KrisRagnarsson
Joined Feb 2003
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews5
KrisRagnarsson's rating
I remember being a little kid, watching the original version of 12 Angry Men on TV thinking this is one of the best movies I'd ever seen.
Then I heard they were re-making it for TV and I thought, "no way, the magic of this movie just can't be replicated."
Of course it couldn't. Friedkin didn't even try, instead creating a different backdrop to the same story. It works incredibly well on every level and, of course, it doesn't hurt matters to have such an incredible cast at your disposal.
Honestly, Lee J Cobb/Henry Fonda OR George C Scott/Jack Lemmon? How could you possibly decide which of the two pairings is better? Both of them are perfect.
But, since we're on the subject of the second film, let's talk about Scott and Lemmon some more. They explode off the screen. Scott is one of my all-time favorite actors, yet throughout the course of this movie I continue to find myself physically hating him. I hate the man. THAT'S HOW GOOD HE IS. But, ultimately, juror #3 is exposed as a sad man who bears a heavy burden from the past.
The wonder of this movie is that not only does it manage to show such suspense and tear-jerking action within the confines of one jury room, but also that it shows so incredibly many facets. I mean, there's 12 jurors in that room and every single one of them's got a story to tell. This is perhaps one of the richest storylines I've ever seen in my life.
Add to that the fact that this movie featured Tony Danza in an unforgettable role and you've got exactly what the poor kid on trial got: A wonderful jury!
This movie gets my award for the greatest re-make of all time. Bar none. Without blinking an eye.
Then I heard they were re-making it for TV and I thought, "no way, the magic of this movie just can't be replicated."
Of course it couldn't. Friedkin didn't even try, instead creating a different backdrop to the same story. It works incredibly well on every level and, of course, it doesn't hurt matters to have such an incredible cast at your disposal.
Honestly, Lee J Cobb/Henry Fonda OR George C Scott/Jack Lemmon? How could you possibly decide which of the two pairings is better? Both of them are perfect.
But, since we're on the subject of the second film, let's talk about Scott and Lemmon some more. They explode off the screen. Scott is one of my all-time favorite actors, yet throughout the course of this movie I continue to find myself physically hating him. I hate the man. THAT'S HOW GOOD HE IS. But, ultimately, juror #3 is exposed as a sad man who bears a heavy burden from the past.
The wonder of this movie is that not only does it manage to show such suspense and tear-jerking action within the confines of one jury room, but also that it shows so incredibly many facets. I mean, there's 12 jurors in that room and every single one of them's got a story to tell. This is perhaps one of the richest storylines I've ever seen in my life.
Add to that the fact that this movie featured Tony Danza in an unforgettable role and you've got exactly what the poor kid on trial got: A wonderful jury!
This movie gets my award for the greatest re-make of all time. Bar none. Without blinking an eye.
Pierce Brosnan is a tough man to watch these days. Wherever he goes you can't help but hear the chanting of "Bond...Bond...Bond..." in the back of your head. It's really a curse, as the man is really a great actor.
Which is what makes this movie better than I thought it would be, because for the duration of this film I never once thought of good ol' James. Here, Brosnan has the difficult task of portraying a character even more famous than Bond and it must be said he does so with elegance. A job well done!
The story is well known to everybody, therefore I will not dwell on it. I will say, however, that it was fun to see how the liberty was taken here, as the movie somewhat fantasizes about how Daniel Defoe might have come up with the story about Robinson Crusoe. He's presented with a travel journal of a wayward seaman (Crusoe), and upon reading it (which is the narrative of the film) decides that he wants to write a book about the whole thing.
What this does is this allows the filmmakers a little liberty in changing a few dots in the well-known story of Crusoe. It somewhat protects them from being blamed for any changes that might have been made, because they can say "look, this is what actually happened and if you've read otherwise it's because Defoe changed it!"
Which is of course bollocks, as it is Defoe's NOVEL, but it works like a charm here.
It's tough to nail down a flaw here. Sure, with a bit more money & time they could have done this movie better. And it was weird seeing William Takaga in the guise of Friday making a few simple errors (like saying 'food' the American-way while Brosnan's been saying it in Scottish accent all the time, as in 'fu-ud' and not 'food'). But on the whole the movie worked and you believed it, which is no small feat.
I'd recommend that anybody interested in seeing a movie adaptation of this world-known novel check this movie out. It's certainly worth seeing, even though it may be far from breathtaking. Surely one day somebody will come along and do the book more justice but until then, you can't go wrong with Brosnan...
3/5
Which is what makes this movie better than I thought it would be, because for the duration of this film I never once thought of good ol' James. Here, Brosnan has the difficult task of portraying a character even more famous than Bond and it must be said he does so with elegance. A job well done!
