From the original version of Twelve Angry Men and the domestic drama version of Twelve Citizens all the way, this man is from the earth and Twelve Angry Men are the earliest movies I have seen that use conversation as the main form of expression, and the quality of the two movies is also the same. Surprisingly, it led me to be obsessed with this kind of low-cost, small-scene, and strong dialogue films for a long time, and made me feel that the charm of the film can go beyond the influence, and come from the story and speculation itself.
The original Twelve Angry Men gave me the feeling that it was a profound analysis and reflection on the rule of law and the law. For the first time, it made me know what the presumption of innocence and the jury system are and how they work. How much energy can it bring? The most important thing in the whole movie is reasoning and analysis. The logic is intricate and the question is very reasonable. It shows that the evidence cannot satisfy all reasonable doubts, so the defendant can be innocent, but the original version is not correct. There are more extensions beyond the scope of the law, which are very serious and prudent.
This film, The Grand Judgment, is completely different from the previous work. In my opinion, this is no longer a remake, but a new work. It just applies this "jury talk" model. What the film really wants to express is also It is not the spirit of the law and the jury system, but the combination of everyone's life experience and the background of the times, what is kindness and what is kindness? In this movie, the analysis of evidence chain and testimony is very weak, and the jury It is not because of the evidence that the staff changed their minds, but the good intentions in their hearts. It is more like taking "questionable evidence" as a major premise that everyone knows but doesn't want to bring to the table. The evidence is inherently insufficient. Out of our goodness, out of responsibility for a person's life, should we still convict him?
So the film begins with the indifference of the jurors, and then gradually opens up their hearts. It is the process of the jurors realizing that they are biased and that they have not followed their hearts. The story is essentially about everyone's right and wrong views. , The concept of good and evil is developed, so how did these people's three views come into being? Obviously, it is inseparable from the pusher of the big environment.
Therefore, this film is completely different from the original, similar in shape, but the core is a glimpse into the whole, and insight into the changes in the entire environment, but it is also a good work, although the pace is indeed a bit slow in some places
View more about 12 reviews
