put it mildly, stunned. Why in such a movie "town"? Why?
At the same time, the film is very painful and truthfully describes life situations, about which we are well aware, but we are afraid to talk about them. There are very important problems for each person, problems about our lives, our feelings, our behavior and our foundations.
After watching such a film, as usual after watching art-house films, competitive and festival films, you expect a feeling of something great or large-scale, but it was not here. The film is interesting, there is intrigue, amazing acting, and Nikita Sergeyevich including, but something eternal or that allowed the film to remain in memory for many years ... was not.
And yet, "12" is a movie worth watching. The film "12" will be useful and interesting for everyone. And to each... It was created for everyone.
It is an unheard-of audacity for a Caucasian to raise his hand against his elder. Especially if he invited you to his house.
I applaud you standing up, Mr. Mikhalkov. This is a really amazing movie that is definitely worth watching. Infinitely symbolic and dramatic, about the fate of a teenage boy. The boy who never said anything.
Only love is above the law, only mercy is above the truth, only forgiveness is above justice. This thesis permeates the film, expressing exclusively the Russian idea on which our whole mentality is based. These 12 jurors reflect us, the Russian people. Each of the heroes is an expression of a certain feature of our people: hatred of the Caucasians, philosophical attitude to death, the theme of Semiticism and anti-Semitism, the breadth of the Russian soul, etc. Here Mikhalkov played a great role, putting himself in the center of the table, a hero who personifies true courage.
The film certainly wins with its local confrontations. The hero of Garmash against the hero of Makovetsky, the hero of Verzhbitsky against the hero of Artsibashyev, finally Mikhalkov against everyone. Here lies one of the main storylines, which is the realization of the complexity and versatility of the Russian soul.
Irrationality versus irrationality.
The arguments of both seem inconclusive from the outset. Some ask for forgiveness, others for justice, because everything is clear, because “this does not happen.” That never happens.” But the further it goes, the more interesting. We see a real battle unfolding on the screen, where all means are used (and here Garmash is just God). The dispute is becoming more and more fierce, and the reasoning is more and more weighty. And this dispute is more global than it seems. It's about each of us. Someone is more a lawyer and skeptic and will cling to the last, even the most insignificant argument, while someone relies entirely on spirituality and for him “a Russian person without a personal relationship is a void.” And everyone makes their own choices, which is well shown in one of the last scenes with a sparrow accidentally flying.
It is an unheard-of audacity for a Caucasian to raise his hand against his elder. Especially if he invites you to his house.
This phrase is the turning point of the whole picture. With her, the accusation begins to retreat, and in the end, loses the game on the chessboard. Mikhalkov’s merit lies in the fact that he anticipated the mood around Georgia in 2008 and now Ukraine. Any dispute about nationality, all these racist statements have no basis, simply because those who appeal to them do not know the culture or history of another people, and rely only on emotions.
The ending was really unexpected, and at the same time laconic and correct. The heroes were unable to bring their own interests to the altar of Victory, and The Good Show turns out to be a more profitable enterprise than all the work done before. Here the hero Mikhalkov shows the true courage of the officer, who saves the boy. The boy who lives in all of us. The boy who never said anything.
If you want to watch a movie, after which you sit for a long time in a state of stupor, and thoughts are teeming with an anthill in a consciousness full of meanings.
If you want to visit a good performance, from which the soul freezes and the blood freezes in the veins.
If you miss a smart movie with a colorful palette of clearly built images (up to the smallest details of the living), with long dialogues on serious controversial topics and unexpected turns of thought, a movie that keeps in suspense until the last moment.
Will there be great special effects? Nope. Will there be fantastic, often-changing plans? Almost everything happens in one room. Will the heroes fight, fuck, drink? Again, no, the heroes will just talk. But I promise you that after this film you will reconsider your view of many things, in particular the popular opinion that we do not know how to make movies.
This is "Twelve" by Nikita Mikhalkov. Have a good time!
Russian people will never live according to the law.
I have heard a lot about this film, some scold this movie saying that it is not a very successful remake, others on the contrary praise the film calling it progress in the Russian cinema.
Personally, I was very surprised by this film, I expected much less, the film was very pleased, first of all I was very surprised how lively this film is, how Russian it is and how emotional. Throughout most of the film, I saw 12 jurors trying to come to a consensus on the case of a Chechen boy, I could not imagine that everything would be so exciting, because there is no action, but what an incomparable acting game, during the film I really did not want the film to end, because the emotions and tension were more and more with every minute.
Nikita Sergeevich, I will repeat a very live movie with a very strong cast: Sergei Makovetsky, Sergey Garmash, Yuri Stoyanov, Mikhail Efremov, Viktor Verzhbitsky, Valentin Gaft, Sergey Gazarov, Roman Madianov, Alexei Gorbunov and someone else, Nikita Sergeyevich himself also plays a leading role in this film.
I liked how different the jury turned out, how their opinion changes on the basis of their personal perception, some of them changed their opinion several times in a short period of time, the picture is essentially about modern Russia, Nikita Sergeyevich raised a very important topic, touched on many problems of modern society, I think this movie was and will be very relevant.
I liked Makovetsky’s character very much, at a time when everyone was for the accusation, he acted alone like a lawyer and did it very reasonedly, in addition, I liked the story of his hero about how he behaved and what was the reaction of people to his behavior.
But the most powerful moment in the film I consider the monologue of Sergey Garmash, right to tears, as he told all this, the story of the relationship between a taxi driver and his son touched me to the core, it was conveyed very emotionally, with feeling and with the arrangement.
I would like to note the musical accompaniment of Eduard Artemyev.
Recently, I like the work of Nikita Mikhalkov because it shows life with all the shortcomings, where the heroes are simple people who make many mistakes, who show their ego, this is what catches the films of Nikita Sergeyevich.
If you want to fly, fly, the way is free. If you want to stay, stay. Just decide it yourself. No one will do that for you.
Why are you looking at me like that? Is it any different? It's all clipped. All. Everyone in their own way.
Picture 12 left a very pleasant feeling from watching, after the film there is something to think about, what to think about, there is pride that in Russia there are such smart films without pathos, when the actors really play amazing.
10 out of 10
"Who are the judges?" A. S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”
I immediately want to say that the painting by Nikita Mikhalkov “12” is one of a kind. Yes, let it be a remake, but as it was said here this film with a Russian mentality, in Russian strong, with our Russian vision of the world.
12 jurors come together for a "minute case" - sentencing. Each of them has his own life, his own affairs, each of them is in a hurry somewhere, and no one, in fact, cares about a long-depreciated human life. “Execution cannot be pardoned,” where will the jury put a punctuation mark?
First, the harmony of “unanimity” is broken by one, then the second, then the third ... The trial of a person is more like a dice game, a comic performance, a discussion club, and anything but a serious jury session.
On the one hand, the viewer feels heartbreaking anguish, bitterness, resentment for the unfortunate boy who dances in the cell a national dance, so as not to freeze. On the other hand, everything is somehow easy and simple for our judges, and the question of the hero Yuri Stoyanov: “Sorry, do you remember how I voted last time?” Oh, "guilty"? So now I vote that the boy didn’t kill, shocking.
By common forces, the jurors still come to a unanimous decision, almost unanimous.
All 11 were ready to declare themselves heroes and run away on business, but 12 are disturbed by one circumstance. They will release the boy, and then what? After all, in the wild, he will disappear, die, he is all alone. But, alas, one needs to treat people, the other meet at the airport beloved, the third urgent tour, the fourth poor taxi driver, no one cares about anything, each for himself.
