Ransom! (1956) watch online HD

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

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.

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" makes an interesting point about a kidnapping. Usually, desperate parents will do whatever to pay for the safe release of their children. In this story, the father, opts to do something entirely different by not paying the ransom demand. He is taking a gamble that pays off in the end.

This 1956 movie directed by Alex Segal reflected the times when it was made. Nowadays who knows what would happen if the bandits were provoked by a man that is calling them to use their common sense and set a young boy free. Probably the victim would not ever see another day! The film, shown on cable recently, presents a compelling story in which the well to do family is thrown into turmoil as their son is taken away from school. In spite of the fact there is basically one set, it doesn't feel constrained as perhaps some other pictures of the genre. We feel the emotions the parents are going through, and how it even affects the servants, as the police and the media descends on the Stannard household to report on the sensational news.

Glenn Ford made an excellent Dave Stannard. He is a man torn between what he must do and what he challenges the kidnappers to do with his young son. Donna Reed is perfect as Edith, the mother who goes to pieces when she learns about her son's disappearance. Leslie Nielsen is seen as the newspaper reporter who changes his views after seeing first hand what the kidnapping is doing to the family. Juano Hernandez and Juanita Moore play the servants with dignity and loyalty.

"Ransom" without displaying any violence at all is a film that packs a lot of action with successful results thanks to Alex Segal's sure hand behind the camera.

*SPOILERS* This original version compares very tellingly with the Mel Gibson remake (which is also exciting). The most relevant difference is that the original is not a cathartic action movie because there is no info whatever on the kidnappers or their fate. They are not characters in their own subplot, and we never have the vicarious satisfaction of hunting them down with the vengeful father. They are just a mysterious, frightening, unknown force of fate. That arbitrary element of the kidnappers, and the depiction of the world around Glenn Ford as a grim and unsupportive place, almost tips this suspense film into the territory of film noir.

Instead of the dilemma of the criminals, it shows the reactions of the rest of society--press, friends, hangers-on, police, the mob. Ford can only operate by what he thinks is right without any guarantees. (His name is Stannard, sounding like Standard.) It might have been written to illustrate the idea that one shouldn't pay ransom, and also to present the existential crisis of the man who rapidly loses everything--son, wife, brother, business, social position. True, it comes rushing back after he tastes what it's like to hit bottom, but it seems arbitrary, as in the story of Job. (The butler compares it ominously with the story of Absalom.)

While the Gibson version has him fearing that he brought it on himself by illegal dealings, this version avoids that explicitly but has one speech that links Ford's success as a businessman with the business success of kidnappers: "The profit motive!" He's a vacuum-cleaner maven--which you can interpret as cleaning up the world or sucking up money from other people's dirt, like the reporter played by Leslie Nielsen. When we first see the family, the couple sit on their beds which collapse because the son has stolen the planks for a treehouse; this resonates with later talk about pulling the rug from under people. He tells the son he'll buy some wood, but the boy thinks it would be "unethical" unless the wood is stolen. Wife criticizes hubby for humoring the boy because kids don't know the difference between big and little things. So there's some vague implication about how their lifestyle in "the biggest house on the block" invites this trespass and exploitation. Again, that's not pressed as deeply as in the remake, but the original seems darker by concentrating on Ford's sense of helplessness. He can do nothing but make his decision and wait.

A relatively forgotten film, both now and apparently in 1956, the year of it's release. The Academy continues to receive black mark after black mark for recognizing crap like The King And I and not powerful films like Ransom. For noticing embarrasing performances by Yul Brenner and Deborah Kerr and not the performances of Glenn Ford and Donna Reed.

The early to mid fifties saw the films of Hollywood attempting to become more and more realistic, with films like Ransom, The Blackboard Jungle and The Desperate Hours. These stories were grittier than they would have been if they had been made 5-10 years earlier, as are the performances. Glenn Ford and Donna Reed have the chance to play everyday American parents (albeit rich) who have their son kidnapped, and the results are not pretty or glamorized. Ford does not play the sappy or insane father who will do (sterotypically) anything to get his son back. As important as it is to get his son back, it's just as important to take a stand against the kidnappers. Reed is not the beautiful rock of stability you might expect during the goings-on. She becomes manic, and LOOKS like the train wreck that she would be in real life.

