tearjerker director

"Clap clap clap!"

As the movie ended, everyone in the theater applauded vigorously.

In fact, this is why Li Yi took advantage of the fact that there are no such films in this world.

Movies like In Memory have been remade into many versions, which naturally makes the movie lose its greatest sense of freshness.

But this time is different. It coincides with the years of unjust cases that have broken out in both the mainland and Hong Kong Island, making the jury system or the pros and cons of the mainland's judicial system the biggest and hottest topic nowadays.

Therefore, the appearance of this movie can be said to be just right.

Film critics in different places have completely different feelings about this movie.

Mainland film critics feel that Li Yi's decision to make this film is obviously to criticize the so-called jury system.

After all, look at the jury system. The twelve jurors are all ordinary people from society who have never met each other.

It seems fair to hand a case to these twelve people to try. After all, as shown in the movie: Juror No. 8 is the key point. If there is no Juror No. [-], then the final result will be What will it be?
It must take a few minutes to decide a person's fate, and in fact, they don't care at all whether there is a problem with doing so, because it is their right.

But for film critics on Hong Kong Island, they feel that Li Yi is contributing to Hong Kong Island's jury system.

After all, there are lines in the movie that highly praise this system: We are here, not to quarrel.We have a great responsibility.I have always felt that this is the advantage of a democratic society.We received a letter and were told to come here to decide whether a person we had never met was guilty or not. No matter what the verdict was, we would gain nothing and lose nothing. This is why we have a jury system. The reason why it is still used today.

Of course, more people like the structure of the movie itself very much.

A single scene, twelve people, relying on conversation to drive the plot. This is not to say that there are no such films, but it is really rare to see such a wonderful film.

Although "[-] Angry Men" seemed a bit dull at the beginning, after it officially started, "[-] Angry Men" actually had a lot of ups and downs.

Every vote is a critical node, which makes it very enjoyable for everyone to watch.

The movie doesn't even tell you what the case is at the beginning.

But through dialogue, layer-by-layer analysis, and layer-by-layer advancement, the entire case became very clear.

Almost everyone who has watched the movie will know what kind of case this is and what story it tells.

This is the beauty of dialogue.

Soon, short reviews appeared on the Internet.

"Bias, reasonable doubt. The ability to doubt at all times. Finally, when the opinions were finally unified, everyone put on their coats silently and left. On the table were the traces of the huge shock that had just occurred in an hour and a half. Ashtrays, paper balls, messy papers, pens, and the knife. After these shocks, the twelve men, no matter how prejudiced they were before, are shining brightly at this moment. This is the progress of mankind. Light.”

"People are liars, and people are liars who can even deceive themselves. Because of indifference, prejudice, numbness, ridiculous self-esteem, or even insisting on a lie without any reason. An irrational society often also A society without emotions. Highly recommended, brilliant."

"I feel very touched. The jury system seems to be very unfair, but it is just a sign of honesty. It is precisely because this jury system reflects the need to listen to every voice and respect every individual. Put forward your opinion" "Reasonable doubt", let's discuss, vote, and vote. However, not every jury has such a Juror No. 8, and prejudice will always exist!"

"What particularly impressed me was when Juror No. [-] asked: Are you the one joining the trial? Yes, these jurors always stand aside as bystanders, because no one's interests are involved. , so some of them, like Juror No. [-], even feel that this verdict is not as good as one of his football games. This is the so-called dishonesty!"

"How can one person convince everyone and turn defeat into victory when he holds opposing views with 11 people? The plot is very exciting, and it does not portray Juror No. [-] as omniscient or smarter than others. Instead, through everyone The profession, each person’s origin, etc. were gathered together to pick out the key doubtful points in the evidence, so that the final result could be reversed.”

"I peeled off the cocoon and defeated each one. It was very awesome... I felt a very, very strong sense of oppression. The atmosphere was so well integrated with the rain. It was awesome, amazing Director Dog!"

