User reviews

Restrained performances and confined locations make this a powerful thriller. Glenn Ford is superb in the role, Leslie Neilson however is a tad over the top. Where this film succeeds is in sticking with the main character and never straying from his confinement or his pain, and when it comes to the hardest decision of his life, you're battered by the argueing group. Gritty and thought provoking.

Ransom is emblematic of the little, B&W films of the 50s that made up for their low budgets with high mindedness. In a similar context, it reminds me of Twelve Angry Men, made the following year. Both films expanded a profound human dilemma (how to resolve a kidnapping in one case, how to judge the guilt or innocence of a man regardless of popular consensus in another) into a cinematic drama that leaves a greater imprint on your mind than the slam-boom special-effect films of today can possibly accomplish. You leave the theater (or your home TV) thinking over and over, "What would I have done if I were in that situation?" Because of the kiddie-market mentality of modern film producers and the international demand for plots that are high in action and low in thought content, we will never see films of this kind being produced again (at least not by the majors). Savor this film and others like it.

I had seen him in the Big Heat and while it was an admirable performance, seemed a bit wooden. Not so in this film. Ford gives many dimensions to a man in conflict and trauma, he is multi-faceted and really the focus of the film.

The film was based on a true crime committed in the 1950's. Ford's son is kidnapped by someone posing as a nurse, removing his child from school. A wealthy man, Ford questions the efficacy of paying a ransom- why pay? he asks.

Donna Reed as his wife is acceptable but at the start of the film a bit too perky and perfect. There is a nice sub-plot with Juano Hernanadez, the family butler, who looks after Ford and prays for him; trying to help him survive the horrific events.

I had seen the new version with Rene Russo and Mel Gibson. It is a pale version; the new version is all glitz and no substance. Ford draws the audience into his despair, and we truly care about the outcome of these characters. There is no mindless action, violence as there is in the Gibson movie.

Highly recommended. 8/10.

Having seen the mediocre remake of Ransom, starring Mel Gibson, I was intrigued when I came across the original from 1956 that featured the always great Glen Ford. I'm glad I did, because now I know how the film was supposed to be made.

Ransom! is the story of the wealthy Mr. Stannard (Ford) and his wife (Donna Reed) who are devastated to find out that their son has been kidnapped. Stannard immediately agrees to the kidnapper's terms, but at the last minute turns the tables when he goes on television and announces that the 500,000 ransom is now a price on the kidnapper's head, a decision which shocks the local townspeople and especially his wife.

I have a feeling this film was innovative using television as a platform, it had to have been based on the year the film was made - 1956. Although I had seen it played out before in the more recent version of Ransom, with a mild effect, the use of the medium in this manner was extremely powerful, even slightly shocking. Ford made his career playing fairly tough characters; even his roles in comedies had a slightly rough edge. I have to say that this was the best I have ever seen him. He was steely, yet desperate in his resolution that he was making the wisest decision, no matter what the consequences - and when his vulnerability finally cracked through the surface, you cannot help but absorb some of his pain. Donna Reed was a fairly minor character as the mother - she helped set the tone in the beginning, but was basically used later in the film as fuel for Ford's guilt. Leslie Nielsen was also featured as a newspaper reporter who becomes a kind of sounding board for Ford's character, and did a decent dramatic turn at it. It's still interesting to see him as a dramatic actor when we are so used to seeing him only in comedies for the last twenty years.

While Akira Kurosawa's "High and Low" still remains my favorite film in the "kidnapped" genre, this is definitely a close second. The kidnapping of a loved one has been a pretty common plot device in the first century of cinema, but when a film adds to or even transcends the genre it becomes distinct. Ransom! does just that, and I highly recommend it.

--Shelly

"Ransom!" is an unpretentious film that comes out as an excellent thriller. It is also one of the few movies made by director Alex Segal (who did most of his work for television) and he does a prolix and correct job with the story of a wealthy man whose little boy is kidnapped for ransom and decides not to take the easy way; instead o paying the money demanded by the kidnappers he offers it all for their capture dead of alive.

What is interesting and "catching" here is that all you see of the villains is one hand that holds a cigarette, but there is no need for more to keep tension and thrill high all along.

There's a very good performance from Glenn Ford and Donna Reed as the parents of the abducted kid for whom their happy life turns into hell in a matter of hours. Ford has to deal not only with the kidnappers but also with his wife, family, friends and neighbors who are against the man's decision considered as a risky one for his son's life.

Although probably youngsters will prefer the more recent Mel Gibson/Rene Russo version -more an action film than a real thriller- I think this one is superior with his mysterious villains and truly dark atmosphere all along with not one single gun shot is fired. In any case this version is a more difficult product to achieve since it focuses more on dialogues, desperation and characters psychology.

