But they never showed WHY did Pries best friend do it too herself??? Or who did it???? Was it Stefan??? I live in the USA & wow; what a huge difference in court settings. In US you have the judge, the prosecution & you're lawyer. Also a Jury but it's more about not what you know, It's what you can prove.
BTW, "De Twaalf" is from the same writers as "Tabula Rasa". Like you guessed, some of the events are indeed not allowed, even in our somewhat deviant court system. I thought there are a few holes in the capital evidence, even in the internal logic of the series, but they are minor quibbles with an otherwise excellent series To your main point: the reason why we follow the 6 members of the jury, is indeed not because of one of them being entangled with the case, but to understand how their personal stories affect their judgment, and how the case affects their personal lives. You acknowledge this but don't appreciate this as highly as I do. I may be biased or just culturally fitting with my compatriots' story line, because the theme was blatant to me from the beginning. I was not expecting a turnaround where one of the jury members had actually business with the affair, that would have been a disappointment. I also don't think the series should have made a choice in one or the other way. Details of the characters in the murder case were needed to connect to characters in the lives of the jury members and vice versa. Thanks for reviewing and being so recommending of our country's production :)
Thanks for your comment. "the reason why we follow the 6 members of the jury, is indeed not because of one of them being entangled with the case, but to understand how their personal stories affect their judgment, and how the case affects their personal lives." I know that's what they were going for, but I just don't think they quite got it. Even in the last episode (spoilers spoilers) where Holly suddenly decides it's about whether it was actually murder or not... it's bizarre. I also feel like... hm is his name Arthur maybe? The guy with the monkeys at the zoo... he was always going to vote not guilty; it didn't matter that he got screwed over in his personal life.
@@lamontmcleod2 More spoilers ... In some cases they got it better than others. The positions of Holly, Joeri and Delphine are more straightforward than those of Carl (autist) or Noel (sex addict). I didn't quite understand the development of Arnold (the monkey caretaker) either. Maybe his case was to underline that "if you don't know what happened, who are you to judge". Contrary to the other jury members, Arnold doesn't experience a catharsis as a result of the trial, rather turning into a depression. Even that may be a sign of great writing. They get my benefit of the doubt :)
For me it does seems that the weird arrangement of the story of the juries in the middle of the story is the main idea. It really reflects the real raw unconnected stories that would happen in cases like this that would just left unseen, because normal film would only focus on the main stories, this fllms delve through the eyes the juries as well. Its a hard sell, but it is a worthwhile perspective to watch.
I'm watching the series now and my head is spinning with the number of lies being presented. It makes the oath they take rather farcical, n'est-ce pas?
but disagree with you on your issue on the jury members. Their personal lives with their problems, has a direct influence on how they may judge the accused. In most courtroom dramas the jury members are just stage dressing even though jury members are vital (their judgement) to the outcome of a courtroom drama. To me, the charaters and their lives are vital to the success of this drama.
They are not irrelevant stories. Their stories have influenced the decision of the trial. The brain behind the verdict was an abused woman that realized super fast that Frie was manipulating everybody. Why? She had a husband like Frie. And Why was she allowed to join the Juri`s decision? Well, because another juror fell in love with her and gave his seat to her. Two other jurors were also feeling guilty about something they had done. They saw themselves in Frie. The other characters were possible perpetrators.
Hey, hey a twofer Sunday. I'll look out for this one. I always get a kick out it when you reference The Break as the Platonic ideal of awfulness. Could not agree more.
Ha, yeah. I film a lot of these together (no choice, it's a day to film one otherwise). The more that defenders of The Break tell me I'm wrong, the more I'm going to use it as the low standard.
Good advice. I'm learning Dutch, so i started out with this series. i like the story but at the second episode i began to wonder if this is a good series for learning simple everyday dutch, because i felt as if it has a high level of language or legal terms. But I'll take your advice and keep going.
@@lamontmcleod2 I don't understand why you say that? Why not? The more info, the more characterbuilding the more interesting. This is the strentgh of this serie, all the characters and its influence on the jury. I'm watching it again and don't see the useless stuff tbh. Its like you don't have time. Did you need to catch a bus or something when you watched de twaalf ? 😁
@@ashhariri7634 At the end, you see that Frie's lawyer finds the gloves that were used to kill her daughter in a book. She had hidden it there and that means Frie is the killer after all.
I studied some Deutsch and tought Dutch would sound more familiar than it did. Except for a word here and there, I wouldn't understand anything. How do natives from these languages fare at communicating with it other?
