Many viewers may be surprised by my opinion, in fact, I am also surprised that such a movie that has been touted for such a long time turned out to be such a bad movie.
I've seen the old version, and although it's not so unforgettable, at least I remember it as a well-conceived movie. The most commendable part of the old version is the simplification of the movie scenes. Even if this dramatic expression is seen now, it still belongs to the avant-garde.
Since Russia is remaking "12 Angry Men", a closed and small space is indispensable. But the director's desire to express is obviously not just copying, so he recklessly interspersed the boy's experience from childhood to adulthood in the jury debate scene, as well as the picture of him waiting for the result of the trial in prison.
From the first "trance" of the camera, I looked down with mixed emotions. The joy is the director's sympathy for the world: in the old version, the director wanted to be neat and tidy without any trivial scenes, which made the film excessively entangled in legal logic and downplayed the moral responsibility of the life and death judgment; Will parallel editing bring too much director's subjective color to the progress of the plot?
As the movie progresses, the taste is getting more and more wrong. Not only is the director making this movie with too much subjective color, but every character is also facing the murder case with a subjective color. Their identities are Juror! !
These ridiculous things started with the first juror who found the boy innocent. He did not have any legally justifiable reasons, and he believed that the starting point of the boy's innocence was simply "it's too hasty to vote on a suspect so simple." My KAO, the jurors have been listening to this case for three days, and now he is dawdlingly refusing to vote, and he actually gave such a ridiculous reason, was he eating shit during those three days? Of course, many people can see the director's intentions. The director is doing everything possible to tell the audience: "The jurors simply raise their hands or don't raise their hands, but it will affect a boy's life." It's okay to be reasonable, but please also ask you To be more persuasive, it started a big reversal that made me sick from the start.
I won't go into detail about the next few episodes. If you are interested, you can read this movie again. During the first hour, when a group of jurors were discussing this case, they didn't say a word. It's about legal logic.
For example, a juror said that he used to be drunk to make trouble, but a woman cared for him, and then they got married. He uses this as an excuse to say that a decision can actually save a fallen person. So he decided to vote acquittal. What the hell is this? For example, a juror tells a story about his father and a Lithuanian woman, and another juror tells a story about playing a slot machine... Many people tell a story about themselves in the process of judging a boy's innocence The story, then resonates emotionally or slams Russia for being depraved, corrupt, and then the decision is made. My God, what's the point of a court when juries say that?
The whole scene is also extremely funny. A group of people who are eager to vote quickly, but have the patience to listen to everyone tell a story of their own, and it is an irrelevant story. As an audience, I didn't have the patience to watch it, how could they have the patience to listen? The director regards himself as a preacher. In one case, he desperately wants every juror to tell a well-designed story, and then thinks that he can use it to show a modern history of Eastern Europe. The whole thing is a lump of dough that is hard to swallow, please make some noodles less, and make a dumpling well. I think the director himself knows that this movie is unwatchable, so he has to intersperse a dance, a shootout, and a bit of fancy editing and a bird's perspective. Like this piece of dough is too big for the audience to eat, so let’s dip you in some sugar…
Then I remembered the old version of "12 Angry Men" infinitely, and turned the whole case upside down like a cocoon, which is called a miracle. At the end of the new version, the director showed his point of view and said: "The law is supreme, what if mercy is higher than the law?" It is a grand explanation for his own nonsense, and many viewers who are not thinking about it may think We were admired. I have no intention of discussing the sanctity of the law here, but as for mercy, it is not something that can be profligate, it is a kind of generosity from the upper to the lower. And jurors are a profession, where do they have a sense of moral superiority? How to replace God to make the choice of reward and punishment? They either acted impartially, or they acted dereliction of duty.
The new version also mentions at the end: "He lives longer in prison than outside." The director has completely dismissed the jury as part of legal affairs. They already have the right to design fate for people, and God is nothing more than that.
View more about 12 reviews
