Konterr Brilliant and touching

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Myron Clemons A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

TheLittleSongbird Love classic film and crime dramas/mysteries even more so. The more than capable cast further added to the interest (Glenn Ford and Donna Reed are always watchable and wanted to see how Leslie Nielson would fare in a very early dramatic role) and the idea was a great one with plenty of room for tension.'Ransom!' turned out to be a nifty and well above average film. It had room for improvement, on the other hand the good things were numerous and enormous. The Mel Gibson film may be better known, but like many others (although that film was quite well done and particularly worth watching for Gary Sinise), there there is a personal preference for the darker, more mysterious and more suspenseful yet not as flashy and more staid perhaps 1956 film, which today is criminally undervalued and generally has more substance.Is 'Ransom!' without faults? No. Donna Reed tries her best but the character is underdeveloped and lacks subtlety, causing Reed to overdo the hysteria especially. Occasionally it's a bit static.Plus it would have been even better if the villains were not as thinly sketched, though that they remained unseen did provide a mysterious edge, and the ending (although slightly touching and thankfully not improbable) less anti-climactic, overwrought and lacking resolve.However, 'Ransom!' is particularly worth seeing for Glenn Ford who gives a superb performance, very deeply felt, suitably stern and often restrained. Juano Hernandez is a sympathetic and heartfelt moral compass (the subplot gave the film heart), while Robert Keith and Juanita Moore are good support. Leslie Nielson fares well in a dramatic early role though he did go on to better things. The villains could have had more meat to them but they do provide some menace and there is a good amount of tension where one cares for the situation (helped by that the lead character here is better fleshed out), something that Gibson's version didn't quite have.The story is more deliberate, but there is a real air of suspense and dread without any gratuity or overblown action to cheapen it. It is also generally far more plausible, whereas Gibson's version unravelled in that aspect near the end. The script is taut, lean and thoughtful while the film is competently if not always imaginatively directed. 'Ransom!' looks suitably atmospheric and is very nicely shot.Overall, good and well done film if not without things that could have done with some tweaking. 7/10 Bethany Cox

mark.waltz When the pre-teenaged son of millionaire Glenn Ford is kidnapped, all of society seems to get involved, intruding on the family's privacy during their time of worry. The authorities are of little help either, telling papa Ford of how he should handle it. Ford melodramatically explodes throughout the film and is joined in this by on-screen wife, Donna Reed, who is of course sunny and sweet at the beginning but overwrought as the plot develops. Toss in a wise preacher who comes in out of nowhere halfway throughout the film and an unbelievable out of left field conclusion and what you end up with is a film where the tension is way too much. This results in an overly uncomfortable feeling that creates a morbid viewing experience.Intended to obviously rip a seemingly vital front page news story off the headlines, the good intentions are sadly vacant. Manipulative and on occasion nasty, the film never succeeds in its goal. Supporting actors all seem intrusive, including Mabel Albertson as a self-serving school mistress, Leslie Nielsen as one of the agents on the case, and Juano Hernandez as the intrusive preacher. If the film had tried to be more subtle, it would have come off more successfully.

vincentlynch-moonoi One thing that made me feel good about the IMDb reviews of this film is that people do recognize what a top notch actor Glenn Ford was, though he was not in the upper echelons of the Cary Grants and the Laurence Oliviers. But, Ford was a steady, dependable actor, and this may well be his best performance.His co-star here was Donna Reed, and unfortunately she succumbed to the world of television sitcoms. Although this film was made concurrently with her sitcom, we often forget that, like Ford, Reed was a dependable actor in almost any type of role, whether it be Jimmy Stewart's wife in "It's A Wonderful Life" or Dean Martin's girlfriend in "The Caddy", or one of the four leads in "From Here To Eternity".I think one of the things that made this film so riveting, is that it looked at a kidnapping from multiple perspectives, more so than many films on the topic. And, it was actually better for the FBI not being called into the case.The supporting actors here do an excellent job, as well. In particular, Leslie Neilsen as the newspaper reporter, back before he had turned to comedy. Also of note was Robert Keith as the police chief. And, while the role was not particularly outstanding, Juano Hernandez was a welcome addition as the servant.In terms of what to criticize here? I can't think of a thing. Some of our reviewers felt it would have been more logical for the little boy who had been kidnapped to be killed. But that would have subjected the kidnappers to a federal felony likely resulting in the death penalty. While not illogical, it would be just as likely that they would not kill the boy when they realized they would not be getting the money.Highly recommended! And this is one of those films I never forgot after seeing it on one of the network movie nights of the early 1960s. You won't forget it either.