Not a classic film perhaps but a very good one indeed, most watchable and enjoyable.

This film was more or less taken from a famous midwest case of a boy kidnapped from a rich auto dealer's family in K. C., Mo. He was taken from a private school by a woman in a nurses uniform and the press in K. C. did hold off on the story until the ransom had been paid. The kidnappers were caught within 4 days, and the little boys body was found soon after. He had been killed the day he was kidnapped.

Now to the film. The point of the story is that it is 50-50 whether you get the victim back or not. Glenn Ford as the father who makes his decision to not pay but offer the whole ransom as a bounty on the kidnappers head, was very pertinent in 1956. There had been other cases like this, but the K.C. case was so brutal that it made headlines all over America for months.

As a woman who is old enough to have read about the case, and seen it on the new medium of TV for months, while it was going on, this film is heartbreaking and to me, almost perfect.

The mother and father and their anguish, the servants, who love the family, and the police and other people who interact with the family, and the company people, all are first rate. It is a slice of life as lived in an affluent mid-American family crisis, and all the principle actors are fine. The criticism I have read here does not stand up because the film is a thoughtful and serious look at a dilemma and not a flashy showcase for action fans. 9/10

After viewing the film and reflecting on what made the film tick, my kudos do not go to the actors, who appear to be the backbone of the film, but to a solid script and screenplay.

For the first half hour the movie seems to be making inane statements about bringing up children. But those early conversations become meaningful after the movie is over as the choices the father makes have much to do with the parallels in teaching the son early lessons in life--"stealing" planks from your parents' bed to make a toyhouse is to be viewed in comparison to "stealing" stockholder wealth to regain personal property.

At another level, the story is a mirror of Job's dilemma--standing steadfast on principles when all his earthly possessions (including his wife) are being taken away. It is to the credit of the script and the director that the tormentors (the kidnapers) remain unseen and the battle is merely relegated to one man's internal moral turmoil.

Was Glenn Ford's performance creditable? Yes and no. At the end of the film you tend to think it was a memorable performance. But think of replacing Ford with any good star of the day and the effect could have been much the same, thanks to the script.

I feel this was a good film because it did not lapse into trivial confrontation with the kidnapers as most contemporary movies do. It was good because the film avoided pitfalls, while adding color to fringe characters by providing them with short punchy lines such as the lines of the school headmistress, the journalists, the ice-cream vendor, the pedestrian who wonders how speeding police cars don't get tickets, and last but not least the Afro-american butler.

This story was based on a real life crime. First seen on Live T.V during 'The U.S. Steel Hour,' in 1954, as 'Fatefull Decision.' It was eventually re-staged in 1955 for the small screen, then further replicated in 1956 and lastly in 1996 by Ron Howard for the Big screen with Mel Gibson. Watching it for the first time, then comparing it with the newest version, I found, I enjoyed the older version better. Don't get me wrong, I am a great fan of Mel Gibson, but I believe Glenn Ford was better fitted for the role. The Movie was in Black and White and called simply " Ransom. " The early imagery, stark shadowy profiles and Fords immense skills as a bone-fide actor made for an intense situation and the heavy dramatic part of Donna Reed assured it would become a Classic. Indeed, with the added exceptional talents of Leslie Nielsen, Robert Keith, Bobby Clark and Alexander Scourby, this movie was crafted with real movie magic. Easily Recommended. ****

I had no idea that the Mel Gibson film Ransom was a remake - but while honoring Donna Reed's time as Star of the Week I came across the original in 1956. The two versions are pretty similar, but the modern one is understandably updated and a little scarier. But for 1956, this one is extremely suspenseful and tense. It could have easily ruined Glenn Ford's career, but after playing only one villainous role the following year (Ben Wade in 3:10 to Yuma), he went on to play in Pocketful of Miracles, Cimarron, Dear Heart, and other well-known flicks in the 1960s.

It's really Glenn's movie, so if you're a Donna Reed fan, you'll be severely disappointed. Not only is she not hardly featured, but the few scenes she does have are terribly acted. She plays a mother worried about her kidnapped son, and yet she smiles and remembers her manners and acts as though they're looking for a missing wallet. (And keep in mind, this movie came out the same year as The Man Who Knew Too Much with Doris Day's sedative scene.) Glenn is the one who does all the acting - and what a performance! In one scene, he collapses in tears in Juano Hernandez's arms, and in another he delivers an extremely emotional monologue to the kidnappers via a live televised broadcast. Usually, Glenn is a steady performer with great comic talents and an "everyman" quality that is consistent but doesn't call for heavy dramatics. For the two movies where he's given the opportunity to do more, rent Ransom! And Interrupted Melody. You won't think he has it in him, but he does.

