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.

JLRMovieReviews Glenn Ford and Donna Reed star in this story of a prominent rich family, because the father's in the vacuum cleaner business, making them, not selling. Because he's in the public eye and rich, his son is ripe for the taking, anyone might think. And, they can get quite a big ransom for the boy. Think again. Glenn Ford's just a little smarter than your average dad, or maybe crazier. He decides not only to not pay the ransom, half a million dollars, but instead is putting it on the head of the abductor and in effect turns the tables on him. The film starts out well and is at best a very emotional roller-coaster ride, as both Donna and Glenn break down. Donna Reed is especially good, and gives a memorable performance in one scene in particular, as she is remembering the day her baby was born. But the climax of the film is seeing Glenn Ford, live on a television broadcast, vowing to get his enemy no matter the cost. From there, the film, quite frankly, drags. The film's main attribute is the acting, as some of the dialogue throughout is awkward and unrealistic. The fact that he doesn't pay the ransom and his speech are the most distinctive things about the picture. In fact, I'm surprised they made a full film about it, because essentially there was no story to really tell. Leslie Nielsen makes his screen debut as a nosy and pushy reporter who wants a scoop. The Mel Gibson remake had a stronger ending, but at the same time makes the viewer feel as if, is this really appropriate? All in all, if you are curious about the original "Ransom," I would recommend it to see the stars in some strong acting performances, but this film is really a one-time deal.

greenbear1 I would say this is a particularly fine film that I stumbled upon and now watch whenever its on. That is very rare for a drama. Comedies, even bad ones, and sometimes musicals or sci-fi easily catch me and make me watch, A drama has a harder row to hoe.Glenn Ford is rock steady and complex. Donna Reed has equal depth and has a mother's passion that is missing from many portrayals of mothers in the 50's. Her reaction the school principal worried about bad press for her school is deeply satisfying on a gut level. You feel that you wanted to do the same thing. Other movies have shown uncharacteristic restraint by its cast. People, even mothers, get angry and lash out at morons. Ford shows the same anger bubbling much deeper in his televised "discussion" with the kidnappers/terrorists.A special mention must be paid to Juano Hernandez who is excellent as the butler who loves the family in his own way with quiet loyalty and respect which they share for him. Be sure to catch him in "Intruder in the Dust". Weird title that makes it sound like western but is far more interesting and unusual than an oater.One strange thing that I don't hear mentioned is the bother's (Ainslie Pryor) reaction to the whole thing. To me, he seems to have far more vested in paying the ransom than a loving uncle. I get the feeling he helped plan the kidnapping and wants his brother to pay off. When that doesn't happen, he is not supportive but still tries to get him to change his mind. Strange. Maybe he gave the mother the newspaper so she would turn against Ford, then takes her in when she leaves him. His whole role in this movie seems to be in getting money paid. Maybe I'm too suspicious.

Robert J. Maxwell This film, "Ransom!" with an exclamation point (1956), is the original from which Ron Howard's "Ransom" wth no exclamation point (1996), was derived forty years later. It's not very common for a remake to equal the original -- hell, it's rare! But in some ways the more recent version beats this one.The recent version is really quite different. (The exclamation points should be transposed.) "Ransom!" focuses exclusively on Glenn Ford, who underacts as the father of the kidnapped boy, and Donna Reed plays the overwrought mother. We never even see the kidnappers, who decide to play ball with Ford after he decides that his son will be killed whether he pays the ransom or not, and so threatens to offer the full amount as a reward to whoever drops the dime on the criminals if they don't return his son. It gets a little dull. Ford has no idea that his son may be dead already until the police and a friendly reporter clue him in to the very real possibility. Ford suffers a lot and sweats through his decision while Donna Reed goes to pieces on him.The remake gives us equal time with the gang of kidnappers, a varied group, some mean, some with consciences and loyalties. The remake is an edgier film with far more action and blood and the kind of shoot out at the climax that producers, writers, and directors seem to believe a modern audience demands. The chief heavy in the remake, Gary Sinese, not only has his face pounded into a substance with the texture and specific gravity of guacamole but is finally plugged multiple times, first by the vengeful father. The director of the remake, Ron Howard, is given to producing smooth, uplifting family films with neat happy endings. This one is a little rougher than his usual fare, but Richard Price contributed to the screenplay and he has a flair for dialog that is unexpected and catchy. Maybe that helped.The plots in both versions are very similar of course. Dad decides not to pay ransom and threatens to give it away as a reward to any squealer, regardless of what happens (or has already happened) to his son. The kidnappers have a choice of turning the kid over alive or else constantly wondering which of their friends is going to turn them in for a million bucks.This is a variant of a game called "the prisoner's dilemma," which I won't describe for two reasons. One is that it would take too long. The other is that I've forgotten which variant of the game is embodied in this plot. Interested parties can look up "the prisoner's dilemma" on the internet. I think Wikipedia.com has an entry on it. Maybe not.This original isn't a bad film. The difference between the two is that this one concentrates on Ford's moral quandary, while the remake shifts more towards the action side of the spectrum, giving it somewhat richer visuals. This isn't seen on TV very often, but if it's on it would be worth watching. The question hanging over the father's head is a heavy one. Should he pay the million bucks for his son or not? If I had it, I would certainly have gone ahead and paid it for my son, even though the little tyke hasn't yet shown me the proper respect or indicated any interest in a career in medicine. Come to think of it, I'd have to wrestle with the decision -- but in the end I'd have paid. Probably.