dougdoepke The film appears based on the 1953 Greenlease kidnapping in Kansas City. The young son of the wealthy car dealer was found dead, the culprits caught and executed, while in a twist worthy of Hollywood, the ransom money was stolen by two of the cops! Needless to say, the press had a field day. Turned out the boy was killed before the ransom money was paid, a fact that the movie picks up on.The movie itself is very much a product of the 50's penchant for strained seriousness. It reminds me of old Playhouse 90 high-drama since most of the action is confined to a single set. The movie is nothing if not earnest in its portrayal of family anguish over young son Andy's kidnapping. And except for the opening scenes of a happy family and the "miracle" close, the remaining 90-minutes come across as unrelentingly grim.With one exception, it's a shrewdly done screenplay. Note how Dave's (Ford) tough-minded decision not to pay the ransom is prepared by his tough-minded business dealings. By refusing in public to pay, he does the unpopular thing; at the same time, the movie's strength lies in discussing these larger repercussions. For example, the cops don't really want him to pay since that encourages potential kidnappers, but then it's not their son. Thus a private "good" comes into conflict with a public "good". Then too, it seems from the discussion that paying really doesn't improve the odds of getting the child back alive, which, if you take at face value, seems surprising. Also, the aspect of where the ransom money comes from and who might be hurt by the forfeiture is discussed—in this case, the stockholders in Dave's company. It's this attention to detail, usually skipped over by other kidnapping films, that distinguishes this one. In fact, it's not the crime that's focused on here, rather it's the family's reaction.My one real complaint is with what can only be described as the "miraculous" ending. Deep in night-time anguish, Dave visits his son's half-finished backyard fort. In the bottom right of the frame, he lowers himself. Is he kneeling or praying—the camera fudges. But in the upper left corner, a wooden cross from the jury-rigged fort appears. There's a long silence, then we hear a whispering voice. Yes, it's Andy, fully composed and apparently waiting in the backyard for someone to appear despite a grueling period of captivity. Whatever, supplications Dad has offered, they've been answered. Apparently Mom (Reed) has bionically heard the whisper since she comes running from a neighbor's house where she's otherwise been in a state of nervous collapse. Happily, the little family is together again, while the faithful family servant (Hernandez) gazes gratefully heavenward.I've gone into detail here because this hokey contrivance utterly betrays the rest of the film's attempt at gritty realism. Now, whatever one thinks of religion in general, Hollywood during this period managed to reduce the whole profound question to a mere matter of stage craft, thus cheapening the idea itself. It may comfort some to see a good God in all this. Nonetheless, I just wonder what little Bobby Greenlease's dad would see.Ford does a good job with low-key anguish without going over the top. As Dave, he's clearly displacing his emotions with business-like attention to detail, such as sorting through the company's assets for ransom money. Reed is also persuasive as the grief-stricken mother, allowing her maternal emotions to spiral out of control. However, the imposing Nielsen appears miscast as a reporter, even if he does pop gum at one regrettable point.Interestingly, one reviewer sees typical 50's stereotypes in the parents—a forceful, patriarchal father, a weak, emotionally dependent mother. Now, I'm not sure whether to call Mom's reactions "weak" since stereotypes usually emerge from social conditioning, and it was clearly more acceptable for a woman to break down than it was for a man. Nonetheless, Dad does finally collapse on the staircase, even though it does take awhile. Such reactions may play into stereotypes of the time, but they're not contrived in an obvious way.Anyway, it's a suspenseful, if over-long 100-minutes, willing to raise some difficult issues not usually raised around kidnapping. Still, all things considered, it's also very much a product of its time.