This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

I have some grave problems with this remake of the classic- "12 Angry Men". 1. Overacting from all quarters. The original had subtle performances from each of the actors acting as jurors. But this movie had excessive had movements, tongue lapping, advancing toward one another to hit, giggles and laughs on cringeworthy jokes, and so on. 2. Departure from logic. In the original, the fact that only one of the jurors was bespectacled turned out to be a pivotal point since he was able to testify that the marks on the nose could only be a product of being bespectacled. Since he was on the guilty 'side' earlier, it proved to be a damning indication to the fact that the evidence against the defendant was lacking in substance. But in this movie, half the jury is bespectacled- which is fine. Fine if they had just omitted one bespectacled juror asking another one if people who have specs sleep with their specs on! Dude- you should know yourself- you have specs too! 3. Jury system in India. Since time immemorial, we have had the judge ruling concept; not the jury decision concept. Factually inaccurate. Copying just for the sake of copying with no customization!

One of the best known creations of Basu Chaterjee! An excellent chair gripping, nail biting movie that could be ever made. Truly a masterpiece! The story revolves around a trial where the convict may be granted a death sentence... and of all, the people who are to reason have their own prejudices. The story focuses on turn around of emotional conflict that each juror is going through. I have seen this movie like a 50 times and I am not exaggerating... Its on my mobile too... This is one of the few movies which stand out even when its a copy. The original one inspired this to become even greater!!Recommended like HELL! Regards

'Ek Ruka Hua Faisla' is one of the best remakes I can think of. Those who are underestimating 'Ek Ruka Hua Faisla' are only doing so to prove Sydney Lumet's original version better than the remake, but I would only praise Lumet for being original and nothing else. ERHF has the guts to qualify itself to be one of the best films ever made where veteran actors from FTII and NDS have proved their versatility in every possible way. ERHF is an ode to Indian cinema and a vibrant answer to those who think that films could be only made at a multi-million budget. Surprisingly ERHF has no special locations, picturesque places, songs, or a great budget (this in fact seems to have no budget at all). The film begins and finishes in a closed room, where on a severely hot day 12 jurors are arguing on a murder case. 11 jurors are sure that the murderer, a 19 year old boy is guilty of killing his father, but one juror differs with them and is trying to prove the boy's innocence. The special thing about ERHF is that it never lets the viewer feel confined inside the four walls, but forces his mind to meander away and puts it right at the crime scene. ERHF is great due to the characteristics of the jurors.Juror#1 (Deepak Kejriwal): A simple man with not much experience of hosting the meeting but takes comments on his performance very personally. He doesn't seem to have an innate ability to think anything and follows the flock.Juror#2 (Amitabh Shrivastava): A classical, timid and docile man, very homely and lacks presentation skills. He is troubled by the presence of others and goes tongue-tied at places. He finds peace in his clerical job and is good at calculations.Juror#3 (Pankaj Kapur): An arrogant and aggressive man who was abandoned by his son and have since been hating all the young men. He is hellbent on sending the poor guy to the gallows just because he sees a reflection of his own son in him.Juror#4 (M.S. Zaheer): A logical and brainy fellow who has sober presentation skills. He likes to talk only on the proofs and motives of the culprit. He is very serious and is one of the prime representatives of the group that considers the culprit guilty.Juror#5 (Subhash Udghate): A man who spent his childhood in the slums but rose to good post due to his personal endeavors. He understands the burning issues that relate to slums and slum-dwellers. Overall a reformer, who wishes to stay beside justice.Juror#6 (Hemant Mishra): A small-time employee at a house-painting firm, who has illogically favored the 'guilty' team without applying his own thoughtfulness. He is ethical and doesn't tolerate arrogance. He is open to new arguments and thoughts to fuel his own views.Juror#7 (M.K. Raina): An indifferent unethical man, who doesn't value others lives. He lives an epicurean lifestyle and enjoys 'party, drinks, and jokes'. He gives his verdict as 'guilty' because he wants to finish off soon and watch a movie.Juror#8 (K.K. Raina): An architect by profession. Highly tolerant, firm and logical warrior, who has the power to subdue every other member with his inherent intuition. He has the power of elaborating and detailing everything with his common sense. He alone defends the young boy and is the first man to give the verdict of 'innocent'.Juror#9 (Anu Kapoor): A silent old man who has inculcated knowledge through years of experience. He can't tolerate injustice and is the first one to offer his support to Juror#8. He is a great observer and has a unique way of looking at things.Juror#10 (Subbi Raj): A foul-mouthed, snobbish, arrogant and aggressive businessman, who is filled with hot air. He disdains slum-dwellers and considers that they are fit to be eradicated from this society. He is loud, hypocrite and hasty in decisions and a worshiper of supremacy.Juror#11 (Shailendra Goel): A humble, meek and cultured man, who likes to discuss things in peace and has good analytical skills. He is a democrat and believes in the freedom of expression and has the whole constitution in his mind.Juror#12 (Aziz Qureshi): An ad-agency owner who seems lost somewhere else. Most of the time he follows others words and is bad at decision making. He doesn't have much to do with the jury and gives his decision based on majority.I can't discuss anything more about this film and you must watch to believe it. I give it 10/10.

Twelve jurors - common people with their usual daily problems, emotional swings and their regular habit to stick to what is obvious - are selected to judge a case where very strong evidences are available against the accused. Everything was transparent and vividly clear. The case was supposed to end with common opinion against the accused within no time. But one person was against this common judgment and this is the point where story builds up. This one person make other eleven to change their decision. It is Hindi adoption of 'Twelve Angry Men (1957)' (as far as I feel.)and is equally mastered. It is acclimatized for Indian viewers. Performance of actors touches the pinnacle and it is a recommendable movie.