"The old man understands the old man, the dwarf understands the dwarf, the slum understands the slum, the father and son do not understand each other, and even the weather can affect a person's decision about life and death. When people understand others, they will first start from their own experience. Children are not fish, so they need a jury The team tried their best to piece together a more complete picture of the case. In the end, there was only half a chance of "not guilty", which did not mean absolute innocence. However, the kindness of human nature and respect for human rights allowed the jury to choose Never. I was very moved when I saw it at the end.”

"In the process of watching the movie, I have always had a sense of immersion. Innocence is not the focus and is not the necessary result. The emphasis is on "reasonable doubt." As No. 9 said: "This gentleman has been fighting us alone.He didn't say the kid was innocent, he just couldn't be sure.It's not easy to stand up to other people's ridicule alone, so he took a gamble and gathered support, and I supported him and I respected his motives.The kid on trial may be guilty, but I want to hear more. "The jurors with their distinctive personalities conveyed a lot of information in just a few performances. As for the swings in each person's attitude, it was a thin line."

"Either you can confirm or you can falsify. If you can neither confirm nor falsify, then you can only have doubts. Before invalid direct proof, you cannot be said to be guilty." When the crowd is making a collective decision, we The decision-making process itself is often overlooked, and this process is likely to lead to the outcome. "From the perspective of philosophy, law and ethics, this is an extremely serious trial, and it is more concerned about the big questions of people's hearts. Here is rigorous logic, rational consciousness, fair autonomy, and inner compassion. The entire debate process is full of humanism. This is a great movie!"

"This is a very simple but very complex movie. The last four people who objected were very impressed. One didn't want to use his brain and only thought about the football game, one engaged in class discrimination from beginning to end, and one needed to overturn all reasonable ideas. evidence, and the last one has selfish motives and wants to be tried, which is actually a kind of lynching. The wonderful thing about the movie is that although there are 4 characters, you don’t need to know who is who, and you don’t need to know the position, you just You need to listen to the dialogue, which covers all positions and characterizations, which is the greatest charm of video art. In addition, I still think that procedural justice may bring unfair results for a period of time, but it will eventually lead to A higher level of consequential justice may also be a kind of negation of negation.”

"Exceptionally vivid group play, 12 people are highly personalized, many details echo each other, the scheduling is flexible in a confined space, the lines are extremely sharp, the court debate and personal privacy intersect, the rhythm of climax and relative fall is masterfully grasped, watch this kind of movie What a treat!”

"The jury system has achieved the coexistence of the elite and the elite to a certain extent. It is based on a very Kantian foundation, that is, human beings are rational, so they can be enlightened and judge based on facts. But this example is not suitable. Promotion, because as a jury, you objectively decide the interests of others, but in public affairs, you make decisions on conflicts of interest.

But to a certain extent, the jury system has very high moral and rational requirements for the composition of jury members. However, in reality, the various jurors with different identities and professions like those who appear in the movie are the real .

In any case, it is a first-rate film with intense plot and performances. "

"From the casual statement at the beginning, to the intense discussion of conflicting opinions, to the reversal in the ending, the existence of each character is affirmed, and the changes in their opinions are reasonable."

"The significance does not lie in the result of "not guilty", but in the entire debate process, which is a big philosophical proposition about human beings and the world. With the help of 12 jury debates, it has a profound impact on individuals and collectives, individuals and society, truth and doubt, and hierarchy. Communicate and discuss topics such as dignity, opinion and understanding, reason and emotion, persistence and blind obedience, law and conscience, passion and calmness, bold assumptions and careful verification, etc. It is a collision of sparks that directly points to the human heart."

And film critics also praised this movie.

“In my personal opinion, the greatest success of this film is that it does not reveal a certain outcome, let alone the so-called justice and injustice.

"Guilty" or "innocent" has a huge and completely different impact on the defendant, but for the entire movie, it is not justice or injustice.