Juano Hernandez and Leslie Nielsen are supporting players who provide the same depth and unexpected realism that Reed and Ford do. Early on, I liked neither character, and expected these two to give standard cardboard butler and reporter performances, but they both show real heart.

Ransom is a great film. The Ransom that was made with Mel Gibson really isn't even the same story, so it's pointless to compare them. It is a performance driven film, one that would have faltered in the hands of actors not willing to play on the same level as the screenplay. Great entertainment, and one of the 50s best.

SPOILERS AHEAD

Ransom could easily have made my greatest films of all time list, were it not for the ending. I found myself praying that the boy would not come back. That the film would just end with Ford walking back into his den, or him standing over the unfinished fort. That would have been much more synonomous with the rest of the realistic story and would have made a much more powerful statement. But then, almost as an afterthought, the kid is just there again and a tearful reunion ensues with his parents. While I don't think it's a bad ending (I got a little choked up), the other way would have been better. Bringing the kid back not only defies the symettry of the rest of the film, it opens a whole can of questions. Questions that we the audience had put aside earlier, like "What happened to the kid?", "Who are the kidnappers?", and "Why and How did they let him go?". I had realized earlier in the film that the film isn't about the kidapping of the boy as much as it is the reaction of his parents, particularly his father.

So it was almost a disappointment that the kid came back and made me think about those questions again. A slightly unsatisfied feeling is left with the viewer. While the end was good and finely acted, it wasn't the right ending for this particular film. Regardless, it's still a great film with brilliant performances by Reed, Hernandez, and one of the all time most underrated actors, Glenn Ford.

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 ****

"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.

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?

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.

An absolutely riveting film. Glenn Ford's performance is engrossing and the tension is electric throughout. Whilst some of the dialogue may seem a little corny (witness Leslie Nielsen refer to the kidnappers as 'babies'), it is quite typical of the times (Twelve Angry Men, perhaps one of the corniest films ever, as well as being one of the greatest, was made in 1957). The whole film focuses on the character David Stannard and his feeling of helplesness as his life disintegrates around him. There is a poignant moment towards the end of the film where Stannard is alone in his house, having (he believes)lost all he holds dear. He is still a rich man in monetary terms, but destitute emotionally. Glenn Ford's performance is majestic. I am not particularly a Glenn Ford fan, although I appreciate he was a fine actor, but this seems me to be his finest hour. The fear, helplesness, exhaustion, determination, despair and the general gamut of emotions are expressed superbly in this magnificent performance. The scene where he collapses on the stairs and cries like a baby, whilst being hugged by his manservant, is truly harrowing.

I do agree that it may have been better for the boy not to have returned, although it is necessary to the plotline in order to bear out the wisdom of Stannard's decision. It also gives us another chance to reach for the kleenex when he is reunited with his parents, as the manservant quotes from 'The Prodigal Son.' Great stuff.

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. ****

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.

This is an excellent film and an excellent reminder of why Glenn Ford was such a big star. He did it the old fashioned way. He earned it. Even though the premise and much of the plot and dialog are reworked into the Mel Gibson remake, this is a very different movie. As has been pointed out by others, this version focuses almost exclusively on an internal torment of one man. Most of the activity is tension within the protagonist and, to a far lesser degree, between the parents. The dramatic release is the son's return. In the remake, the protagonist has plenty of internal conflict but it is played out in the context of conflict with others, particularly the chief kidnapper (who has his own subset of conflicts with the members of his gang, particularly his female partner). One doesn't have to rank the two versions. They are different and, in my view, equally excellent films.

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.

When I saw trailers for the Mel Gibson film "Ransom" in 1996, I had no idea that it was a remake of a 1956 movie of the same name. Thank God for TCM or else I never would have caught this elusive gem. I have no desire to see the remake, because the original is just tops with me. Yes, it was produced in the 1950s, so there are some very dated elements, but that does not deter from the suspense or involving premise.