Donna Reed almost ruins it, but thankfully, either the script itself left her to be upstairs lying down for most of the movie; or director Alex Segal knew she didn't have the necessary talent so he insisted on rewrites. Juano Hernandez plays the family butler, and quite frankly, it's insulting. A fine actor who usually snags some quality supporting parts, this one doesn't do him any favors. But, for fans of Glenn, this is a must-see. Some parts of the script are weak, but others will really make you think. You'll also get to see Leslie Neilson in his first movie. He plays a reporter who tries to weasel out facts of the case before the family is ready. He's certainly given a lot to do for his debut, and he does it very well.

HUGE stars in Ransom.. Glenn Ford (Gilda) and Donna Reed (Wonderful Life, and her own show...), and Leslie Nielsen in one of his first film roles. Ford and Reed are mom and dad Stannard, raising young son Andy. when the son is apparently kidnapped, they have to hold things together to try to find him and get him back safely. taking place in the 1950s, of course, there were no controls or parental safety standards back in the day, so probably anyone could show up at school and say they were there to take the kid somewhere. This one is hard to watch, since we really feel the pain and agony the parents are going through. every now and then, mom flares up and goes hysterical on the chief of police, yelling and ranting. Nielsen is the newspaper man, who somehow gets wind of the kidnapping. it's all pretty well done, almost in documentary format. the bickering with Stannard's brother was a little un-necessary and over the top, but other than that, pretty good stuff. Directed by Alex Segal. This was also HIS first direction of a hollywood film.

Close-knit family is torn apart after young boy is kidnapped. Glenn Ford does his usual first-class work as the boy's distraught father, though the supporting performances fail to match up or make any impact of their own. Director Alex Segal shows no imagination behind the camera, and his film is workman-like in the manner of TV dramas. Donna Reed's hysterical mom becomes tiresome before too long, and there isn't much detail on the kidnappers themselves (whom we never see). By giving us some inkling of their plans or intrinsic motives, the movie might have felt more fully played out. Still, Ford is almost always worth watching, and his thoughtful work should certainly please his fans. Remade in 1996 with Mel Gibson. ** from ****

There certainly seem to be very mixed perceptions of this film posted here by the various reviewers. It is perhaps the film's greatest strength that it does manage to entertain despite some serious flaws. Indeed, my family and I enjoy this film very much, perhaps because there is so much wrong with it that generates discussion.

For starters, I'll address "realism". The depiction of the Stannard family is no more realistic than the Cleavers, the Nelsons, or any other exceedingly unbelievably perfect white upper-middle-class family that would be depicted on 1950's television; that is to say, there is no such animal as this, then or now. At the beginning of the story, the Stannard's grade-school age boy has been going about the house destroying the furniture to salvage wood for his backyard clubhouse, and for this he receives nothing more than a lighthearted and very amused reprimand from his father. This is realism? Had the story continued on dealing only with the perfect family life of the perfect Stannards, it would have been intolerable.

But, as you know, their boy is kidnapped. Unlike Ron Howard's rather inferior remake, this original screenplay never attempts to tell us who kidnapped the child or what their motivation might have been. Rather than a plot hole, this serves to increase the anxiety we share with the family, as these are questions they have no answers to either. And it's really rather irrelevant. The Stannard's live quite well, even by unrealistic 1950's white TV family standards, the potential money alone is all the motivation required for a kidnapping.

It is at this point in the film that we crash headlong into its biggest flaw. The treatment of Donna Reed's character, Mrs. Stannard, is deplorable, even in a time period when women were routinely portrayed as little more than drooling idiots. Seemingly greater than the concern for the kidnapped child is the concern that his mother might suffer an unchecked display of emotion. Indeed, the doctor has been summoned with his narcotics and she is promptly doped up even before the police have arrived! The only excuse offered for this disturbingly abusive misogynistic behavior is that "she carried that child in her body" and the father did not. Good Lord! As Mrs. Stannard remains in a drugged stupor for the remainder of the film, from this point on her character becomes little more than an annoying distraction. This portrayal of women as childish morons who cannot handle their own emotions is both shockingly sexist and insulting. Why is it that almost no one would pass up an opportunity to denigrate the portrayal of African Americans or Hispanics in old films, yet this treatment of women rarely rates a mention? I certainly hope this is not realism, as I should hope the family's seeming inability to bar unwanted tabloid vultures from the privacy of their own home is not considered "realism" either. The police were on hand, they could have handily ejected such unwelcome nuisances at any time with a mere request from the one remaining coherent parent.

Once we get past some of this freakishly surrealistic activity, the meat of the story does tackle some intriguing questions, and does make some attempt to deal with the family's anguish as well as the father's bold decision not to cave into the fear inflicted upon them by the kidnappers. Ultimately, it is these thought provoking larger issues that give the film it's value, as the Stannard's particular kidnapping seems to be suddenly resolved with no explanation whatsoever.