I cannot help but mention the heartbreaking scenes of war, in which an unfortunate child, having lost his last friend - a dog - under bullets, clings alone, in a corner, in the rain, in barracks among corpses ... Spooky.
And finally, I want to say that none of the heroes, except Mikhalkov, have a name. We don't know their names. Someone is just a taxi driver, someone is just the head of the cemetery, someone is just a doctor, the general gray mass, people succumbing to the herd feeling, following the majority. And Nikolai, who alone thought of the unfortunate prisoner who extended a helping hand to him. They give him a name because he deserves it.
10 out of 10
A movie worth watching. It is a reflection on what freedom, mercy, compassion are. The picture is chamber, its action takes place in the usual sports hall of the city school, but the film does not allow you to relax for a minute. The plot of the picture is tragic: the Chechen young man’s parents were killed, he miraculously survived. Then the Russian officer who sheltered him was killed, in whose death the young man himself was accused.
At the beginning of the film, the vast majority of the jury speaks in a Pharisaic way, wanting to free themselves and return to their business. But by passing the pain of someone else’s soul through their own souls, they are imbued with compassion, which calls them to mercy. But you can not be too pity, sentimental and justify crime. The task of the jury is precisely to testify by its verdict before the whole of society that vice is still called vice and evil - evil, and that the moral foundations of the country are still the same. Truth and evil must be called evil; but half the weight of the sentence must be borne. The jury should enter the courtroom thinking that they are guilty.
As F. M. Dostoevsky wrote: “For if I myself were righteous, perhaps the criminal standing before me would not have been understood that he himself was guilty, for he could shine on evildoers even as the One sinless and did not shine.” If he were a light, he would illuminate others with his light, and he who commits evil may not have done it in your light. This pain is heartfelt and is a punishment for a jury. If this pain is true and strong, it will cleanse them and make them better.
The heroes of the film comprehend the very essence of mercy not through mental comprehension, but through a sense of “communion”, through empathy, through compassion to the grieving soul. And the jury in the instructive film “12” go through a kind of ordeal, trying to make the trial with mercy, to remain faithful to the law and to show love to the suffering soul. “Judgment is without mercy to those who have not shown mercy; mercy is exalted over judgment.” For in the kingdom of heaven all tongues will be silenced, and only one language of the heart will be understood. The heart that lives for others, or in other words, only the heart that knows how to love.
If the leader of a gathering of poor people does not commit a noble act first, he will not be understood, he will be driven out of society, encouraging him with a volley of sharp stones and various heavy objects. Once upon a time, ran a young shepherd from a mountain village, for which he was a vile devil in the flesh. Since then, he has had the weak instincts of a traitor who does not explain why, but does as he sees fit. Enraged like a hungry tiger, he rushed away. That night, I dozed off at one of the unbridled shacks where no one was. The next morning he woke up in a blanket, and in front of him stood a bald-haired thin peasant, often wandering and nowhere found a place. Only in that hut was there something for him that he could not show anyone. Straightened up, he asked the boy, read he came here. He did not understand his speech and did not answer. Then the peasant pointed to a nearby village - "Are you from there?" he asks. The young man frowned doubtfully and still did not drop a word from his mouth. Then the man lifted him up from the earth and led him, taking him as a true traveler.
They went to a quiet valley in which there was not a soul, and where no one could find them. On the way, the farmer asks where the little wanderer would have gone if they had failed to meet. The boy looked around him and did not explain anything. After passing another half verst, they already descended into the gorge, from where the view of the pure untouched lands was opened, however, only from the lowlands. The conductor asked three times, I do not want to rest his silent friend. He didn't respond. By the evening, their eyes were clinging, and they fell from their feet in impotence. The man offered to stop, and the boy listened to him. Succumbing to drowsiness, the peasant continued to disturb the shepherd with his questions, yawning again six times, and turning to one side, realizing that he would achieve nothing by this. At dawn, a young man woke him, demanding to get there quickly, as if they were in a hurry. Then, on his knees, the sleepy traveler announced:" Where do you want? What are you keeping from me? I don’t even know if you’re a child of ours. I've asked you the same thing twelve times, and you haven't. Why are you so drawn to this early? Nothing to go, go to bed and sleep! The boy looked at him with surprise and said: “You caught the wrong game in your hands, it will bring you trouble.” Leave me alone, I will go my way and you will go yours. The traveler again: "But where?" “And is it important that I am already free – I want – I will return, I want – on my own life, the paths are not yet known.”
I was curious about the world that cinema opened up, the world was complex and simple, and there was no purpose in it. In Mikhalkov’s films, these very integral foundations were enough, only you had to look closely. That is how I learned about his discrediting and debating work on the theme of equality of peoples, true justice and prosperity at the expense of the interests of others. In this film story, there were enough painful, hard moments that correctly emphasized the essence of the problem raised in the film, like shots from rainy Chechnya, mountain customs and wanderings on a bicycle. Until the very end, I felt as if I was in some room, deaf and stuffy, from which I could not get out, as if I had been forcibly closed here, but after spending several hours thinking, I flew with noise from the hall to the street, not knowing how I would get into the apartment and wean myself from all this. This struck me Nikita Sergeevich and his directorial intrigues - he kept me in a torpor throughout the viewing, and did not want to let go of himself. Here is what an important report he made again, and I am ready to support his idea.
The meeting depicted in this film, I would call the “sacred supper” of the twelve apostles, disciples of one creed, who gives the chance to speak to others until he concludes in general himself. The teacher was the right of the people or spiritual right, from the highest point of view. And I would put the “disciples” or “apostles” in such a sequence. The first, Andrei the First-Called, was Sergei Makovetsky, who understood the purpose of attending the jury session, was a good follower of the new correct doctrine. The second apostle, St. Peter, was Nikita Mikhalkov himself, who administered his justice, opposing his point of view to others; here he presents himself as a righteous man defending his laws. The third, St. John the Theologian, with the manifesto of the Holy Letter, addresses the tragic image of Sergei Garmash, preaching the veneration of morality in all its aspects, seeking this from representatives of all nationalities and castes. Fourth, James, Valentine Gaft, a senior student who spoke of fear with calmness, for which he was supported and suspected of something. The fifth, the Apostle Philip, Alexei Petrenko, was bustling among all, trying to produce attention, convincing others that it was never too late to repent. The sixth, the Apostle Bartholomew, Yuri Stoyanov appears in the image of a satiated person, from whom, relatively speaking, they will soon “skin off” and manifest themselves in a natural form, for which he is forced to suffer. The seventh, Levi Matvey, Sergey Gazarov, gathers information and funds from everywhere, gaining experience and moderate authority in the human environment as a healer. Eighth, Thomas confident, actor Efremov, played until he believed that he did it honestly and no one would contradict him. The ninth, Jacob Alfeyev, a confused Gorbunov looking for his favorable place, finally finds the shell for which he was born. The tenth, Thaddeus, Sergey Artsibashev, who proudly declares that he is also for the truth, but only he himself must make sure that it manifests itself. Eleventh, Simon Kananit, Victor Verzhbitsky tries on the right, punishing for perjury and shame of unbelievers. Twelfth, Judas Iscariot, Roman Madianov, ready to betray without thinking about it, for which he can be rejected and desecrated. Separate from the apostles stands the incredibly ironic and circumstantial Alexei Adabashyan, the corrupt and selfish Igor Vernik.