Glenn Ford, as Dave Stannard, gives one of his finest performances, compellingly realistic, while Donna Reed matches him with her warmth as his wife, Edith. They are a wealthy couple whose only child, Andy (Bobby Clark) is abducted from school one day and they later receive a ransom demand. The desperate parents want to do anything for the safe return of their son, but there is little they can do until the kidnappers make contact. While he can very well give into the demand, Stannard instead appears on television (the new and big medium of the 50s) to show that he does have money, but it will not be given to the abductors, rather it is the price on their heads if any harm befalls Andy.

Donna Reed always likable, is outstanding, even if she does fall into the typical sexist "hysterical mother" so predominate of this era, crumbling to the floor, but she still gets you. So does Ford, for behind his steely determination is a distraught father who fears the worst for his son, wondering if there was any other way - the "what ifs" always plague parents when the suffering is not knowing. The ending, which is not something we would expect in this jaded world of today (nor in the case it was based on, Bobby Greenlease). This film is also a curiosity piece as an early appearance of Leslie Neilson, and there is the Hispanic butler, again playing in the confines of "understanding servant".

But "Ransom!" is every bit a nail-biting thriller, one that will have the viewer on the edge of their seat, and no doubt resonate with any parent because of the issue that it addresses.

And now I will ask the burning question - where is the DVD?

Hard hitting, raw and no monkey business. One of Fords best! The way Ford acts and the way the director grabs you, and makes you take this film seriously are awesome.

Remakes of the old Hollywood, don't even come close as they are put out these days.

Hollywood has the answer to going back to basics on real story telling, like this picture.

And a surprising Nielson, shows that he is a good actor outside of his usual comical roles.

And the little boy, you can't help but wonder what horror he is living, as these days we know all to well, its more common place.

WOW!!!!!!!! I just watched this movie...and it was absolutely riveting. 1 3/4 hours seemed like 30 minutes. Outstanding performances by Glenn Ford and Donna Reed. Leslie Nielsen in his first film. When it comes on TV.....see it!!!!!!

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

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.

Glenn Ford has always struck me as having a lot in common with his (unrelated) modern-day namesake Harrison Ford. Both were good at playing calm, unflappable heroes and at conveying a sense of solidity and inner decency which made them valuable as the heroes of thrillers, especially crime thrillers. In "Ransom!", as in the classic film noir "The Big Heat" which he made three years earlier, Glenn Ford plays an ordinary man whose life is suddenly turned upside down by the activities of a criminal gang.

His character in "Ransom!" is Dave Stannard, a wealthy businessman. The Christian name may be a reference to the earlier film, in which his character was also named Dave, and the surname may be a play on the word "standard". (The pronunciation of the two words would be closer in American English than in Britain, where the first "d" in "standard" would be fully voiced). The Stannard family are very much the standard well-to-do white all-American family as portrayed in the media during the fifties- hard-working, caring dad, attractive mom, cheeky but lovable young son and faithful old black servant. The crisis in the family's life comes when their son Andy is kidnapped and the kidnappers demand a ransom of $500,000. In response, Dave takes an unexpected step. He is informed by the local police chief that, statistically, it will make no difference to his son's chances of survival whether he pays the ransom or not. He therefore decides that it is his duty not to pay the ransom, as to do so will only encourage other criminals to carry out kidnappings. He therefore makes a live television broadcast in which he offers the $500,000 as a reward for the capture of the kidnappers.

The film was remade by Ron Howard in the 1990s with Mel Gibson in the leading role. Although Howard keeps the basic premise of the original film, the treatment of the subject is so different that a direct comparison would probably be unfair. The 1956 film has its strengths, particularly Ford's performance, but it also has three main weaknesses. The first of these is the portrayal of Dave's wife Edith as weak and hysterical, although the fault here lies with the scriptwriters rather than with Donna Reed.

