Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

Cortechba Overrated

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

ShangLuda Admirable film.

inspectors71 This archaic bit of nonsense makes so little sense that I actually had to forgive the writer(s) of 1974's The Terrorists for the idiocy of loading fuel on a hijacked plane before jacking up the thing to replace the tires.This movie is the very essence of incompetence. I never believed once that anyone was anything like a real representation of an actual person. The hijacking makes no sense. The kidnapping makes none. The cops don't act like cops. The passengers don't look too concerned about anything. And would somebody please point to the nation of Scandanavia on a map? Hmmm?I know why this dopey thing got made. Terrorism was still unusual. But if you're going to make a movie about terror, at least make the terrorists believable. Instead, we are left with some sort of diplomatic skulduggery on the part of the victims, and by the time the bullets start flying, my patience was so dried up I found myself cheering on the goodies and baddies as they shot and bludgeoned each other at point blank range.Why am I wasting my time on this?I can't even answer that!Juuuunnnnnk!

bkoganbing In the generally peaceful country of Norway some terrorists have grabbed the British ambassador and are holding him for Ransom. What they want is some of their compatriots released from British prisons. When that doesn't happen, an airliner is hijacked and landed at Oslo airport and the Norwegians have two hostage dramas going simultaneously.Sean Connery plays the Norwegian head of what would be the equivalent of their Delta Force team. Dealing with one situation is bad enough, but dealing with two at the same time can strain anyone's nerves. Connery as always is the good tough action hero. His opposite number is Ian McShane who heads the team of hijackers on the plane. They're evenly matched, but it seems like McShane is almost too good at what he does. Connery continually remarks about the professionalism shown. Of course there's a reason for that, but I can't give that away lest you want to see Ransom.The surprise ending in Ransom doesn't make up for a very sloppy script. We never do find out exactly who these terrorists are and what they're beef with the establishment is. Ransom is like a made for TV film that someone decided on the strength of Sean Connery's name would do well on the big screen instead. It barely made a ripple when released, but by that time Sean Connery was a big enough star so that a mediocre film didn't really hamper his career.

Enchorde Recap: The British ambassador is kidnapped by a known and ruthless terrorist. He is responsible for many bombings with many civilian deaths. So the British government is willing to accept the demands. But, the problem is that they are not in England, but in Scandinavia. The Scandinavian government first regards it as a British matter, but when accomplices of the terrorist hi-jack a plane, it becomes their problem. In charge of security is Colonel Tahlvik, and he is not about to give in to any demands.Comments: The first thing I noticed, or got stuck on, is the concept of Scandinavia. It is clearly set and filmed in Norway, why not let it be Norway. Why create an error, when you don't have to? Well, disregarding that, it is still a rather average thriller. It has some twists and turns. Quite a solid story actually with some details revealed in hindsight. But it is slow. Connery is strong as the main character, the powerful and resourceful Tahlvik, but he is almost too alone. The supposed terrorist is not his main opponent. The terrorists friend, the hi-jacker must be regarded as the main opponent, but it is divided among several characters, those just being two of them. The intention is clearly to force Tahlvik to battle on many fronts. Unfortunately the result is a lack of focus. No real opponent gives no real fight, and no real dramatic climax.Some scenes, I think especially of the air-plane chase, is very beautifully filmed. However it doesn't add anything to the story. It seems the move provides one or the other. Story or picture. However, the really good movies provide both in the same scene.The movie seems a little forgotten, especially considering that Connery is the lead man. Not his best work, but good enough. Works well enough for an evening, but probably won't stick with you forever.5/10

Hurling Frootmig One of the first films I ever saw in the cinema without my parents (I was 12 or so), I remember this as being really excellent, which is why I came to look it up here today. Not sure if it's stood the test of time but one thing that really has stuck in my mind about this film is the score - it's really atmospheric and well worth listening to in its own right (I think it reminded me of Tchaikovsky but not sure - have to see it again).It's hard to write much without seeing the film again, but the fact it's stuck in my mind over the years says something, even if it's only that it makes an impression on a 12-year-old.