The entire cast, the elaboration of the script, the technical shooting and the patriotic subtext, illuminated by the master Mikhalkov, is an original idea of fate, religion, order and family, which few people talk about, essentially speaking.
The mountain from which the young man descended was mired in suffering and closed in gray clouds from the light. The peasant, in order not to lag behind and not to delay, hid in a cave, where no one would disturb him. But the hero himself, he went and walked and walked until freedom was given to him, while it was given to all, while it was given to the apostles of right – the best judges.
10 out of 10
We live in a time when the film coming out is not a completely unexplored “substance” that we first touch while watching, but only a more expanded, augmented part of the story we already know. Of course, comparing the whole picture with a trailer or description is very offensive for the director’s work, but, one way or another, and the choice in favor of a movie we make now to a greater extent by reviews, descriptions and introductory videos.
"12" Nikita Mikhalkova sneered long before the release of the screens. Only the list of actors who took part in the shooting, did not give film critics to sleep peacefully: Sergei Makovetsky, Sergey Garmash, Alexei Gorbunov, and Nikita Mikhalkov himself in the role of a petty officer of the bench, who is trying to bring at least some order to the meeting. For this reason alone, the film could not turn out to be bad, because then disappointed film critics would simply go home without even writing negative reviews.
I didn’t get home early...
In 150 minutes spent in one place, a real drama is played out, in which the fate of a Chechen boy accused of murdering his adoptive father is intertwined with twelve stories told by the jury in turn. Even the second, who is a petty officer of the bench, and he at the very end of the film suddenly comes down to a frank conversation, thereby summing up the final line: the last vote.
The canon of chamber cinema is violated by retrospection into the life of a Chechen – his childhood, spent in the middle of the war, a life in constant flight, where every day is a gift from God. Each scene that emerges from the memory of the young man, in itself carries not only a certain meaning, but also a charge that seems to pass through a great distance to the jury.
The process is diverse and difficult to describe. At first glance, it seems that the screenwriter of the film was not, and all the lines were... from the heart? Unheard-of horror: the character of the film all the time pokes, equates, noodles, spreads his hands, trying to formulate his speech. Whether Mikhalkov stayed so long that he forgot to learn the text, or But after ten minutes of sitting, the true essence of what is happening becomes clear, and each phrase from the lips of the characters is seen not as composed on the move, but as alive, real, born in dialogue. And everything that happens in the gym is not a movie, but a real meeting in which the fate of the young man is decided. Guilty or not? So far, 11:1.
150 minutes is a lot for a movie. Not every director knows how to competently use this time so that the viewer does not fall asleep, but at the same time he did not get to the hospital with a heart attack from excessive excitement. Here (which is surprising) is only moderate, and after sharp bursts there is a temporary lull. In this regard, it is impossible not to highlight the sound part - the legendary composer Eduard Artemyev, who tried his best. The last time such an effect, in my opinion, had on me Tarkovsky’s “Stalker”, in which, by the way, the same Artemyev wrote music.
But back to the gym, where there are now eleven men with their own (sometimes urgent) cases trying to reason with a single jury. With bewilderment on his face, with almost childish naivety, Makovetsky tries to explain to the audience that not everything lies on the surface, and thereby immediately attracts attention to his character. Then the old Jew, then everyone else. For someone to change the decision is very easy. Someone for this must again experience the pain, feel the pain in the heart, and only then raise his hand to vote again.
Mikhalkov's heroes are fickle. Attitude to them throughout the film, the viewer changes, and even the jury number one, the hero of Sergei Makovetsky, at the very end of the film suddenly acquires other traits of character. The innocent smile disappears from the twitching lips, and now he is already trying to justify himself: well, who will understand me?
These twelve stories, played in 150 minutes in the gym of the school adjacent to the court, are of great figurative significance. In each of the stories we see our country, our people, with all their virtues and vices, with their morals, with the foundations of life, with unchanging traditions of existence. Everyone tries to justify himself, and everyone really succeeds, and for some in the raised hand is not the fate of a Chechen boy, but his own - as an attempt to atone for some old guilt.
Very symbolic and the final picture. He does not give a clear answer to the question of what will happen next. It only tells the viewer that it is not over yet, but (though not all, but at least something) will be fine. The windows are still open, and there are people who will open them. Now it's just a matter of getting free.
The film is chic, beautiful, emotional and heartfelt, saturated with a philosophical context and interesting dialogue, which is worth the play of actors. I liked the picture - it is to put it mildly, Brother and 12 of my favorite films of the new Russia. And from the reaction of the characters during the decision of the jury, I begin to climb the ceiling) The film seems to me a work of high art, how else to call a work full of so many problems, a discussion of the moral values of society and the fatherland. Yes, only for how Mikhalkov formulated, eternal for Russia, the Nekrasov theme, it is not enough to wear on hands, and forgive the main joint of his film.
Let's talk about it. Although the film is full of philosophical context, it still departs from the philosophical meaning of the original. Unfortunately, I prefer the original. I think it is possible to understand Mikhalkov, to shoot the same thing a third time is not reasonable, but I do not understand why he turned off his mind. Why do I have to make another blockbuster? Where 12 angry men appear villains in the mind is incomprehensible. Anyone familiar with the previous two films understands that this is unthinkable, wrong, madness, in general, a divergence from the main concept of the idea of the film. I would have endured the villains, but I also pushed a good character there, one can say idolized, using all available resources.
Words are missing. But it's still a great movie, I've seen it 10 times, I'm going to watch it at 11. If you close your eyes to this ugliness, and do not compare the film with his relatives, then I put an estimate of at least a dozen.
“12” is a film directed by Nikita Mikhalkov, which is a remake of the American cult film Sidney Lumet “12 Angry Men”. This film was the first in recent years nominated for an Oscar in the category “Best foreign film”, and even in Venice received a special award. But all these awards, nominations, turned out to be, in my opinion, rather a consolation prize given to Mikhalkov for soothing, and saying, “Stop shooting, Nikita, or even on a brilliant picture and using other people’s ideas, you could not remove anything useful.”
The main idea, since this is a remake, of course, is scraped from the American film. But only, minimizing the name, and turning it into the usual number “12”, Nikita Sergeyevich weighted the basic concept in all possible ways, turning a half-hour masterpiece into a two-and-a-half-hour parody of it. There are also 12 heroes, there is a boy who allegedly killed his father, there is initially an almost unanimous “guilty”, which eventually turns into “innocent”. But you don't believe all that. At all.
Because all the naturalness and credibility of the original was lost. The actors involved in the film are terribly overplaying, and a lot of attention is paid to each of them personally, as a result of which the film does not look completely whole. The original proved that "all genius is just" and did not go beyond the case in question and one room, but in Mikhalkov he jumps and jumps out of the main canvas and pays attention to things unnecessary for history. Looking at all this, I confess, is a bit tedious. At the same time, Nikita Sergeyevich himself does not overplay, and in general plays himself, elevating his image into a cult. His character here looks like the master of the other 11 slaves, who decided to stage a performance in his male harem. And all this with a serious face.
If you haven’t seen the original, you’ll probably like 12. But after watching the American tape, I realized how talentless this Mikhalkov is. Even having the strongest source in his hands, he was able to destroy all the most valuable that was in it, but did not destroy it to the ground, which made the picture more or less watchable, but still necessarily boring closer to the final. It’s certainly better than his modern Sun Weary, but, again, that’s the credit of the original, the American masterpiece of 1957, which everyone needs to see. Here is Lumet’s picture, indeed, for everyone and everyone. But not this Mikhalkovskaya misunderstanding.