The second major weakness in the film is that it is too static. It contains surprisingly little in the way of physical action for a crime drama, even by the standards of the fifties. (There was, for example, considerably more action in "The Big Heat"). In some ways it is a rather old- fashioned film, looking back to the studio-bound "filmed theatre" style of the thirties and forties, in which most scenes took place indoors and dialogue was more important than physical action. Here, most of the action takes place in the Stannards' living room as Dave debates what action he should take with the local police chief, his brother Al, Charlie Telfer, a journalist covering the story, and even his butler "Uncle Jesse". (As Edith spends most of the film unconscious, having been sedated by the family doctor, she misses out on a lot of these discussions).

The film's third main flaw is that we never see the kidnappers or even learn their identities. We therefore never know why, at the end of the film, they release Andy unharmed. (The main reason is presumably that studio bosses wanted a happy ending). This means that, essentially, we miss out on half the story. The psychological pressures on Dave and Edith, and the ethical considerations which lead him to offer a reward rather than paying a ransom, are only the first half. We also want to know the second half of the story- the psychological pressures on the criminals themselves, and how those pressures are increased by the fact that Dave has put a bounty on their heads. The film also avoids some of the ethical issues raised by Dave's decision. It seems, for example, unlikely that his bounty will ever be claimed unless one or more members of the gang turn State's evidence and inform on the others- which means that at least one of the kidnappers will end up being rewarded for the crime. "Ransom!" raises some potentially interesting issues, but does not treat them fully, and ends up as no more than a bog-standard (or bog-Stannard) crime drama. 5/10

Ransom is the story of a family torn apart by the kidnapping of their son. Loosely based on a real-life kidnapping gone wrong, the movie is about a father torn between two opinions. With his wife, Edith Stannard, played brilliantly by Donna Reed, on the verge of a nervous breakdown, David Stannard played by Glenn Ford, must consider his options. After consulting with the experts, he learns that he has a 50/50 chance of getting his son back even if he pays the ransom. Ford turns in a powerful and thoughtful performance as a man who makes a decision that will either seal his son's fate or bring him home. He offers the money that was to be a ransom as a bounty for the heads of the kidnappers. Filled with poignant moments, this film is riveting. Emotions run high as his wife and public opinion turn against him. Anguished as he waits to hear from the kidnappers, Stannard wins support from a most unlikely source--a reporter (Leslie Nielsen), and he draws strength form his longtime butler, Uncle Jesse (Juano Hernandez).

The magic of this film is that there is no violence, no profanity and the entire movie takes place, for the most part, inside the Stannard's home. It is the raw and intensely real acting that sets it apart. The success of this movie can also be attributed to the fact that the director (Alex Segal) relies on the talent of the actors and trusts the intelligence of its audience. Even the remake of 1996 some forty years later, with violence added, cannot dim the light of the performances turned in by this stellar cast. Not the least of which are Ford and Reed.

It has been suggested, over the years, that only blackmail/extortion approaches kidnapping as the most evil crime in the book. Not that this excuses murderers for their crimes, but there is an additional twist of the knife when the victim is missing or taken from the midst of their loved ones, or when the victim is fighting a smear that may be based on truth, but that demolishes whatever good or decent changes the person has tried to make since the original act happened.

Today we are too used to kidnapping because of it's use by terrorist groups, usually middle eastern ones (but some were in Latin America and Asia as well). The high sounding self-defense whining of the kidnappers in these political cases, where they claim that they are acting for some noble cause, does not deflect from the hideous helplessness they place the families of the victim in. It is just a little better when it is a "business" kidnapping - that is a kidnapping for financial gain.

The oldest known kidnapping in the U.S. was in 1874 - a boy named Charlie Ross was stolen with his older brother Walter (who was later released) by two men in Germantown, Pennsylvania. They subsequently tormented their father and mother and family with a deluge of telegrams and letters that made huge financial demands, and put the potential blame on the father, Christian Ross, if Charlie was never returned - for loving money more than his son. Ross would have paid the ransom but the police and many wealthy men put pressure on him not to - it would set a bad example. As a result the kidnappers stopped communicating. Then, both kidnappers were shot and killed performing a burglary in Brooklyn, New York. One of their accomplices was tried and sentenced to eight years in prison, but Charlie Ross was never found. His fate remains a mystery.

