Vicky Krebis Stars in Drama Hall Hall elegant

Whether it is because concepts such as truth and fairness require greater attention than ever in an unfair world in terms of chaotic, or because some cinematic traditions need to be activated, film makers are back to the courtroom recently. After “PVC 2” Calint Eastwood, elegant development and modern era, I was placed on “12 angry men” of 1957 from Sydney Lumit in 1957 “12 angry men”, which is now the role of the director director Jim Sheridan and David Meriman to revive the spirit of Lumit and Otto Bremenger with the wonderful “reinstall”.

Six times, an Oscar Sheridan candidate is not strange to legal excitement agreements, after she was directed one of its finest examples in 1993 with “Basem Father”, depicting the real life issue of Jelver Fourford Forford in 1974. With “re -creation”, he and Miriman deals with another true story: the killing of French director Tuscan de Blanter in 1996, which is already the subject of various podcasts and documentaries.

In their version, film makers spin an elegant yarn and completely imagination, using jury’s room structure as praise. In real life, Du Blancheer was found dead dead near her vacation’s residence gate in West Cork, with more than 50 wounds on her body. British journalist Ian Billy was named as a suspect shortly after, despite the complete lack of DNA, and ultimately convicted in the absence of 2019 by the French Court. (Ireland refused to hand it over, and Billy, who denied any involvement in the killing, died in 2024 of the heart attack that appears near his home in Ireland.)

While the case has not been resolved until this date, Sheridan and Meriman are not trying to answer Whodunit From everything. That is because they are more interested in “who Not Do this “an angle in building a severe convincing case on how it was unable to Bailey, by imagining what might happen if it was tried to kill it in Ireland. However,” re-creation “is not only Billy or this situation in particular-it is not intimidated if you barely have basic knowledge, and Wikipedia of events.

The film instead provides a skilled mixture of “12 angry men”, and exciting pulses for real crime podcasts, ultimately drawing a rich image of all the shadows of humanity: our convictions, our implications, and in our best moments, deep reserves of logic and sympathy. In the controversy – sometimes civil, sometimes not – the details of the case, the 12 men and women in the room reflect something deeply sincere from us, as individuals and society.

As the formula says, only one of the dozens of dozens are not sure Billy’s guilt when all others vote in a hurry “comet”. She is the Nafeted No. 8, played wonderfully by Vicky Krebis with a hidden disturbed frustration, and it was an ideal loader in “Corsage” and “Phantom Thread”. Here, she stands on her land with a design that does not know fear for a updated room preferred to be affected by the media, vote “comet”, and returning home early. But #8 has a conscience that must answer first and foremost. She believes and insists on several occasions (as if she was clarifying the aspirations of Sheridan and Meriman’s narrative with the film) in which she owes a full and appropriate discussion. They owe at least their time. It is right, they do.

One of the many “Re -Create” delights is to watch Sheridan in one of its rare manifestations on the screen. He is a juror No. 1, often leads the conversation, and is calculated after all major deliberations. Slowly and reasonably, the room turns into doubt, and the operation that is exposed to explodes amazingly over a period of 89 minutes, is tightly calibrated, especially given the limited visual assets that Sheridan and Meriman at their disposal of the preparation in the individual room mostly.

Among the main opponents – the most “guilty” voters – is No. 3, and perhaps the most complex story character, which was brought to life by John Connors with fiery accuracy. Initially, it happened (at least in terms of conditions today), as “as a father of a daughter’s type”, a good -intentioned man who believes that his job is to protect women based on the common standards of masculinity and equestrian. Various clashes in the room occur based on the social class, race, etc.

But for a while, the sex takes the lead as the main gap, and sometimes paradoxes. Some women, including No. 8, are reasonably suspicious of Billy’s alleged guilt. In claiming to defend the right of a dead woman to justice, #3 sometimes speaks, or even screaming, other women who oppose him. Through the intense arguments that were designed with experience on the page and the background characters that gradually deepen, Sheridan and Meriman intelligently emphasize different forms of women’s hatred, the hidden depths of our biases, and the ways that teach shock how we deal with the world around us.

But “re -creation” is not out to distort anyone. In the end, this is an optimistic movie that wants to believe in the possibility of thinking, sympathetic human beings to listen to activity, reasonable evaluation, apology, and formation of opinions, as well as review these opinions based on the available facts. In other words, she wants to remind us of the attributes and colleges that everyone must keep.

In one of the most inspiring cinematic cases of this reminder, jury darkened the room to simulate the night of Du Strongier. Collectively, with the help of creative lighting and advanced camera movements, they reshape how Du Prottier and Assailant may have moved across spaces with the tools and clothing items they were. It is a breathtaking scene, and it ultimately carries a mirror for all of us, like the rest of this stunning room.