Sorry, this movie sucks

Just what I expected

Good movie but grossly overrated

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

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

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.

Not very good. RANSON, aka THE TERRORISTS, should have been a tightly wound suspense story involving the commandeering of an airplane by group of thugs, but instead director Caspar Wrede presents everything in such long shots that any tension is lost. When it should be claustrophobic and in your face, it's chilly and distant. Sean Connery is the negotiator who, of course, does not play by the rules and Ian McShane is the lead "terrorist." Neither one is particularly compelling. Connery is clearly collecting a paycheck. The cinematography is, shockingly, by Sven Nykvist! There have been better films of this ilk...THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1-2-3 for sure. Seek that out.

This film is also called The ransom, not to be confused with the mild action film with Mel Gibson.The film set in the Scandinavian country (called Scandinavia in the movie, while it is shot in Norway), the snow atmosphere and the heavily dressed characters somehow dictated the slowness of the pace in the movie. Nevertheless, it's exciting. The whole look is not your conventional Hollywood actioner, while at the same time deserves the same class as that of the late sixties/early seventies crime/caper movies like Bullit, French Connection, Taking Pelham One, Two and Three and Dirty Harry. Connery is fun to watch. He really adds to the atmosphere of the movie and the relatively tame climax looks good with his presence. Good movie. 7/10