A loose remake of 12 Angry Men (1957), set in a Russian school. 12 jurors are struggling to decide the fate of a Chechen teenager who allegedly killed his Russian stepfather. Stepfather took teenager to live with him to Moscow, during Chechnya war, in which teenager lost his parents. The jurors: a racist taxi-driver, a suspicious doctor, a vacillating TV producer, a Holocaust survivor, a flamboyant musician, a cemetery manager, and others represent the fragmented society of modern day Russia.A stray bird (a touch of New Age cinema) is flying above the jurors' heads, alluding to tolerance.
Genre(s): Crime, Drama, Thriller, War
Runtime: 159 minutes
Rating: 7.8/10 (4,347 votes)
Release Date: 7 September 2007
Country: Russia
Languages: Russian, Chechen
Company: Studio Trite
Sound: Dolby Digital
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for violent images, disturbing content, thematic material, brief sexual and drug references, and smoking.
Director(s): Nikita Mikhalkov
Related Videos for 12 (2007)
Thinking of watching this movie? Then click on the like button!
Producer(s):
Aleksei Balashov - executive producer
Sergei Gurevich - executive producer
Aleksei Karpushin - line producer
Nikita Mikhalkov - general producer
Leonid Vereschtchaguine - producer
Yekaterina Yakovleva - line producer
Writer(s):
Nikita Mikhalkov - (writer) &
Aleksandr Novototsky - (writer) (as Aleksandr Novototsky-Vlasov) &
Vladimir Moiseyenko - (writer)
Cast:
Sergei Makovetsky - Juror #1
Nikita Mikhalkov - Juror #2
Sergey Garmash - Juror #3
Valentin Gaft - Juror #4
Aleksei Petrenko - Juror #5
Yuriy Stoyanov - Juror #6
Sergei Gazarov - Juror #7
Mikhail Efremov - Juror #8
Aleksey Gorbunov - Juror #9
Sergei Artsybashev - Juror #10
Music: Eduard Artemyev
Aleksei Balashov - executive producer
Sergei Gurevich - executive producer
Aleksei Karpushin - line producer
Nikita Mikhalkov - general producer
Leonid Vereschtchaguine - producer
Yekaterina Yakovleva - line producer
Writer(s):
Nikita Mikhalkov - (writer) &
Aleksandr Novototsky - (writer) (as Aleksandr Novototsky-Vlasov) &
Vladimir Moiseyenko - (writer)
Cast:
Sergei Makovetsky - Juror #1
Nikita Mikhalkov - Juror #2
Sergey Garmash - Juror #3
Valentin Gaft - Juror #4
Aleksei Petrenko - Juror #5
Yuriy Stoyanov - Juror #6
Sergei Gazarov - Juror #7
Mikhail Efremov - Juror #8
Aleksey Gorbunov - Juror #9
Sergei Artsybashev - Juror #10
Music: Eduard Artemyev
Posted on: March 18, 2009
January 12th, 2008
I noticed that this page was reviewed by over 1000 people. Most of themwere very positive of the movie (according to the rating) but did notmake any remarks. That's good!
I would like to make a few: N. Mikhalkov's plot of that same play (12Angry Men by Reginald Rose) which was used to make the 1957's movie iscertainly more elaborate and complete. While the Lumet's movie was aconsiderable advantage in his age, it has a number of holes and, mostof all, holes in the storyline.
For starters, if you disagree:
1. in the 1957 classic, we do not receive the answer: who was the realkiller and WHY. This question is not even discussed. Everyone present,including the personage so well played by H. Fonda ("Davis"), seems tobe interested just in getting away ASAP. The only difference betweenDavis and the others is that the architect Davis wants to get away withhis conscience clean. Admirable purpose, surely, but quite limited.
Compare this aspect with Mikhalkov's remake…
2. The 1957 version, despite all of its advantages, gives us noperspective whatsoever. So what, really, just happened? Some guy,apparently a skilled leader, just managed to convince 11 other guysusing common sense, logic and manipulation as necessary. Everyonehappily leaves the room and the boy, possibly, becomes multimillionairefrom the sales of the movie "12 Angry Men"… Unrealistic scenario, atbest.
3. Although we learn from 1957's about biases and prejudices ofeveryone (and that is the strongest side of the old movie), we still donot see the present men as real people (with the exception, perhaps, ofthe Davis personage and the old man). They do look mostly likeautomatons (to me, at least).
I can continue in this vein for quite some time. The point is (if Iwere to make a point) is that if you want only superfluities of theplot, then 1957 version will suffice. If you want to go deeper thanmere jurisdiction, then you go watch Mikhalkov's remake (in Russian, ifyou can) H. Zimmerman, PhD, M.D.
January 27th, 2008
This movie is a good remake of "12 Angry Men" (1957). "12 Angry Men"(1957) was nominated for 3 Oscars, and this movie has been nominatedfor only one. I feel that this movie IS good, but not worthy of anOscar nomination, because it has already been nominated for theoriginal movie. If this movie was an improvement, then I would acceptit as a good nomination, but it only closely maintains the quality.Worth watching, but it is just another remake, only a remake of a goodmovie. I would be interested to see this director with a more difficultremake, like something that was bad to begin with. His next project,"Burnt By The Sun" sounds promising.
