Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueAfter the child of wealthy parents gets abducted, the police and a member of the press intervene to assist the parents in their search but end up complicating their impending decisions.After the child of wealthy parents gets abducted, the police and a member of the press intervene to assist the parents in their search but end up complicating their impending decisions.After the child of wealthy parents gets abducted, the police and a member of the press intervene to assist the parents in their search but end up complicating their impending decisions.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Fred Benson
- (as Robert Forrest)
- George Portalis
- (non crédité)
- Townsman in Crowd
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
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.
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?
'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
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesFilm debuts of Leslie Nielsen and Lori March.
- Gaffes(at around 12 mins) Mrs. Stannard waits for her husband to return from work and son from school by playing the piano near the front window. She hears a vehicle in the drive and lifts her left wrist to look at her watch; however, the music from the piano continues with the part for both hands.
- Citations
[last lines]
Jesse Chapman: [when the Stannards' son is discovered to be alive] "This my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost, and is found!"
[the quote from St. Luke, Chapter 15, Verse 24]
- Versions alternativesThere is an alternate colorized version.
- ConnexionsFeatured in MGM Parade: Épisode #1.18 (1956)
Meilleurs choix
- How long is Ransom!?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Ransom!
- Lieux de tournage
- Westwood, Los Angeles, Californie, États-Unis(2 motocycle cops shown after Dave calls the police chief - note Westwood Village and Bullock's Dept. store in the background)
- Société de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 1 003 000 $US (estimé)
- Durée
- 1h 49min(109 min)
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.37 : 1