A scale of values is needed, Vitya. A true scale of values. Plus the starting point. And without a scale of values and a point of reference, judge yourself.
Sergei Dovlatov
Love and the Holocaust. The tragic death of Rottweiler Matilda. Intricate Eurasianism. Stilettos to Harvard wisdom. Serious truth about good and evil. The laconic tear of a Russian officer. There are no former Russian officers. And there are no half Jews. And drowned graves do. This is reported by the cemetery director. He also talks about the mistress’s chocolate nipples and small affairs organized through a funeral scam. A talkative, in short, cemetery manager got caught. However, everyone here is very talkative. Efremov denounces the perniciousness of universal laughter. Garmash nightmares morally unstable assessors with horror stories. Makovetsky molds cool stories, proving the innocence of the accused with watermelon. He also talks about the hard life of junior researchers. A life of hopelessness, progressive alcoholism and suicidal tendencies. Only Nikita Sergeevich is silent. But it's temporary, of course. It will certainly pass.
Floating a blue bear, the movie begins with the letter "T." Creativity. Fellowship. Labor. Children run through juries. The jury sits in an atmospheric gym. The atmospheric gym sparkles with colorful details. This is a damp piano. Here's a throwing syringe. Here's a huge bra. The ice has moved, the commander of the parade is carried out by the author himself, made up as Jesus Christ. Monochrome credits are replete with the commonwealth of Yeltsin and Gorbachev, and the kaleidoscope of spokes personifies the pink wheel of post-Soviet hopelessness. A dog cuts through the rainy weekdays of the Chechen war. Electricity dissipates the twilight with disco flickering. The camera goes around the table. The bird dilutes the static of the frame by flight. Inventive work with space adds energy to the film. The dashing final montage oozes with testosterone. However, in toto "12" remains a very chamber work. And that, of course, is very good. That's what Mikhalkov can do.
The mystification of the epigraph affirms the greatness of being and the insignificance of life. Brave colloquiality shades convulsive dramaturgy and play on the name of the provincial theater. The hopeless rectangularity of a single cell is diluted with songs and dances. A dark forest of memories tears up the narrative, and flashbacks evolve from a peaceful pastoral to war and chaos. Mom. Dad. Officer Uncle Volodya. Dagger dance. The nickel of slick basmachi. The ashes of childhood. Parents' grave. Slate monument. Shootouts. A severed hand. Favorite dog killed by a stray bullet. Not to mention good actors, surprisingly authentically playing cardboard characters in a group portrait. The white crow. Poet's citizen. Valeria Novodvorsky. Nyunu TV guy. A Jew. Caucasian. Hochla. Fascist. Fascism, of course, will not pass. It is clear that Rafik is purely innocent, and the violinist was killed by bad capitalists. With this cheerful new move, the movie is moving forward. Through thorns to the stars.
Mikhalkov twists the original idea of Rose’s play, replacing it with national pride mixed with masochism. Russian life is arranged horribly and ruthlessly. Here the mind gives way to emotions. Here they play off and pray for guaranteed poverty. There's no need for law. You don't need order. The law for Russians is lawlessness. Order is a mess. The slave of the wild North, the drinking days of the East European Plain. An ordinary trial leads to a struggle for human souls. An amazing terrorist biography is replaced by an appeal to the experience of the civilized world. Jews like to think. Russians love anti-Semitism. And this is even understandable - the only hope of the humiliated and insulted is an old soldier, not some lousy liberal. The Russian liberal is first and foremost a servant. Lackey. I just want to know who to clean the boots for. It is known that liberals have chills of the soul. They're cold. Hence the summarizing diatribe, which concludes yesterday’s humanists with indifferent scum. We cannot limit ourselves to what is necessary. Words aren't enough, we need deeds. Civil defense is needed. You need to be nice to your fists. Better yet, with a machine gun. It's not like we live in Luxembourg. In Russia.
So the director carves Tolstoy’s nonviolence, filming Ilyin’s work on resisting evil by force. So the director declares a resolute “no” to simple-minded idealism and affective virtue. Russia will not be saved by beauty. Only hardcore can save Russia. Russia will be saved only by the guerrilla activities of retired officers. Russia will be saved only by a deep grave filled with the cold remains of scum and murderers. One thing is embarrassing: some cheap local ideas. A simplified presentation, of course, somewhat expands the target audience, but still, you will agree, cheap ideas are uncivilized. Cheap is vodka. Ideas are better than market strategies. It is clear that Nikita loves the myth of Russia, a mysterious wonderland. A country in which vain heroism is shaped by picturesque details. An infernal Chekist who serves as a machine god. The crunch of a French bun. A terrible revenge by a retired intelligence officer. Suicidal assault on the fortified citadel, finally. We're Russians. With us is God and the endless uroboros of great and small tragedies.
It is also clear that Mikhalkov here develops a well-known idea of national identity. I don't understand. You can't measure archin. It's special. You can only believe in Russia. What can you do? Such a country. People like that. Ideological. In a special way. With a national idea. What does that look like in practice? Very simple. I thought you'd like to dine in a cafe. Here we go. The portions are small, the food tastes bad. Also, the waitress was rude, and in the account recorded a couple of extra dishes. You're naturally going to complain. You are told that complaints are not accepted. It's Russia. You have, you know, become. You have an idea. You Russians love that kind of stuff. That's probably not bad. The only problem is that it is racism, pure racism. Don't you? Let me tell you about a Nigerian idea. What is it? It's very simple. Bananas, loincloths, devastation and cannibalism. A special French idea? Debauchery, gluttony and figs. A special Finnish idea? Drinking and petty-bourgeois coziness. A special American idea? Dirty green papers.
Such, in short, is the amazing phenomenon of post-Soviet Slavophilism. Praise and self-deprecation. Joseph Stalin and Patriarch Kirill. Yuri Gagarin and Grigory Rasputin. Comrades and gentlemen. Victory over fascism and ecstatic evenings. Shake it. Mix. Serve chilled.
Let me tell you right away, I like this movie. I have loved it since I first saw it.
A lot of negative things have been said about his “remake”, “tsarism” of Mikhalkov, the shortcomings of the plot and so on and so forth.
All of these conversations are over.
I want to tell you why I love this movie.
To begin with, I really like films of the “conversation genre”, that is, not action films, not westerns, not shooters and not runaways. I am interested in watching when the action takes place in a closed space, at this particular moment in time, not yesterday or this morning, but here and now, when the circle of heroes is strictly defined, unchanged, and when all the conflicts occur within this small collective, when the intrigue is not based on the global problems of all mankind, but stems from everyday things, conversations and feelings. Watching them is like sitting in the front row in the theater, when you can reach the actor if you want, when each of his emotions is visible as under a microscope, when there are no barriers and unnecessary tinsel between the viewer and the action.
The film “12” is like a TV show, only with more elaborate close-ups and small plot inserts, allowing you to shake up and remember that this is still a movie.
12 men in a closed space decide the fate of a boy accused of murdering his adoptive father. 12 men, each with their own personal story, are trying to find the truth for this boy and for themselves. 12 men try to understand this intricate crime, and on the way to the truth suddenly begin to understand their own lives.
