Held for Ransom

A strait to video release, you have to give it some credit. HELD FOR RANSOM is based on the Lois Duncan novel and you can obviously tell that it is a low-budget film. But the fact that it was based on a book helped give it some more famous actors to star in the film.

The film was a little suspenseful you have to admit, but I still don't understand why everyone hated this movie so. I mean, we get to see Tsianina Joelson strip down to her bra and panties. No, but seriously the film was pretty enjoyable for me. It is very realistic as to what some people might do in a hostage situation. It is somewhat different from the book as the film takes place in the sweltering Everglades and the book is in the icy cold mountains.

I seriously didn't think it was that bad. HELD FOR RANSOM gets 4/5.

I actually enjoyed this old-school suspense thriller. Better than most, not as good as some -- but all in all a good rental when HBO, "Skinemax" and Showtime are running re-runs! Dennis Hopper is his normal, crazy self and many 70's stars appear.

This movie is certainly not a box office wonder, however it is relatively entertaining. As someone who has seen their fair share of movies that should never under any circumstances been viewed by the public, I can say that this movie is not one of them. The plot is fairly well contrived, with a delightful twist at the end that I was not expecting. The actors do a fair job, not worthy of an Oscar, but tolerable. The suspense is believable, I in fact found myself yelling at Bruce to run. It can suck you in if you go into it, not expecting to see the greatest thriller of all times, but simply...well I guess the best way to describe it is Hallmark Hall of Fame quality, only its a thriller, not a drama, and there is no cheesy love lesson at the end.

This film had quite a bit of action and a good cast. I was especially impressed with the plot twist at the end. Overall, its nothing incredible.... But, Dennis Hopper still did a great job in this one. Hopper's eccentric characterization of "J.D." was pretty awesome -- it made this direct-to-video film rate above average (in my opinion, anyways).

I will never stop wondering why a basically good actor like Dennis Hopper finds himself in a movie like this. Several things aren't just awful, but really, really bad: - the plot, - the acting, - the music, - the script, - etc etc The movie is rated 16+ (why? the once-in-a-while "f***-s" in it?); 12 year olds might be excited by the teen-actors. The story would most likely bore. A 3 out of 10.