Reviews

I am really disappointed with all this nonsense talk like "this movie is against religion". Such statements and the likes of them contain a number of strong inflexible biases behind them. And the movie just presents these people to what they really are--- and, as a result, they don't like it (and, of course, write negative reviews on the movie). They should better be making negative reviews of themselves and stick better to their religion...

First of all, against WHAT religion? There are many of them: three monotheistic, many agnostic and an innumerable number of others. Observing for many years here, in Jerusalem, peoples of different religious persuasions, I still can't make it out against what religion the movie (and the book series, by the way) really is.

Secondly, If somebody assumes that it is against his particular religion, let him (her) better look into what he (she) calls as "religion". If he is a power-hungry hypocrite using the religious form and appearance to beat people into submission or to achieve other egoistic goals, then, well, I am sorry. It is not religion at all, it is a pagan cult at its worst. Or a "Magisterium", in terms of the movie.

Thirdly, you might remember that 2000 year old story of a young man who walked the streets, claimed (and shown) supernatural powers and a very close standing to Almighty. As a result, he was taken by Authorities to Magisterium where the Magistrate pronounced the indictment and washed his hands. Does it remind you of something you've ever heard of before? He also defied the Authorities, and was a bright proponent of the free will...

If you still don't remember the name of this young man, then, I am afraid, it's a hopeless case. I wrote this remark for thinking humans, not for automatons from various sorts of magisteriums obsessed with various authorities.

Don't blame the mirror for the ugliness of your face. A proverb.

I noticed that this page was reviewed by over 1000 people. Most of them were very positive of the movie (according to the rating) but did not make any remarks. That's good!

I would like to make a few: N. Mikhalkov's plot of that same play (12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose) which was used to make the 1957's movie is certainly more elaborate and complete. While the Lumet's movie was a considerable advantage in his age, it has a number of holes and, most of all, holes in the storyline.

For starters, if you disagree:

1. in the 1957 classic, we do not receive the answer: who was the real killer and WHY. This question is not even discussed. Everyone present, including the personage so well played by H. Fonda ("Davis"), seems to be interested just in getting away ASAP. The only difference between Davis and the others is that the architect Davis wants to get away with his 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 no perspective whatsoever. So what, really, just happened? Some guy, apparently a skilled leader, just managed to convince 11 other guys using common sense, logic and manipulation as necessary. Everyone happily leaves the room and the boy, possibly, becomes multimillionaire from the sales of the movie "12 Angry Men"... Unrealistic scenario, at best.

3. Although we learn from 1957's about biases and prejudices of everyone (and that is the strongest side of the old movie), we still do not see the present men as real people (with the exception, perhaps, of the Davis personage and the old man). They do look mostly like automatons (to me, at least).

I can continue in this vein for quite some time. The point is (if I were to make a point) is that if you want only superfluities of the plot, then 1957 version will suffice. If you want to go deeper than mere jurisdiction, then you go watch Mikhalkov's remake (in Russian, if you can) H. Zimmerman, PhD, M.D.