"12" is worth watching because of these 12 men. More precisely, because of the actors who received such “delicious” material in their hands, they were not confused and showed on the screen everything that teachers in theater schools and institutes taught them once, everything that life taught them. In two hours of screen time, they told the viewer 12 lives of 12 people completely different in age, social status, profession, nationality. From the semi-finished product given to them in the form of a script, 12 actors squeezed everything possible, put their soul into their characters, breathed life into them, made them understandable and familiar to each of us.
Such roles, and even in such numbers, are just a gift for actors. The field for work, imagination and freedom of action is simply huge. At the jury table gathered venerable masters of the workshop and were able not only monologues and dialogues, but simply facial expressions, gestures, elementary actions in all their glory to show the viewer their very different heroes.
Is there a lot of films where at one point in space will gather so many “selected” actors who will be given the opportunity to reveal themselves for a hundred? There are almost no such films. And the more valuable the film Mikhalkov.
12 is a philosophical film, very Russian, very acting, very interesting and must-see for those who love Russian actors and chamber performances.
Before watching “Twelve” Mikhalkov, I watched the original Sidney Lumet “12 Angry Men”, which, unlike the remake, I was very impressed.
Arguing.
First, let’s look at what the main characters look like. Personally, I was disgusted with all but the heroes of Makovetsky and Stoyanov, although I had an uncertain attitude towards them. Take at least the moment of the first vote. While everyone figured out how and what they vote for, I already wanted to turn off the film and revisit the original.
Secondly, the way they communicate. Mikhalkov’s heroes are representatives of different nationalities and different social strata of society. Perhaps this was done to attract a large target audience. I didn’t know what they were talking about.
Everyone tells a little story from their own life. If in the original, some of the characters told a little about themselves (where they work, about their hobbies, etc.) and it was within 2 minutes, then Mikhalkov took 30 minutes of screen time. In my opinion, this was unnecessary and only distracts from the essence.
Fourth, the main character! There was no such pity as for the hero of the original. It would be better not to show him at all on the screen, and especially how he dances in the camera.
The film was complicated by many secondary details that do not affect the plot and do not decorate the picture, only disfigure it. A third of the film could be cut.
Yes, and the Georgian with the knife was clearly unnecessary.
4 out of 10
Now it is fashionable for the place and not the place to scold Mikhalkov. Just like many other famous actors. No reason. Excellent director.
His films are serious, deep, wise.
So, what is this remake? After all, Sergio Leone also took the idea for his famous dollar trilogy from Kurosawa. The soil is different!
Magnificent actors! especially touched Garmash (his phrases ranging from "oh, . . . la" and "well, tell me", the way he measured through the eyes of the jury who first voted for innocence his heartbreaking story about his son), a wonderful actor!
And Makovetsky! Tears came when he told how he met his second wife.
It's great that the jury has their own stories, they all remember. Someone with charisma, an unusual story, someone with a raucous knife dance, or funny jokes and a pantomime with an invisible powder.
Different people, different characters, but they all meet in our lives.
And it is remarkable that the film raises, in addition to many very important and vital themes, a sick modern theme of visitors. The accused is not just a poor orphan, he is also a Chechen, who has “fucked up”. "They're all bastards," says one of the jurors. The worst part is that many people think so. But just because he was robbed by two newcomers doesn’t mean that all the peoples from the Caucasus and Asia are bad! After all, a person of any nationality, orientation, etc. has the right to justice.
The most important thing is not to forget about this to us, the audience, in ordinary life, not to succumb like cattle, having no opinion and stupidly following the majority.
This is the main message of the film, it is clear, besides the wonderful actors, so I think the film turned out great.
10 out of 10
What is legal is not always fair. What is fair is not always humane.
The court session is a creative process, because neither party assumes what the outcome of the case will be. No one, not the judge, not the prosecutor, not the lawyer, have any idea what will happen in the end and how it will turn out for them. Participation in the jury case somewhat complicates and complicates the process, but, according to experienced specialists, contributes to a comprehensive and holistic study of the evidence presented to establish the objective truth in the case. However, such a mechanism is used only in the most complex and intricate cases, when a criminal faces the death penalty, which is what the viewer sees in the picture of Nikita Mikhalkov “12”.
Each member of the jury is a separate person with his life story. Strikingly, these stories, completely different in content, are intertwined with the story of a guy who is accused of murder. So, we can learn about a school built with cemetery money, about a scientist who lost everything and started drinking, about a taxi driver and his difficult relationship with his son and wife and so on. Surprisingly, it was his own experience that helped the jury make the final decision.
Nikita Mikhalkov made his film obviously winning, inviting all the favorite actors not only in the territory of the Russian Federation, but also, perhaps, in the entire post-Soviet space. Another advantage of the picture is the excellent camera work, because due to the fact that all twelve jurors are almost always in the frame at the same time, the viewer has the impression that he sits next to them and takes part in the discussion of the fate of the poor boy. The lack of music in the film also played into the hands.
Until now, the question remains unresolved, for me personally, what exactly Nikita Sergeevich wanted to convey to the audience. To show that all people are equal (remember the phrase about the clip)? Or do you point out the shortcomings of modern justice? Or maybe both. To be honest, I don’t think that 12, despite its greatness, can have any effect on the average person. To argue about equality, at least, is stupid, and once again to criticize law enforcement agencies and the judiciary is inexpedient.
Speaking of the film’s shortcomings, first of all, I would like to note the fact that I have little idea and believe that the jury will sit until late at night. I can't believe it! Plus, all the jurors are men. It’s no secret that 12 is a remake and adaptation of 12 Angry Men. I don't want to look like an avid feminist, but in my opinion, the days when only men could judge are gone. And the apotheosis of this tape was the persona of the head of the jury. Guess who's playing his part? That's right, none other than the director himself. It is he who puts the final point in this story, looks so good and right. It's like a new Messiah. Does it smell like selfishness?
I didn't watch 12 Angry Men. And, by and large, there are no plans. I will not compare which version is better.
I’m not saying that 12 is a masterpiece and the pinnacle of Russian cinema. A high-quality, quite interesting film made for the Russian audience and, according to the creators, about it. We never got the names of the jury. It is unlikely that they knew each other. And this once again confirms that there will be a new killer, there will be a new jury, there will be someone new who will doubt the evidence and there will be a new debate. It always does.
"I'm a lawyer." And in jurisprudence there is no justice. – Thomas Lefroy Becoming Jane
"That's it!" All. We saw, condemned, muzzled, waved, smoked - and that's it! And all that.
From the beginning, it reminds me of something... Naturally, after all, the plot is actually completely, to the details borrowed from the classic picture of half a century ago "12 angry men". But this is so only on the surface - if you look deeper, then the movie "Mikhalkova" is not about the same thing.
A simple detective script here is presented in a radically different plane - this film is not about the trial, not about the investigation (although it is also about it), not even about the twelve jurors, whose fate here, unlike the original, is literally turned inside out and shown in all details. This is a movie about Russia. It is so simple and simple to call it!
Behind every destiny, behind every person there is something of its own, and this is not without meaning! The position of many critics of the film is very obvious and usually sounds something like this: “the director borrows the old plot without changes and is very pathetic and goes on to tell about the fate of Russians in the new century...” But where's the pathos? Where is the vulgarity here, if everything is? - I don't understand. In my opinion, clearly the civic position of Mikhailkov, which is captured in many of his films (if not in all), here, in "12", acquires the most frank and direct form - so his attitude to Russian reality in my memory has not dared to express. And this, of course, makes the film unique, and more importantly - "strong" from the point of view of ideological and moral position.