The movie doesn't even tell us from beginning to end whether he is guilty or not, and what is the truth?
One afternoon, 12 people were locked in a room. Their most important prop was a square table. At the end, everyone left, and the full view of the table was slowly revealed. After several hours of arguing, only a few pieces of paper and a table were left. The detritus, the angry roars and calm discussions of those who once existed will no longer be replayed.

Even if everyone watching the movie knows the outcome of their debate from the beginning, the movie can still not lose any second of its charm. Under a simple layout, 12 people express their own thoughts and then reveal various aspects of life.

Twelve Angry Men is actually a calm and peaceful attitude. A few people always speak loudly and speak rudely, while more people open their eyes wide and calmly express their thoughts step by step. Everyone's thoughts are unique. Even if the friction after they collide is particularly violent, in the end someone will apologize and someone will forgive.

The opposing ideas of the two groups of people are not extraordinary content. In fact, such disputes can be seen everywhere. But in my personal opinion, because of the needs of the movie, in the movie, the speeches of one group are finally given justice through the lens and language. head crown.

The minority obeying the majority is the main theme in the debate process. Being reasonable and not speaking out is a clear attitude. People who are stubborn are very valuable but also very stubborn. Persistence is the eternal law of success.

How many people are willing to stand up for someone they’ve never met, even if it’s a matter of life or death for that person, and they have to bear the burden of being accused of being sensational, flaunting otherness, etc.

How many people will not let their self-confidence fade due to the curses of the majority, and then quickly lower their flags and become an unknown follower.

And how many people are like weeds on the wall, seeing that their mission to conquer can be changed according to the wind, and without hesitation they will leave behind the people who join them in holding up the banner of hypocrisy and shouting.

Whether it is correct or not is not the key. The key lies in whether you express it to the best of your ability. The point I saw from the video is that 12 people have equal opportunities to express themselves. Only by insisting on fully expressing their doubts about something from beginning to end is bravery. language speaker.

At this moment, language makes people believe that it is something more capable of making people independent than human limbs, and the hearty language environment and the film's script are excellent contributors.

In the end, two men who had always trusted each other and were initially despised shook hands in a friendly way, learning that if you can hear different voices, listen patiently and communicate attentively, no matter what the matter itself is, it will be a joy .

What is worth mentioning here is that director Li Yi is a Hong Kong director, and he is obviously no stranger to the jury system. This movie seems to show the superiority of a poor jury system, but in fact In detail, it deeply explores the shortcomings of the jury system.

Because Juror No. [-] will appear often in those cases?
The significance of this film lies not only in the verdict of the child not guilty, but also in the process of the entire jury discussing doubts. The skeptical person gradually convinced the remaining 11 people. In this process, there was a strong collision between life and responsibility, law and The violent impact of reality, in the face of this system, no one can be immune, some are responsible for the responsibility and the shoulder of this mission.

However, how many people can truly shoulder such a mission?

In the film, No. 8 wants to pursue a relatively fair verdict for the defendant. However, the fact is that no one except No. [-] cares about this at the beginning.

The film mentions lawyers many times. The author suspects that this is a metaphor for the critical importance of lawyers in the jury system. The defendants in "Twelve Angry Men" are not so much the poor class as the civilian class. When encountering legal issues, there are not enough financial conditions to hire a lawyer with sufficient strength, so you can only be assigned a lawyer and passively accept it.

This is also a metaphor that the so-called dishonesty, the so-called fairness and justice, in a fundamental sense, this system is still unfair and unjust to civilians.

Otherwise, if you want to come to the jury, you don’t need so much time to argue and discuss!

If there had been a stronger lawyer defending him, the doubtful points in the evidence might have been refuted by the lawyer one by one in court.Maybe there will be no need for the jury to "try" the case again!
This is the so-called superiority of cooking. Haha, it’s you, Director Dog! "