This movie could be easily transferred to Theater if you want to watch it a live show. 12 people and one room is enough for a great movie (although there are movie with even less actors that are good as this one). If you feel that the plot is going slow, you probably will go over this when watch it for second and every time after. And you'll notice more and more good details that support this story.The message that is sent is what most of us sense that art serves for - to give you nice feeling of importance of every life, to inspire you.

I really like the storyline. However it could be just me because I don't speak Russian but i thought half of the Jurors were over acting. Like i said, i watched it with English subtitles and i know translating a language could lose some of the 'gist' of what people are actually saying or meaning. To me, apart from the constant 'laughter and joke' majority of the jurors lacked emotion; or what they were saying didn't make sense with there actions. e.g: when each told there own story. There emotions didn't 'fit' with what they were saying or when one got hot headed it seemed it was over nothing. I do blame the translation. Overall I really enjoyed the whole storyline and the way it all headed. Although i must admit the 'near' ending shocked me. Thank God they made the decision that they did!

I found this movie to be a theatrical feast, but with a couple of nagging annoyances.I want to get the annoying parts off my chest first, because chronologically that's how I encountered the movie. It seems to me that Russians have never mastered the art of sound mixing. Whether in old Soviet films or in this modern Russian one, there is always something not quite right with the sound.As the film began I found that the background noises were much louder than the speech of the actors. The sounds of doors slamming, children yelling, workers working, and so on were loud and clear, but the actors' voices were practically whispers in that maelstrom. I don't know why that is. Could it be only in the foreign, sub-titled version of the film? I don't see complaints about the sound levels from anyone else, but I'm pretty sure it's not just me. I desperately wanted to listen to the Russian dialog, but the low audio level of the voices forced me to read the sub-titles throughout most of the film. It was a bit like walking with a small stone in my shoe.Not having seen the "12 Angry Men" movie on which this current film was based, I was forced to accept "12" on its own merits. Thus, I experienced this film not as a remake of a previous movie, but as a filmed a stage play with phenomenal actors. Perhaps as a result, I unequivocally enjoyed this acting extravaganza. There may have been some occasional carpet chewing, but overall the performances were astounding. I certainly wish the IMDb list of players had more information about who played which role and had more biographical information about the individual actors. Perhaps someone familiar with Russian films and actors could throw more light on the matter. Much the same criticism, of course, could apply to IMDb's level of information on foreign films in general.Frankly, I didn't take the matter of the guilt or innocence of the "accused" very seriously. With all the theorizing the jurors were doing, and with the serious lack of real information for us in the audience, there was absolutely no way to determine real guilt or innocence. If anything, the flashback scenes were more confusing than enlightening. So, as far as I was concerned, it was the jurors, particularly the "Great Russians" among them - who were at the center of the film. Watching their "paralysis by analysis" was the real treat, irrespective of whether they reached the right conclusion in the end. As far as that conclusion is concerned, I have no idea what Mikhalkov means by it. His own screen character was obviously implying that he has a unique insight into things, intimating that perhaps he had been at one time in the KGB, GRU, or had been a member of some other allegedly all-knowing organization? Frankly, this was a bit off-putting and seemed to imply that the State and its workers knew things that the average citizen just hadn't a need to know. In any event, despite having a relatively modest role for most of the film, at the end Mikhalkov came a little too much to the fore for my taste. I'd be very happy to read a Russian reviewer's explanation of Mikhalkov's character.A word or two about the depiction of Chechens. The music, dancing, and overwhelming maleness of Chechen culture were solidly, if briefly, presented. One certainly cannot stereotype all Chechen men as being similar to the Chechen fighters depicted in this film, but the characterization of those fighters was phenomenal. In this film the Chechens fighters' raw power to intimidate, threaten, and attack their enemies those was palpable. I'm aware that even Alexander Solzhenitsyn praised the indomitable culture of Chechens in the Gulag. They just never, ever, yielded to the Soviets.So, I rate this film very highly. Perhaps I'm missing the film's more subtle propaganda that some here have mentioned, but that's something I can continue to think more about. I highly recommend "12."

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