The cast was selected very competently and gathers, probably, the best actors of Russian cinema today (with rare exceptions). Special attention is paid to music; it adds drama and generally works on the mood of the picture. In the same way that the scenes from the old film are diluted with some interesting moments, I also do not see anything reprehensible: “12” is interesting to watch; there is enough humor and tragedy.
For some reason, I don’t see the characters in the speeches as “bad clichés”; I, perhaps subjectively (although user assessments prove otherwise), don’t repel the urge that the director turns to us. Rather, on the contrary, he achieves his goal: he makes you think deeply not only about the fate of the country and the people, but also about his own. And this for any work of art, to which, in my opinion, the cinema still applies, is very important.
9 out of 10
Unlike Mr. Fernandao, I kind of grew up in America, and we taught Rose’s play in the 10th grade (then we were shown Lumet’s film).
IMHO is a very different movie. Lumet had, in general, two jurors opposing each other, all the others being more or less extras (though, of course, they had their moments). The boy was found innocent, but it was not clear what really happened. Rose’s (and Lumet’s) whole message was that the defendant’s guilt must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt—that is, that guilt must be more or less certain. The play was written at a time when even suspicion of communist or socialist tendencies, even in the past, was enough to ostracize; someone Ronald Reagan, then head of the Actors' Guild, became famous for persecuting such actors.
The boy is acquitted, but we won’t know what really happened, and we won’t know much about the jury itself. Rose wrote that he himself had served on the jury in a manslaughter case, and that he also wanted to show exactly what was going on in the jury room when discussing the matter.
Mikhalkov's message is quite different. He got a picture of Russian reality, and every juror-finished type, and very interestingly presented. And in addition to the main question, there are many others, very revealing, for example, the story of the cemetery. And Mikhalkov himself is almost invisible, except for the very end of the film.
It is clear that the end is somewhat far-fetched (well, when should the jury take care of the accused?), and there are other points we learn that they are also untrue; for example, the same question of a unanimous decision. But it's IMHO. The film is a masterpiece.
10 out of 10
Even in spite of the blunders (and where are they not?)
Nikita Mikhalkov, no matter what they say about him (I personally consider him a goat), knows how to make films. More like he did. "12" - I suspect it's his requiem. This is the alpha and omega of the best that was in his work.
A great cast, a brilliant adaptation to Russian realities, personally I can not describe the excitement of this film. The original of 1957 turned into a pathetic attempt to film the famous play. And do not blame the age of years - here special effects, makeup and other achievements of science did not play any role.
Bright, strong, hysterical (hysteria is a necessary condition for a successful film by Mikhalkov, so somehow it turned out). The characters are thought out to the slightest detail. And again, how easy, how gracefully transferred the play to the realities of the Russian Federation.
People confuse Mikhalkov-man and Mikhalkov-director. This film is a benchmark for the selection of an actor, the organization of their behavior, the disclosure of their unusual features: to make Yuri Stoyanov a tragic, Leonid Artsibashev a liberast, and Sergey Gazarov ... to show the world that he is also an actor, this is the successful performance of the director’s function.
So no matter what I think about flashing lights, thank you Nikita Mikhalkov for this film. He also knows how to create masterpieces.
Don't think. You just have to watch. “Do not seek the truth of life here, try to feel the truth of being.”
The movie left a double impression after watching.
On the one hand, a strong noir detective about twelve people who are trying to justify by all logical methods a young boy who came from afar and allegedly (or maybe for real) killed his adoptive father.
On the other hand, the whole affair is saturated with a slight farce and a certain feeling of inconvenience, which many seemed obtrusive.
And thirdly, as a person familiar with the work of Nikita Sergeyevich Mikhalkov, it was a novelty to look at sharp changes in artistic directorial taste.
12 men who try to put all the points as quickly as possible and even immediately vote for the fact that the guy is guilty.
Why is that?
Because these people are not up to him at all.
But there was a man in the person of Sergei Makovetsky, who immediately voted for the fact that the guy is NOT GUILTY and set a special condition - to vote secretly on the sheets on the condition that if everyone has the same result, he will join them.
If anyone votes against him, he will not change his mind.
A very interesting narrative is conducted on behalf of all twelve jurors who tell their stories and draw their own conclusions based on their stories, involuntarily realizing that all of them, despite different characters and fates, were in the same boat, which if you turn wrong, then everyone will be overboard and will not be able to help the fashionable guy who is probably just unlucky.
No matter how this story begins, it draws deep into the narrative and does not let you get out of there at least for a second and involuntarily understand that in this boat you also (that is, I) listen to them and talk with them not only about whether the defendant is guilty or not, but also about the meaning of life without compassion, even to a completely stranger to you.
Of course, the film does not make any of them love.
On the contrary, many are battered by fate and no one wants to get out of their usual channel, while placing on their shoulders a huge responsibility for their words and deeds.
Just try to think that there is no such thing in life - I will tell you that there is no such thing as those who are able to say their word, how to get out of their usual rut to save a complete stranger - only a few, like those twelve people who sit in a quiet school gym, making the fate of a young boy from a distant mountainous country.
Note at once that these are not the “12 Apostles” who help them to pray, but ordinary people like me, most of whom read this message and cannot understand the essence of my words because they are simply not interested – this morality is not for most of them.
These characters do not stigma into a gun and almost everyone has a sin behind their souls, which they simply do not need to redeem for the lack of special life motives, as well as every living, but not cinematic, person.
And when the chance to get out of the usual rut came, it was not for everyone this hunt - they thoughtlessly and without thinking about almost everything to a single vote not as their heart tells them, but as they needed, in order not to pay attention to anything but their personal everyday problems.
It was worthwhile to have an incentive in the person of the same Makovetsky, who, unlike most, doubted, having stirred up this dull monotony of the life system, where no one is responsible for anyone and for himself, everyone took and went by his example, after all expressing his true point of view, emphasizing it with piercing facts from life, proving sometimes that without mercy, compassion and hope in this monotonous and boring world, people simply cannot survive, with very rare exceptions.
In addition to this whole investigation, the film shows that this guy is not at all as simple as it seems, and not because he is a child of the mountains, but mainly because he, although from afar, would still stand up for a stranger to him if he believed he was not guilty of anything, even if this person considered him a wild beast.
Many thanks to Nikita Mikhalkov for such a shrill, sincere and lifelong film, of which there are simply few in this country.
Operator Vladislav Opelyants beautifully and accurately takes plans and personnel.
Composer Eduard Artemyev masterfully writes music, which like no other does not fall into the tone of a given material.
I also thank all the actors who were involved in this film for their sincerity and liveliness, which touched me personally, leaving a lasting impression, but more positive than purely negative.
In the end, a special thanks to the editing director Enzo Menikoni, who was in Mikhalkov’s films from the “Eyes of Black” themselves and went through the 90s, ending with the last work in his career – the film “O’12” of merciful and honest men who did nothing like that – just decided the fate of a young stranger whom they did not even know.
And how can we all survive here in a single country in which everyone should help each other, even if we wave our hand at a simple guy just because we don’t care about him and we blindly believe in everything that we were told at the trial – at the great “Judgment of History”, where at least a small mistake and a complete collapse of everything that was and will be in the future.
There is a saying in the film
“The law is above everything, but what to do when mycery is above the law,” which can be paraphrased as follows:
“Sometimes the law is above conscience, but what will happen when mercy is above the law?”
