IMDb > Ek Ruka Hua Faisla (1986) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Ek Ruka Hua Faisla (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 17 reviews in total 

21 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Outstanding copy!

Author: moowhiz
17 September 2005

This is probably the best Hindi remake (The original is a fantastic Sidney Lumet movie, "Twelve angry men" ( I've watched. K. K. Raina is no Henry Fonda; but he's done a great job -- as has the rest of the very talented cast; and none more than the brilliant Pankaj Kapoor as the broken-hearted father/juror no 3 (played by Lee J. Cobb in the original) Ironically, what makes it work is the fact that it is such a complete plagiarism; it is guided entirely by Lumet's masterpiece in style and substance. The cast and the crew have done an excellent job with the execution; but they could have probably done it without the director. An interesting artifact of the plagiarism is that we have this movie about a hung jury -- when India doesn't have a jury system at all! Oh well! Given that Bollywood is all about plagiarism anyway; I guess we should be thankful when they occasionally do a good job of it!

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Interesting plot!

Author: Abhishek Chatterjee from Singapore
9 April 2005

This movie is great! I watched this on TV recently and it was easily one of the most interesting two hours I have spent in front of the tube in along time. One of course expects high standards from Basu Chatterjee and he doesn't disappoint. The plot revolves around a set of jurors debating on the the innocence of a boy who is accused of murdering his father. One juror stands up for the lad and ends up proving his innocence. Pankaj Kapoor delivers the best performance of the lot. It also deals with the prejudices we carry with us from our personal lives and how they can cloud our judgment. We also learn a lesson or two about the value of a human life. Engrossing fare. 12 people in a room makes for a minimalist yet unforgettable setting. Don't miss it.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Masterful Adoption.

Author: Nishant Neeraj from India
7 June 2006

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

great adaptation

Author: vedicsignature from India
1 May 2006

I was watching the NAT GEO special on 100 top movies..and incidentally came to know that "Twelve angry men" was the original.

Anyway...Ek Ruka Hua Faisla great movie...Considering the time period in which this movie was adapted ...

Acting was too good ....and this movie..also won the best director movie award for BASU...

All the character were very close to the real life..and that is the winning point for this movie.

All the 12 characters who played as the jury were one of the finest on screen actors and all the Door Darshan period generation know about them......

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Still a Great Indian Movie

Author: John S Lal from India
19 September 2008

This is a great movie. Even though it is a remake of 12 Angry Men, it stands on its own because of exceptional performances by the actors. And even though we have done away with the jury system, the movie is very believable because of its theme. It hits at the very common and well-entrenched prejudices held by individuals and social classes. Basu Chatterjee deserves special praise. Yes, it's a remake of a Hollywood movie but the issues it addresses needed to be brought forward to the Indian audiences and in Indian setting, with Indian characters and in Hindi language. Even after a quarter of a century later the movie stirs you with its treatment of topics because the issues of caste, class, materialism, loopholes in judicial process and of course human prejudices and judgement still plague us. And of course, Pankaj Kapur is fantastic Watch it!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Excellent adaptation of the English movie - 12 angry men

Author: sreerao from United States
19 September 2005

I remember this movie particularly, because during the days when TV was still a luxury in the town I lived, this was broadcast on the national channel (aka Doordarshan's Friday movie time). Not many among my friends appreciated it because it was not made in a typical mainstream commercial cinema style! But it caught my attention as to how can such a small subject as a jury decision be depicted so wonderfully in the form of a movie. In the 80's when the evening discussions revolved around the mundane Indian movie hero's heroics (aka bashing the bad guy and beating around the bush ;)) I remember me being involved in the appreciation discussion of this movie. After 15 years later, when I am hooked to relish the American Classics, I watched "12 Angry men" and right into 10 minutes of the movie, I readily recollected seeing this same plot in a Hindi movie ...and voilà thanks to IMDb, I was able to find the name of the movie. The only thing I remember from the movie was Pankaj Kapoor. Undoubtly, this is a great adaption of "12 Angry men" which incidentally won the Oscar for the best direction. It would be exciting to know if the Hindi version won any awards.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A insightful movie

Author: Arun Saha from United States
16 July 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I recent watched this movie, 'Ek Ruka hua Faisla" by Basu Chatterjee. I very much liked it. It is a kind of movie which made me fully concentrate on it and made me *think*. It is a movie with a statement, as opposed to 3 hour song-dance-fighting-drinking-partying malodrama.

Anyway, it a movie about a situation where a dozen of men who do not know each other in advance sit together in a humid afternoon to take an unanimous decision. During the course of the meeting, the fiercely debate (sometimes quarrel) on various issues and possibilities. Few of them use arguments, others are merely shouting. These men come from different sections of society which bias their opinions.

By the way, you may also want to watch "Twelve Angry Men" from or which is 1957 movie in Hollywood based on the same story.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Great movie but not original

Author: arjunjk from India
16 June 2006

I saw this movie back in '98 on SONY TV. It was very engrossing. I thought it was a great one until I came across Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men. I'm giving it 8/10 for being true to the original and not including unnecessary song sequences or deviations as seen in other remakes. The movie has some good performances from each of the actors. The movie may be one of the few movies devoid of female actors. I don't know whether this is true or not but one of my friend told me this movie is shown at IIMs for briefing on negotiations and dealings. Also I wonder whether there is any such jury system in India as shown in the movie. Well anyway a good remake and worth watching again and again.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

It's one of a classic movie

Author: dearketan from India
8 January 2006

The 99% movie is filmed in one single room. And camera angle is set very thoughtfully. All the actors have done a really wonderful job. Which no other Indian actor has done yet. Not even Amitabh or Raj Kapoor can do it. I have seen the film 3-4 times. And every time I have seen the movie with same excitement. The way the actor gets the confidence of all the jurors is really good. The dialogues are really realistic. It seems that you yourself are one of the juror. And you too want to prove that the boy is innocent.

Really one in a million movie.

" Ek Ruka Hua Faisla " Too Good To Resist......

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

More than brilliant.

Author: khayaal_e_yaar from Port Blair
5 April 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

'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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history