Diagonaldi Very well executed

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

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

keesha45 While I enjoyed the Mel Gibson remake of this picture and was pleased to see him in a serious role where he could display his acting chops, I thought the whole idea was a little divorced from reality, although it made perfect sense at that time as it must have seemed forty years earlier. The notion of a kidnapping victim's family refusing to pay any ransom and using it instead as a tool to convince the perpetrators to turn the boy loose sounds logical enough, but in real life such an act would bring such universal condemnation upon the father in a real-life scenario that no one has ever considered doing it for real. Part of the reason is that so few children are snatched for money, but usually for other more nefarious reasons by mentally warped individuals who generally work alone and don't confide their plans to friends and associates, making such threats to kidnappers at best useless or at worst counterproductive. Because the villain was evident in the Ron Howard remake, the story had to take a turn whereby the father would have to confront the kidnapper one on one. In this original, the snatchers are virtually unseen, so all the drama rests with the victimized family and how they interact with those who come to their aid or to view the spectacle. As such, it gives the principals, Ford and Reed, the chance to emote and they perform very well. Donna Reed was an unusually gifted actress as her Oscar win and Emmy nominations attest and Glenn Ford was an underrated actor in his day, probably best known by younger generations as Superman's adopting father in the final stages of his career. Sad to say, there's very little suspense in the narrative, and one wonders how great directors like Hitchcock, Zinneman or Kazan might have turned this into a great film. If you've only seen the newer version of the two films, take the time to watch the original. Some of the acting is exceptionally good, and it's mostly a well-crafted film. If nothing else, it's interesting to see how different generations of filmmakers can put totally differing spins on essentially the same story. Dale Roloff

mrsastor 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.

copper1963 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.