February 11th, 2008
A loose remake of Sidney Lumett "12 Angry Men" (1957) which was made bythe words of its creator to honor the 50th anniversary of the belovedclassic , "12" set in 2007 in a gym of one of the Moscow High Schoolswhere the other "12 angry men" are struggling to decide the fate of aChechen teenager who is charged with the murder of his Russianstepfather, the Army Officer, the Veteran of Chechen war who hadadopted the boy after his mother and father were both killed. Allevidences point at the boy, and there are the testaments of theeye-witnesses against him.
I personally believe that "12" (2207) is a bad movie, with the hugeholes in the plot, with the characters that are more of caricatures andclichés than the real 12 angry men representing the different layers ofthe modern Russian society , and with the good actors giving overheatednon-convincing performances that often sounded false and made mecringe. To top it all, Mikhalkov took it upon himself a role ofGod-like figure who is above the laws and who knows better than anyoneelse what is good for the particular case, for the law, and for thewhole country. I am a big fan of earlier Mikhalkov's films. He is atalented filmmaker. He's made more than few films he could be justlyproud of. Among them "Friend Among Strangers, Stranger Among Friends",1974) – simply great, it was first film Nikita Mikhalkov directed andstarred and it was first Russian Art-action movie that takes placeduring the Civil War of the 1918-1921. It is fun – clever, nicely shot,and wonderfully acted by the best actors of the time. Is regarded asone of the best "Easterns", the western: Russian style and is almost aspopular and beloved as the masterpiece of the genre, ""White Sun ofDesert". There is also "Slave of Love" (1976) with the incredibleperformance by the Muse of his earlier films, Yelena Solovey as adoomed silent screen star in the shattering world of the RussianRevolution of the 1917 and the following Civil War of 1918-1921. Thefinal scene of the movie – Olga Voznesenskaya (Solovey) in the runawaytram is heart-breaking and tragically beautiful. Mikhalkov'sadaptations of the Goncharov's "Oblomov" and Chekhov's "Platonov" arefirst rate and proved his taste, talent, cinematic vision, and abilityto get the fine performances from all his actors. He was successful increating smaller, chamber compelling pieces with only few maincharacters, like "Five Evenings (1979) and "Without Witness" (1983). Hedeservingly won the Oscar for "Burnt by the Sun" (1994) which I see asthe tragic sequel to his earlier masterpiece, "Unfinished Piece forMechanical Piano". It went down the hill after his Oscar victory. "TheBarber of Siberia" (1998) was nothing more than a glossy post card -"From Russia with Love". I think he only made it to be able to play theRussian Emperor Alexander III. And now – "12", 12 jurors or 11 apostlesfollowing who? "V belom venchike iz roz vperedi Isus Christos" ("In awhite roses nimbus on his head, Jesus Christ is walking ahead")? Isthat the role Nikita Mikhalkov wants to play in the movie and in thereality?
February 15th, 2008
Some of the IMDb commenters are a bit tough on this film for havingsome characters that verged on caricature. I see their point, but Ithink it is a bit unfair here. Given that this was an homage to theoriginal (on its 50th anniversary), Mikhalkov had to take its basicplot as his foundation. That necessarily drained much of the drama fromthe story—-we know which way the countdown is going to proceed. It alsoforced him to deal with all 12 men.
Thus, what can he do to keep it interesting? He (1) features theensemble acting—-terrific even to me as a non-Russian speaker, (2)highlighted the characters' weaknesses, including some human andRussian traits that have to be a bit outsized, (3) added a detached butaffecting commentary on brutality of the Chechnya war and the tendencyfor Muscovites to see Chechens as monolithic, and (4) threw in a fewplot wrinkles at the end. Given the constraints he faced, I thought itwas a fine adaptation—and was thoroughly engrossing. Mikhalkov himself,as the jury foreman, is a commanding screen presence as well.
February 21st, 2008
This movie has probably been one of the worst thing I have ever saw.What makes it even worse is that the technique is great. Most actorsare great and there is real emotion in the movie. The problem is withthe idea behind it.
Unfortunately, there is no way to review this movie as purely artisticpiece since it is based on very political agenda. The movie can be seenas the world according to Mikhalkov (who directed the film and starredin it in a role of wise, honest and so on "Russian officer"). All ofthe stories told by characters are very impressive, much more so thanin the original Lumet film but each and every one of them is fake,unreal stereotypical look at the 1990s when the country actuallyexperienced one of its greatest moments. But characters only seem toremember crime. All kinds of crime. The characters who would in reallife be much more vocal and reasonable are portrayed as clowns oridiots. There is no place for them in this feast.
What makes another thousand times worse for me is that in the movieMikhalkov lost the main idea of the original. The reasonable doubt. No.Here we know everything for sure. OF course it is obvious to theRussian officer who killed whom. But the point should have been that itis enough to doubt the evidence not to have evidence against someoneelse. And obviously the evil killer is a capitalist real estatecompany.