They use English. They would pick up a few words here and there but it's not like Swedish and Danish, where it actually kinda works to use the native languages - they would either use English or not understand each other.
Dutch and Flemish (the language spoken in the show) is like american and english. German( Deutsch) is not similiar at all. Indeed as said by The Reykjavik Review we would speak English to one another. (between a German and a Flemish speaking person)
Unlikely I think. It has some tiny number of votes on IMDB like 500 or something, and I saw it on a free service that we have in Australia that gets small time foreign series a lot, so I wouldn't expect it on Netflix anytime soon. If you connect a VPN to Australia you can watch it on sbsondemand.com.
I finished season 1 of Rnark or Signs. It was really bad. I have now watched 2 polish crime series (can’t remember the other it was that forgettable) and both has ridiculous plots and the worse acting ever, no matter what language. The body language alone is laughable, almost slapstick in some cases. Are you going to review this series?
The 12? First off the cops are ridiculously incompetent. The revelation noted by a jury member about a bolt-shot to the neck comment from Palmers was pretty obvious when made. Was everyone sleeping. The jury selection? They either had psych issues or no morals, pretty lackadaisical screening. 2 murder trials in one with crimes 18 years apart. What is good about this series? Even the acting is sub-par.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Neva Play (feat. RM) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TpYTyAaTRts/mqdefault.jpg)
But they never showed WHY did Pries best friend do it too herself??? Or who did it???? Was it Stefan??? I live in the USA & wow; what a huge difference in court settings. In US you have the judge, the prosecution & you're lawyer. Also a Jury but it's more about not what you know, It's what you can prove.
BTW, "De Twaalf" is from the same writers as "Tabula Rasa".
Like you guessed, some of the events are indeed not allowed, even in our somewhat deviant court system.
I thought there are a few holes in the capital evidence, even in the internal logic of the series, but they are minor quibbles with an otherwise excellent series
To your main point: the reason why we follow the 6 members of the jury, is indeed not because of one of them being entangled with the case, but to understand how their personal stories affect their judgment, and how the case affects their personal lives. You acknowledge this but don't appreciate this as highly as I do. I may be biased or just culturally fitting with my compatriots' story line, because the theme was blatant to me from the beginning. I was not expecting a turnaround where one of the jury members had actually business with the affair, that would have been a disappointment.
I also don't think the series should have made a choice in one or the other way. Details of the characters in the murder case were needed to connect to characters in the lives of the jury members and vice versa.
Thanks for reviewing and being so recommending of our country's production :)
Thanks for your comment.
"the reason why we follow the 6 members of the jury, is indeed not because of one of them being entangled with the case, but to understand how their personal stories affect their judgment, and how the case affects their personal lives."
I know that's what they were going for, but I just don't think they quite got it. Even in the last episode (spoilers spoilers) where Holly suddenly decides it's about whether it was actually murder or not... it's bizarre.
I also feel like... hm is his name Arthur maybe? The guy with the monkeys at the zoo... he was always going to vote not guilty; it didn't matter that he got screwed over in his personal life.
@@lamontmcleod2
More spoilers ...
In some cases they got it better than others. The positions of Holly, Joeri and Delphine are more straightforward than those of Carl (autist) or Noel (sex addict). I didn't quite understand the development of Arnold (the monkey caretaker) either. Maybe his case was to underline that "if you don't know what happened, who are you to judge". Contrary to the other jury members, Arnold doesn't experience a catharsis as a result of the trial, rather turning into a depression. Even that may be a sign of great writing. They get my benefit of the doubt :)
For me it does seems that the weird arrangement of the story of the juries in the middle of the story is the main idea. It really reflects the real raw unconnected stories that would happen in cases like this that would just left unseen, because normal film would only focus on the main stories, this fllms delve through the eyes the juries as well. Its a hard sell, but it is a worthwhile perspective to watch.
I'm watching the series now and my head is spinning with the number of lies being presented. It makes the oath they take rather farcical, n'est-ce pas?
fully agree on the craft of film making. To me this is an absolute five star production
but disagree with you on your issue on the jury members. Their personal lives with their problems, has a direct influence on how they may judge the accused. In most courtroom dramas the jury members are just stage dressing even though jury members are vital (their judgement) to the outcome of a courtroom drama. To me, the charaters and their lives are vital to the success of this drama.
I agree with you Renee it was truly excellent! This series really got under my skin.
Did you watch Beau Séjour? Another Belgian one in Dutch. And Into The Night is partly Belgian too.