Over the years kidnappings would take place - Pat Crowe, a strange, dapper bank robber, kidnapped the son of the founder of the Cudahy meat packing fortune, got the ransom, and subsequently released the boy (Crowe was eventually captured) in 1900. Leopold and Loeb's murder of Bobby Franks was disguised as a kidnapping (it was always planned to be a perfect crime - payment of the kidnap money would have added to the "pleasure" of the killers). In 1927 a particularly vicious, hard hearted kidnap murder occurred in Los Angeles when William Hickman got a ransom for Marion Parker, but returned her mangled corpse to her father (Hickman would subsequently get hanged).

The kidnap/murder of Charles Lindbergh Jr. caused the creation of numerous "Lindbergh" laws in America about the crime (as well as the national one that made kidnapping a potential federal crime if across a state border. What is frequently forgotten is the large number of kidnappings in the 1932 - 1935 period, such as that of Brooke Hart by Holmes and Thurmond (the source of the story in the movie FURY), and that of Mr. Urschell, the Oklahoma oil millionaire, by Machine Gun Kelly and his gang. That a national hero's son got kidnapped and murdered spurred on the number of laws, but the laws were headed for a change anyway.

The murder of poor Bobbie Greenlease in 1955 is the germ of RANSOM. Bobbie's father was a wealthy car dealer. A pair of drug addicts stole the boy and murdered him, but sent a demand for a ransom that Mr. Greenlease paid. The case was complicated by two problems for the police. Mr. Greenlease had underworld connections, which affected his full cooperation with the authorities. The other issue was dishonest cops. While the couple who murdered Bobbie were captured, tried, and executed, a huge portion of the ransom was never recovered. It is believed two crooked cops shaved off a large portion of the ransom for themselves before they handed the bulk over to the other criminals.

As in the Mel Gibson remake, Glenn Ford is the father of the boy (Bobbie Clark), who is held for ransom. His mother, Donna Reed, and the authorities advise cooperating, but everything Ford does brings criticism onto him, not on the criminals. He is also advised that the chances of his son being returned are slim at best. In a combination of anger and desperation, he turns the tables and offers the ransom money for payment to anyone who will 1) return his son, and 2) betray, kill, or turn in the kidnapper. It is a clever twist (in actual life it's never been tried - at least officially). It only seems to be the final nail in the coffin of Ford as to his public reputation.

I give the film high marks, for Ford, Reed, Clark, Robert Keith, Juano Hernandez, and Leslie Nielsen do first rate work in this film. But I do agree that the return of Clark at the end (no matter how emotionally satisfying) ruins a potentially great film. So I can grant it a "9", but it missed the "10" it should have had.

Another reviewer mentioned that the film Ransom was based on the Bobby Greenlease kidnapping where a woman in a nurse's uniform took the six year old out of school and her accomplices sent the ransom note to his wealthy parents. It was a case that made big headlines in the USA in the fifties.

Glenn Ford and Donna Reed are Bobby Clark's wealthy parents and young Clark is kidnapped in the same way the Greenlease child was. And they've received a ransom demand for half a million dollars. To pay or not to pay, they're told that experience shows the child might well be already dead and it won't make a difference.

What Ford decides to do brings a whole lot of criticism down upon him, including from Reed. The responsibility is his and his alone and the agony shows in his face. Reed is near driven to the brink of insanity. Both their performances are stunning.

The film is about the effects of a child's kidnapping on his family and the people around him. We never see the mastermind behind the kidnapping as well we shouldn't because it would distract from the film. That was the mistake made in the remake of Ransom done in 1996 by Ron Howard and starring Mel Gibson. A whole lot of extraneous issues were dragged in needlessly to make it an action flick for the young audiences of 10 years ago.

Three other good performances to note here are Robert Keith as the police chief, Leslie Nielsen making his feature film debut as a reporter who gets wind of the story early on, and Juano Hernandez especially as the family butler. Hernandez turns out to be a real tower of strength for Ford.

Ransom is both thought provoking and gripping, asking a whole lot of questions as to what anyone might do if God forbid they were in that situation.