Most Western viewers will not see those inconsistencies within themovie. They will just again be scared of "this awful life in thoseuncivilized countries" and this "horrible, horrible capitalism andthose poor Russians". Well, thank you. We are actually doing fine. Notall of us are losers, we did a great thing in the 90s and we don't needyour lazy sympathy. But if you like it so much please, please takeMikhalkov away from us.
February 27th, 2008
A remake of a famous praised film is always a high-risk project,because a director takes risks to lapse into blind imitation.Fortunately Mikhalkov has enough talent and experience to rethink "12Angry Men" by Sidney Lumet, to pass it through his own identity andproduce an absolutely new and fresh film. This thought-provoking filmsurpassed all my expectations. Though it is a remake of an Americanmovie, its plot is rooted in Russian reality. It reflects a lot ofsociety's ills and nation's fears. I was deeply moved and fullysatisfied with totally naturalistic dialogues. To my mind all-star castplayed with miraculous virtuosity. The characters are true to life andI am sure that any Russian will be able to recognize himself in one ofthese 12 men. "12" is a stunning and intense drama with a large pool oftalented actors, which leaves a lasting impression with you.
April 2nd, 2008
What I didn't like in "12" I still have to formulate. It wasn't that itwas one of Mikhalkov's films (although I have little respect for theman). However, I really like some of his early films. Oblomov isexcellent. Five Evenings, An Unfinished Piece for a Player Piano arevery good films. It wasn't the propaganda in "12" that I personallydidn't like. Although this film is full of it. It wasn't the story. Ithink the story had a lot of potential. What irritated me throughoutthe film is that it was made to imitate the worst Hollywood films inwhich rapid movements of the camera and the characters are used to makeup for the absence of thoughtfulness and good acting. The charactersare jumping, running, roaming around, throwing things, saying thingsthat are out of place, interrupting each other. This is all sounnatural, so unrealistic, and so Hollywood. This film is made forAmericans with a short attention span, not for Russians. Russian filmtradition is making "slow" films that focus on good acting and an idea,not on rapid camera movements and quickly changing scenes. CheapHollywood effects had no place in good Russian movies. I guessMikhalkov was aiming for American audience and Oscar which he didn'tget anyway.
April 20th, 2008
This is a masterpiece. The beauty of the film is in its simplicity.Almost the whole thing takes place in a high school gymnasium, around along table around which the twelve jurors sit. Every performance issuperb, including that of the director, who plays the foreman, andSergei Garmash as the cab driver juror. The screenplay follows thetortuous deliberations, in which every juror has at least onesoliloquy. Excellent camera-work and lighting augment the heavy drama.
It is more likely in Russia today that twelve whites would end upforming a jury, although less so that no women would be serving.Director Nikita Mikhalkov evidently chose to remain faithful that muchto the American movie on which his is based, Twelve Angry Men. Onewonders whether it might have been more interesting with women jurorscontributing their anguish to the picture, and since this version issimply titled 12, the possibility of including a woman or two (as wouldbe realistic in this day and age) was presumably open. Also, the filmis not realistic in the sense that Russia does not have a jury system,therefore this situation would not arise in real life. What Mikhalkovwas probably trying to do was to create a morality play, and this hedoes magnificently. These criticisms are therefore minor. This is awonderful piece of work.
As the film is starting, for those who know Russian, one sees the logoof "Patriotic Films." This may cause groans among those who know moreabout Russia. Patriotic Russians today seem reactionary and defensiveto many Westerners. But Mikhalkov does not dance around the sensitiverace issue at the core of the plot, a Chechen boy accused of murderinghis stepfather, a Russian military officer, and facing life in prison.Mikhalkov's main interest really is in truth, justice and honesty. Theidea of these qualities as components of "patriotism" actually lies atthe core of this story, and it is brilliantly executed. By the end, ifyou can suppress cynicism and believe that this many men of consciencecould assemble in one place in Russia today, you will be moved totears. This is a major achievement.
July 11th, 2008
Characteristic feature of Russian philosophy – self-criticism and notstopping internal struggle. Can therefore we have replaced less thanfor hundred years at least 3 forms of government. Of infinite searchthink also feelings. 12 Mikhalkovs, certainly it is impossible to nameideal expression of Russian soul, but the certain features andqualities the director everything, has managed to express, having put12 person before a dilemma to rescue the person from prison and to giveon worry of businessmen from the hypothecary company and thus to hammerin a voice of conscience somewhere deeply or to charge the shoulderswith the responsibility from and its destiny. To rise on its protectionnot only in court where from them it is required to answer only, it isguilty or not, but also still to begin cares of the child until theOffice of Public Prosecutor will not undertake the present murderers.Mikhalkov the actor certainly above Mikhalkov of the director, likelybecause even when it stages film, it remains the actor, creates a role,instead of all film. The open end, sad, but leaving confidence thatindifference – a shaving flies from soul. The American cinemasacademicians have not given it "Oscar", likely and the truth, willsuffice from it 12 premiums from the Russian cinemas of academicians,it is too much premiums harmfully for creativity of the director andthe actor then they still have that internal not calmness andнеустройство which allows them to do masterpieces.