This is an entertaining film, relatively safe family viewing (if you don't mind explaining to your kids why they shot mommy full of dope at the drop of a hat), and should certainly generate some lively discussion.

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

Vacuum-cleaner heir and magnate David G. Stannard (Glenn Ford) is accustomed to getting his way. He will do anything to hold sway over his stuffed-shirt brother under the boardroom-portrait gaze of their late father, the family patriarch. David's marriage to Edith Stannard (Donna Reed) is surface-solid but fissured deep. Will it come apart when their only child, Andy, is kidnapped for ransom?

For son Andy doesn't return home as expected from school one day. By the time the day is over, David has mobilized all the men who count: the police chief, the family doctor (to watch over the potentially hysterical Edith), his brother and business associates (to assemble the ransom), the technicians who operate the switches at the phone company (to trace the kidnapper's call when it comes). The kidnapper, belatedly by phone, has demanded $500,000. And Edith, helpless woman, has already cracked under the strain and been put to bed, sedated.

Now David alone must decide what to do. The host of a TV program which David's company sponsors is standing by to go on the air in a white dinner jacket, a pre-arranged signal to the kidnapper that the ransom is ready. But here's a twist--the police chief and even an insouciant reporter who has invaded the Stannard residence (a young Leslie Nielsen) inform David that paying a kidnapper in no way improves the odds for getting the victim back unharmed!

It just shows potential future kidnappers that crime in fact pays. Criminologically, like begets like. David can strike a blow for fathers everywhere by standing up to the son-stealers of this world and refusing to pay. After a bedside visit to Edith in which he tells her nothing, and after much solitary agony, he appears on the TV show himself with the ransom money spread before him. He says to the kidnapper: Nothing doing. You get not one penny. If you don't free my son, all this will bankroll my unceasing efforts to hunt you down. Will your accomplices be able to resist its lure as bribe or reward for turning you in?

Now the wait is on. Which way will the kidnapper jump? Will Andy come home to his father or go home to his Maker? Meanwhile, just about everyone around David turns against him. The public. David's brother, with his yes-men. The sheriff. Most of the media. And especially Edith, who wakes up and twigs to what David has chosen to do. Even the police chief, who as much as egged him on, begins to play cover-his-arse. David's only stalwarts turn out to be his Negro (this is the 50's) butler, played by Juano Hernandez, and Charlie Telfer, the reporter, who has found his mettle. And, beyond Chapman's prayerful faith which likens this situation to that of the Biblical David and Absalom, they can't help.

David Stannard, a master of men, a veritable king, is completely isolated. He is making the gamble of a lifetime. If it pays off, patriarchy will be restored, in the form of a living male heir and possibly a reunited family. If it doesn't ... what?

I almost gave up on it a few times in the first half. The silly-sweet start is over the top, and the scenes surrounding the introduction of the crime are not good. Unrealistic, overwrought, and cliched. And Leslie Neilson's character is annoying beyond words and a huge distraction. Everything the character does is completely unbelievable, as is a lot of what most other characters do. A strong point in addition to Ford is the performance of Juano Hernandez as the family butler. He is terrific, and he really elevates what is usually a very stereotypical role. Ultimately Ford and Hernandez are the reason to watch. While the movie doesn't do much in the way of establishing Ford's background, his evolution is still convincing. Super anti-climatic ending. Okay, but not one I'd watch again.

Not to be confused with Jay McInerny's Japan-set follow-up to his seminal 80's novel, "Bright Lights, Big City," or Mel Gibson and Ron Howard's stab at the same material, Glen Ford and company tackle the "title" and the kidnapping tale-of-woe with a heavy splash of sweat and hysteria. Sans modern pyrotechnics, the straight-forward narrative and sharp, clean black and white photography are welcome additions to any film library. Ford is a mass of twisted piano wire. Intense. Brooding. Furious. He rages against everyone in sight. Donna Reed spins from cool, detached resolve to loopy mush. The family doctor sends her to her bedroom loaded with tranquilizers. The kidnapper is never on screen--except for a burning cigarette. And maybe a shadow or two. The black actors are given more to do than usual. The butler has the run of the house and is a deacon. He wears his religion in full view of all the others. Fatherly, he hugs Ford in his hour of need. Could this be the first interracial embrace in movie history? Ford is a very affluent man and has a television anchored in his bookcase. I could see why Gibson was drawn to this material. Ford, jumping all over the place during a "live" broadcast, slaps his hand down over the Bible with such fervor, he almost flattens the tome into a leather pancake. Ouch. Finally, if the ransom gets payed, what are the odds the boy will be returned alive? Two to one. I know this because the police chief and the good book tells Ford so. Perfect.