8 out of 10
For conscientiousness towards the present life and for the presence of many allegories that make one think about the meaning of this very life.
These allegories were previously inherent in Terrence Malik, but now they are adopted by Nikita Mikhalkov, who does not mind even laughing at himself.
For example, in a shot where a dog carries a severed hand with shiny expensive rings, ambiguously hinting to us that injustice will not pass and that Mikhalkov condescended, shooting a real Russian movie for real Russian people.
I heard that there are directorial and television versions, which probably can not watch, but for greater awareness still look.
This review is only a personal opinion and does not try to force anyone to watch this movie.
It is written not out of respect for the work of the director or out of hatred, but out of my personal impressions of the film.
I agree with one thing completely - the film deserved all the awards, the meaning - everyone has human dignity that can be awakened, for which it is enough just to believe in yourself - the film showed completely.
“The law is above all, but what happens when mercy is above the law?” B. Tosya
Today, and today, when the majority of Russian citizens spit in Russian cinema, saying that all Russian cinema is pure plagiarism, I want to talk about the film “12”. I could argue about modern society, agree, argue, or just fall asleep from your endless arguments, but it's about cinema, about the great art of the 20th and now the 21st century that thrives day in and day out. Politics, society, and filth are found in every second work of cinema. All right, please forgive me, dear reader, but this is what came out of me when I read other reviews of Nikita Mikhalkov’s film 12. Someone sees only Mikhalkov and throws the film, someone sees politics and Putin’s propaganda, and others, not seeing the usual militant and hearing the word remake, begin to throw stones without thinking. I want to talk about the movie.
Yes, Mikhalkov’s film is a remake, and yes, most of the film is monologues, dialogues and short scenes of military themes. But as Natalia Myshyanova correctly pointed out, “To shoot a remake is a risky, unpredictable and ungrateful occupation”, and in our country it is not profitable. "12" is a remake of the classic court drama by American director Sidney Lumet, Twelve Angry Men. And what do I want to say about all this ..., but before I go into full reflection on the film, in view of you are aware of the matter, what the film is about:
A jury is investigating the case of an 18-year-old Chechen boy accused of murdering his adoptive father, a Russian army officer who fought in Chechnya. The jury, gathered in the gym of one of the local schools, initially consider the case formally and indifferently – it would seem, everything is completely clear. Everyone votes for guilt except one.
"12" is a film in which the plot is not so important. For the actions themselves heroes almost do not perform. Everything happens in one place – a sports hall. But how it's done! I haven’t seen a movie in a long time where I was so afraid to miss a minute. Usually skipping a snippet of a movie meant skipping the "answer to a question," which is a link in a huge plot chain. In this film, everything is different (except for the last 20 minutes, you can not touch them significantly). The film implies a story, each of the characters, which is important, not as a plot, but as a comprehension of something personal, something, dear viewers and readers, that sometimes we miss something important in our lives.
It’s amazing how easily we can control someone else’s fate when everything seems so clear and reasonable until it touches us. Can we judge a person if it is not our business? Can we justly resolve a fate that is different from ours? Sooner or later, each of the characters will intercede for a teenager, seeing in this case something close to themselves, seeing what reflects them. There is something in this film that is close to each of us. The question is, what is it?
The film touches a lot of problems that I dare not write in my review (the film is better said), so I want to summarize.
Russian cinema will never...yes! I dare to write this word – “never”, will never win in the entertainment of special effects, computer graphics or animation. Russian cinema is famous for the thought or idea that directors and screenwriters put into it. And I saw it in the movie "12", where the problem of the Russian people is noticeable. The film is for a limited audience, but the film is worth watching.
10 out of 10
I will start this article in the spirit of gossip in the cinema after watching Mikhalkov’s film. So, let's take a philistine look. 9 years of silence meant either the end of a career or another masterpiece. There was “another” masterpiece, shot in between (that is, between the shootings of “Burnt by the Sun – 2”). Of course, Mikhalkov himself could not come up with anything - he decided to encroach on the classic - "12 Angry Men" by Lumet. The king's script! Naturally, he shot himself as the smartest juror, scored a win-win cast of actors, invested money. And all for the Oscar nomination. Eh, Nikita Sergeich, you all try for glory! Here are the main negative arguments I have heard. The only question I have is, who has seen this picture?? Who hasn’t compared Mikhalkov’s personal qualities with his work? Who hasn't counted the money in his wallet and the desire to take the highest award of the American Film Academy??? Anyone who has experienced the film, please follow me!
Remake, there's so much in that word! How fashionable it has become, how often to place and not to place we apply it! Undoubtedly, the original script is taken from the legendary film. But wait! Let’s look at it from the other side, “12 Angry Men” is a play by the great Reginald Rose, which was shot in the cinema by the no less great Sidney Lumet. Similarly, for example, in 1934, A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “Thunderstorm” was filmed by director Petrov. You say, what's my point? And the fact that the picture of Mikhalkov is also a reproduction of the play Rose, and not only a remake of the film. Why doesn't anyone take it that way? Most critics did not think about it, passing negative verdicts, so we will still start from the film Lumet.
For starters, let’s just say, “12” is a movie “based on motives.” The motives are the same, but the film is different. Hmm. How many of you have seen Lumet's movie? How many people have experienced the American classic? The film is indisputably brilliant, the camera work is beyond praise. You can read a lot of praise for this picture. But she has no soul. After watching first “12 Angry Men” and then “12” by Mikhalkov, in the case of the latter, the feeling of fear and jitter did not leave the whole picture, a feeling similar to what occurs when you look down from the 10th floor – the stomach shrinks inside. I can’t remember the last time a Russian movie evoked so many emotions and thoughts. I think the comparison of these two films can be stopped on borrowed script and attempt on the classics. Everything else is different.
“12” is not an analysis of social, national and legal issues, although at first glance it seems that Mikhalkov raises all these topics. But no, it's about people, about individuals. Are you going to analyze a love story told by a Jew? And how can we understand the story of Garmash? This is destiny, a separate path for everyone. At first, all the jurors hide behind masks, laughter, collective opinion, so as not to open the soul. As long as one does not make others think, evil will triumph. This is not socialist realism, please do not confuse it, it is reality (life, if you like) through the eyes of different people. From here I note the colossal work of actors. Monologues in one breath, to remain indifferent, not to penetrate - above human strength. It is impossible now to imagine that each of the twelve jurors could be played by someone else.
Now for the eternal. The role of Mikhalkov. Why talk about reigning again in your own movie when you can’t see the whole movie? Yes, there is a final monologue in it, perhaps some pathos peculiar to the heroes of Nikita Sergeyevich, and the fact that “he already knew everything in advance.” But where's the king? Here the role of Mikhalkov is extremely small. However, it is very important.
To all jurors, he is a shadow, a man with virtually no opinion, which is why at the end, after voting, everyone does not even notice that he did not raise his hands - he does not see how invisible the truth was originally. But after the emotions of a personal nature have been conveyed by others, it is He who brings everyone back to the boy’s cause – to the fact that even now, after the sentence has been pronounced, they are responsible for him. And then everything falls into place - no one wants to deal with the fate of the Chechen in the future. He remains only a silent figure, who, unlike the others, has not turned his soul inside out. He didn't need it - there was no mask from the start. He just kept quiet. Very interesting character.