Who was the killer? The two pairs of black gloves at the end, viz those of Stefaan and those of Frie, really confused me.
Frie
Just saw it and loved it
They are not irrelevant stories. Their stories have influenced the decision of the trial. The brain behind the verdict was an abused woman that realized super fast that Frie was manipulating everybody. Why? She had a husband like Frie. And Why was she allowed to join the Juri`s decision? Well, because another juror fell in love with her and gave his seat to her. Two other jurors were also feeling guilty about something they had done. They saw themselves in Frie. The other characters were possible perpetrators.
Yeah but that just wasn't properly executed. Too many stories that ultimately don't affect the outcome because it's a vote... It tried but missed.
Hey, hey a twofer Sunday. I'll look out for this one. I always get a kick out it when you reference The Break as the Platonic ideal of awfulness. Could not agree more.
Ha, yeah. I film a lot of these together (no choice, it's a day to film one otherwise). The more that defenders of The Break tell me I'm wrong, the more I'm going to use it as the low standard.
I would rate Signs as the new low bar!
I don’t like their system of trial. They had no hard evidence on either murder. So who killed Rose 🌹?
Good advice. I'm learning Dutch, so i started out with this series. i like the story but at the second episode i began to wonder if this is a good series for learning simple everyday dutch, because i felt as if it has a high level of language or legal terms. But I'll take your advice and keep going.
They're following the jurymembers because what they go thru explains how they judge.. sorry you didn't get that..
But that's inconsistent. We should never see anything from outside of their perspective.
@@lamontmcleod2 I don't understand why you say that? Why not? The more info, the more characterbuilding the more interesting. This is the strentgh of this serie, all the characters and its influence on the jury. I'm watching it again and don't see the useless stuff tbh. Its like you don't have time. Did you need to catch a bus or something when you watched de twaalf ? 😁
Loved this series, didn't want it to end
Yeah, I wasn't over the moon with it... but it was pretty good.
Have you seen The Day (De Dag)? Masterful.
@@lamontmcleod2 No, but will check it out.
Ennemi Public is a pretty decent French-speaking series from Belgium too.
Excellent series.
Your critique was far too harsh.
The personal stories of the jurors blended in quite nicely to the overall story.
Nope.
This serie is the best i have ever seen! Waaauwww
What did the end mean ?? Is Frry the killer ! Ididnt understand 🙁
@@ashhariri7634 At the end, you see that Frie's lawyer finds the gloves that were used to kill her daughter in a book. She had hidden it there and that means Frie is the killer after all.
@@SD-rb4ee and the necklace
I studied some Deutsch and tought Dutch would sound more familiar than it did. Except for a word here and there, I wouldn't understand anything.
How do natives from these languages fare at communicating with it other?
They use English. They would pick up a few words here and there but it's not like Swedish and Danish, where it actually kinda works to use the native languages - they would either use English or not understand each other.
Dutch and Flemish (the language spoken in the show) is like american and english. German( Deutsch) is not similiar at all. Indeed as said by The Reykjavik Review we would speak English to one another. (between a German and a Flemish speaking person)
Have you seen the Spanish thriller The Body 2012? It's a great film that many people haven't seen.
Thanks for the comment. No, I'll put it on my list, thanks!
This sounds quite interesting. It's not on Netflix in Canada yet, but I'll keep an eye out for it.
Unlikely I think. It has some tiny number of votes on IMDB like 500 or something, and I saw it on a free service that we have in Australia that gets small time foreign series a lot, so I wouldn't expect it on Netflix anytime soon. If you connect a VPN to Australia you can watch it on sbsondemand.com.
@@lamontmcleod2 I watched it on Netflix in Brazil
Vindevogel
Trying to watch new polish series “signs” (in English) 4 episodes into it and it is quite a slog!
I finished season 1 of Rnark or Signs. It was really bad. I have now watched 2 polish crime series (can’t remember the other it was that forgettable) and both has ridiculous plots and the worse acting ever, no matter what language. The body language alone is laughable, almost slapstick in some cases. Are you going to review this series?
I cant stand the way Trela smokes cigarettes...
Terrible
I mean "terrible" is probably a bit strong. What did you think was so terrible about it?
The 12? First off the cops are ridiculously incompetent. The revelation noted by a jury member about a bolt-shot to the neck comment from Palmers was pretty obvious when made. Was everyone sleeping. The jury selection? They either had psych issues or no morals, pretty lackadaisical screening. 2 murder trials in one with crimes 18 years apart. What is good about this series? Even the acting is sub-par.