a complex story. about truth, society and humanity essence. about justice. and about a decision who escapes from the ordinary life of each prisiazhnyy. not comfortable. almost cruel. because it is not only a Mihalkov film. but a precise fresco of Russia, small sins who become essential to decide, about guilt and about lies, about the judgement about yourself. each did it a religious film in the manner who only Russians are the science and courage and patience to do one. because pieces from Tchekov and Dostoievsky and Harms are mixed in a honest portrait of the ways to escape from reality, to be protected by large zone of selfishness, to do a verdict about the other like for yourself. and if ? this is the question who transforms in experience this film for the viewer. because the viewer has the chance to be one of prisiazhnyy. or the Chechen young man. so, it is useful to see it !

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

Being a fan of "Twelve Angry Men" I looked at this with a very critical eye. What I had to deal with was an American perspective on a Russian milieu. As I began to appreciate each of the characters and his role, I began to also care about them. Their actions did seem foreign to me (excuse the expression), but eventually, as they exposed their individual backgrounds, it all began to fall into place. This is more agoraphobic than claustrophobic (like the original) and that plays into things. They have distractions. They go to the bathroom, they get sick, they throw tantrums, they hide. Eventually they must leave the satellite locations and return to the issue. Of course, the extenuating circumstances in this movie have to do with the accused and his background (recruited by terrorists). There is also an indifferent population that will look the other way if the man is released. The bad guys are keeping an eye on this case. Also, there is little of compassion in that gymnasium when it comes to returning to their lives, no egalitarian to wrap it all up. In "Twelve Angry Men" there is no underground machine waiting on the accused. This adds a whole new element. While this is quite a long film, it is certainly worthy of attention.

"In a scene showing a Chechen town the writing on the wall says "Don't shoot. Only women and children here" but only in Russian. In Chechnia all signs like that were written in three languages - Russian, Chechen and Arabic because Middle Eastern mercenaries participating the conflict could not read in Russian. Besides, it's difficult to believe someone would put such a sign and thus indicate there is SOMEONE in there." In Russia EVERYTHING is believable, that's what Nikita Mikhalkov wants to say. This movie is a fiction, don't forget it! But all the stories told in it are possible and the way of thinking of these people may be hard to understand, but it's true. This film is a cut through the Russian Soul and it's great.