Mysterious and the last frame of the film is a wolf carrying a human hand in his teeth with an emphatically shiny ring. What would that mean? Maybe we are all “meat” in the struggle for invisible gold, or maybe everything in this world is the work of people – to kill, to pity, to destroy or to create? Think for yourself, but remember: “You should not look here for the truth of everyday life, try to feel the truth of being.”
10 out of 10
My main mistake is that I watched the real work after I got acquainted with the paintings “12 Angry Men” “57 and 97 Nikita Sergeevich, as usual in his repertoire: to stuff everything and more into the film, without really thinking about how it all fits together. Personally, I had the impression that I was fed cayenne pepper with whipped cream under garlic sauce.
The saddest thing is the cast. In the sense that really brilliant people play. I won’t even list them, just look at the credits and that’s enough. Moreover, they play completely inimitable ... that's only incoherent ... with the plot, with each other - such sadness, my friends ...
In general, I can not call this picture except as a triumph of madness. This also applies to the fact that the meeting itself is held in the gym of the school, and it is unclear what the intertwined stories from the life of 12. Personally, I seem to see Mikhalkov, working on a script, who, pathetically propping up his chin with his palm, thinks: “And now the 5th (6th, 10th – it doesn’t matter) finds a bra in the locker” or “And now the 8th tells how shitty he had in life” or “And now Gazarov performs a lezginka with a knife” – something like this.
Thus, the Chechen boy in general is not needed by anyone. Judge for yourself: 12 grown men sit and cry because of how hard it was. And remembering with effort that they did not come here to eat sandwiches, as if by the way they noticed one by one, "Chechenenka is not to blame." However, the filmmakers did not forget the red thread through the entire film to let the story about the fate of the boy himself, who also seems to be mourning his bitter lot with the jury. Accordingly, having picked up pieces from everywhere, Mikhalkov, which is not surprising, could not reveal a single storyline. Let me make a reservation that it is “not surprising” for the simple reason that Nikita Sergeevich, like most ordinary mortals, simply hastened, did not work, and as a result, these 2.5 hours became a difficult to digest mix of incompatible aspects. After all, recalling the original Sidney Lumet: firstly, it was not proven that the guy is innocent, and secondly, to make an acquittal provided absolutely logical facts, and not remarks like “No, well, I don’t know... let’s just talk, we need to give a chance...” So if you call the movie a remake, make it more appropriate. And if this plot does not fall on the conditions of our homeland, spit on it and do something new.
And, of course, the key figure of this whole theater of insanity is Nikita Sergeevich, he is a director, he is a screenwriter, he is an actor ... and he is an infinitely wise and great master of the Russian land. In general, Mikhalkov’s hero knows everything from the very beginning: that the guy is not guilty, and that the testimony is not very accurate, as well as who is to blame and what to do. I wouldn’t be surprised if he ever plays Vanga or Nostradamus... or both of them in the same person.
Anyway. Perhaps, if attention was not focused on the fact that the film was made on “12 Angry Men”, and the creators themselves, perhaps the impression would be better. As a result, the plot, transferred to the harsh Russian reality, is won, causes absolute misunderstanding in those moments when it intersects with the original and creates a feeling of some kind of buffoon on the fairground square in general. 2.5 hours, which lasts the picture, give you a feeling of protractedness, incompleteness and absurdity of the plot in full program. However, if you take the acting separately (like theatrical miniatures), then it is still worth seeing, because the actors are truly brilliant, characteristic and inimitable. Such actors in a good movie...
Recently, there has been a lot of criticism against Nikita Sergeyevich Mikhalkov, sometimes justified, but mostly stupid and illogical. It was possible to read even about what he is “incompetence”, that his films are “disgusting”, etc.
I do not dispute that he missed very much with the second . Tired by the suns, the film is really disgusting in every sense of the word, but it also has such masterpieces as Siberian Barber, Homeland, Five Evenings, and the film 12.
Many people say that this is just such a remake exactly "12 angry men". How do you say... The original is almost entirely devoted to the jury trial, while the creation of Nikita Sergeevich is devoted to the characters and personalities of each jury.
Mikhalkov managed to make a film, which will be clear to everyone, despite deep thoughtful and philosophical dialogues. Moreover, in this picture there is a matchless acting, without which, the film would not be a film.
Once again I was convinced of the talent of Sergey Garmash, Nikita Mikhalkov, Sergei Makovetsky and Yuri Stoyanov ... All of them have done their job perfectly. This film is really "For everyone and about ..."
A film that makes you think. A movie that can teach you a lot. Film, which was not ashamed to be nominated for "Oscar", in contrast to the same second "Burnt by the Sun"...
Well, what to do , everyone makes mistakes, even such geniuses as Mikhalkov. In any case, this film is my personal masterpiece, which I am always willing to spend more than 3 hours of my time on, because it is worth it.
This picture is not subject to evaluation, because it cannot be estimated on a ten-point scale.
In anticipation of the remake of 2057 For a long time I considered the film “12” great until I watched the film “12 Angry Men” directed by Cindy Lumet. One by one, illusions about the revival of domestic cinema began to disappear. Yes, Mikhalkov managed to collect an amazing acting ensemble, yes, he shot for a small amount of money, yes, he posed pressing questions, but he could not do much. Nikita Sergeyevich lost the dynamics of the narrative, zeroed the logic of what is happening, added little useful emotionality. Of course, if the goals of Mikhalkov and Lumet coincided, the film of Nikita Sergeyevich could be considered a failure. What did Mikhalkov want? Remembering his previous work, he wanted to make a film for the people. It doesn’t matter whether the Junker will be judged by Kotov or vice versa, it is important that the story remains in the hearts of the audience. At Mikhalkov it turned out - the film got into the souls of citizens deeper than the "Ninth Company". The classical principle of unity (time, place and action) is not only not violated, but also emphasized by various techniques. By the way, the film is recommended for all students of film universities to study and take notes. The actors know their business and play perfectly, Mikhalkov, as always, is beautiful in the image of himself. But I have a couple of questions for the authors of the Russian adaptation of an alien scenario. Americans have a different culture, and 12 Angry Men can't just be remade. Attempt to transplant a classic film plot on Russian soil rather failed than brought any fruit. Chechnya, the difficulties of the Russian army, the occupation of living space is one thing, and the fate of the young Riko in the heyday of segregation and semi-official racism is another. It is still unclear to me why a Chechen boy who lived in Russia for a decade never learned Russian. This is a serious mistake of the writers, such, by the way, in the film is rich. Therefore, despite the skill of the actors and stunning performance of the shooting, I put the tape a rating of 7, against Lumetov’s 9. 7 out of 10 Original
12 stories from life I just watched 12, which I wanted to do for a long time, because after reading about it, I decided it was a heavy drama (which I like). I could not have imagined that this movie would make me feel so much. I don’t think I’ve realized what I should have done. Plot. This film is not about a murder, not about a detective story, not about a jury. This film is about our Russian life, reviewed by 12 people. 12 completely different professions, views on life. 12 seemingly good people. 12 stories about life, from the story from the artist to the story of the undertaker. Each of the jurors told their own heartwarming story. Where are we going? I especially remember the end of the movie. He just grabbed my soul! After all, it is at the end that all good gentlemen show their faces. Quality. I’m not going to talk about composers, etc. I have respected Mikhalkov before, but I just didn’t expect him to make such a powerful film! This picture is very difficult to execute. There are no actions, only stories. But the acting amazed me. I fell in love with each of the 12 in turn. Everyone was so convincing! I didn’t think our cinema could do that! 10 out of 10! I think it's a masterpiece! Original