The story is well known to everybody, therefore I will not dwell on it. I will say, however, that it was fun to see how the liberty was taken here, as the movie somewhat fantasizes about how Daniel Defoe might have come up with the story about Robinson Crusoe. He's presented with a travel journal of a wayward seaman (Crusoe), and upon reading it (which is the narrative of the film) decides that he wants to write a book about the whole thing.
What this does is this allows the filmmakers a little liberty in changing a few dots in the well-known story of Crusoe. It somewhat protects them from being blamed for any changes that might have been made, because they can say "look, this is what actually happened and if you've read otherwise it's because Defoe changed it!"
Which is of course bollocks, as it is Defoe's NOVEL, but it works like a charm here.
It's tough to nail down a flaw here. Sure, with a bit more money & time they could have done this movie better. And it was weird seeing William Takaga in the guise of Friday making a few simple errors (like saying 'food' the American-way while Brosnan's been saying it in Scottish accent all the time, as in 'fu-ud' and not 'food'). But on the whole the movie worked and you believed it, which is no small feat.
I'd recommend that anybody interested in seeing a movie adaptation of this world-known novel check this movie out. It's certainly worth seeing, even though it may be far from breathtaking. Surely one day somebody will come along and do the book more justice but until then, you can't go wrong with Brosnan...
3/5
Ah, I remember being a kid watching 12 Angry Men on TV for the first time. I was blown away, 13 years old and seeing Henry Fonda for the first time. Nah, forget that, I was seeing every one of these 12 actors for the first time. This was also the first film I watched by Sidney Lumet.
I didn't even know who these guys were until they crawled onto my screen and began rattling my brain. This story truly takes you deeper than almost any other story, the acting performances here are absolutely wonderful and seeing as you're getting not one or two memorable performances but TWELVE, this is one special movie.
Sure, it's black'n'white. Sure, the sound isn't as good in old movies as it is nowadays. But you know what? If you do not like this movie you do not like movies at all. Period.
It's the way Henry Fonda manages to be completely invisible, despite being the lead character, allowing the rest of the cast to completely shine when they're called upon!
It's the way the camera is not watching these twelve angry men from a distance, rather that it is AMONGST them, giving you the feeling that you are pretty much the 13th juror. Which prompts you to make up your own feelings on the given issue of the story as well as getting you so aroused and hot-blooded about the proceedings that you feel as if it were you on trial! Never before (or after) has a movie ever inspired such interaction on my behalf as a watcher...
It's the way the jurors remain anonymous until after they've reached a verdict and emerged from the room, each going their separate ways. I never would have thought a simple line like, "what's your name?" could possibly have such a strong effect on me in a film. But, as with most other things about this movie, seeing is believing.
But, enough of the hype already. There's a reason Sidney Lumet is legendary, as well as Henry Fonda, Lee J Cobb and all the rest! There's a reason this movie is on every film-educated man's Top-whatever list of favorites. There's a reason it is such a praised piece.
Haven't seen it? Then you're in for a treat...one of the very best movies ever, and I say that without hesitating.
5/5 (same as the re-make)
I didn't even know who these guys were until they crawled onto my screen and began rattling my brain. This story truly takes you deeper than almost any other story, the acting performances here are absolutely wonderful and seeing as you're getting not one or two memorable performances but TWELVE, this is one special movie.
Sure, it's black'n'white. Sure, the sound isn't as good in old movies as it is nowadays. But you know what? If you do not like this movie you do not like movies at all. Period.
It's the way Henry Fonda manages to be completely invisible, despite being the lead character, allowing the rest of the cast to completely shine when they're called upon!
It's the way the camera is not watching these twelve angry men from a distance, rather that it is AMONGST them, giving you the feeling that you are pretty much the 13th juror. Which prompts you to make up your own feelings on the given issue of the story as well as getting you so aroused and hot-blooded about the proceedings that you feel as if it were you on trial! Never before (or after) has a movie ever inspired such interaction on my behalf as a watcher...
It's the way the jurors remain anonymous until after they've reached a verdict and emerged from the room, each going their separate ways. I never would have thought a simple line like, "what's your name?" could possibly have such a strong effect on me in a film. But, as with most other things about this movie, seeing is believing.
But, enough of the hype already. There's a reason Sidney Lumet is legendary, as well as Henry Fonda, Lee J Cobb and all the rest! There's a reason this movie is on every film-educated man's Top-whatever list of favorites. There's a reason it is such a praised piece.
Haven't seen it? Then you're in for a treat...one of the very best movies ever, and I say that without hesitating.
5/5 (same as the re-make)