Un homme voit rouge

This film came out just two years after "Skyjacked," the first movie made about skyjacking. Most hijacking of airplanes before this were for one of two reasons – to extort money from the airlines, or to flee somewhere for political asylum. "The Terrorists" is the first movie made about organized terrorists taking over a plane. And it surely wasn't the last.

What is very good about this film is that it shows how security personnel handle the situation. It's new to all the characters in this film. Sean Connery plays the head of Scandinavian security, Co. Nils Tahlvik. While the movie uses the general term Scandinavian for the region, the event takes place in Norway, most likely Oslo. All the actors play their roles very well. The plot is complicated, and the script and direction handle it very well, so the audience is never lost about what is taking place.

The scenery and aerial photography are excellent. The flight into Russia with the buzzing and then escort by the Soviet-looking jets is most impressive. Even though the details are clear to the audience, the story has wonderful suspense as we see Tahlvik and the other characters go through their actions to meet deadlines. Connery's character also exclaims that to surrender to terrorists is to open to door to more and more terrorism. His purpose is to try to thwart the terrorists.

This is a nice film, filled with drama and suspense. There isn't a lot of action until the end. But, it is a good look at how government and security forces try to deal with terrorists and skyjackings.

"The Terrorists" has one subtle "message" of sorts. It takes a cynical stab at British government that will not arrest some criminals because they can be of use to them. The message is, that because they do that, it comes back to hurt innocent people. Connery's character insists that the law be followed, or anarchy will rule.

I cannot believe the negative comments I am reading here. This is a complex, atmospheric and well-acted thriller, which fully captures the 1970s atmosphere of European terrorism, fashion and mannerisms.

The photography is stunning of the Norwegian snowbound landscapes, and Sean Connery gives one of his best performances.

And to cap it all there is a great - and I mean GREAT score by Jerry Goldsmith, one of this best.

Check the scene of the plane chase through the mountains, also the stylish montage of scenes involving London being struck by terrorism in the opening credits and the way the photofit of the terrorist leader gradually appears.

Goldsmith's score is so good, it is worth watching for that alone!

Sean Connery plays a tough, uncompromising security chief who just happens to be a Swede with a distinctive Scottish burr in this forgotten thriller from the mid-70s. It's probably forgotten because it's all a bit hum-drum and consistently fails to thrill at any level. These were sort of Connery's wilderness years when he made a number of stinkers post-Bond (this, Zardoz, The Next Man) before finally hitting his stride. Having said that, he's still the best thing in this. Ian McShane can't compare and, sporting a three piece-suit and footballer's hair-do, makes a completely unconvincing terrorist.

The story is unnecessarily convoluted and – at less than 90 minutes – overlong, with a number of superfluous scenes. Characterisation is non-existent, the terrorist's ideology and objectives sketchily described, and the climax is badly bungled as black-and-white suddenly becomes a murky grey which grows even muddier when two (presumably) good guys come to blows.

The picture's one saving grace is Sven Nykvist's terrific photography. He captures some incredible images during the plane chase sequence which are simply staggering when viewed in high definition.

Sean Connery plays Scandanavian military police chief Nils Tahlvik, assigned to deal with a high jacked British plane that has landed at their airport. The terrorists make various demands that Tahlvik must meet if he wants to save the plane filled with passengers...

Undistinguished yarn has little going for it other than Sean Connery's commanding performance, and a surprise twist at the end that perhaps doesn't bear close scrutiny.... Regardless, though not at all bad, it contains little to make it memorable.

With all respect to Mr. Connery, were films like this and "Zardoz" worth giving up playing James Bond?

Many critics have called the Sean Connery thriller Ransom a stinker. It's not all that good, but to label it as bottom-of-the-barrel rubbish is possibly a bit harsh.

The story is old hat. It concerns a plane hijacking in Scandinavia, carried out by a gang of suit-clad Englismhmen led by the charismatic Ian McShane. Connery is introduced as a Scandinavian police chief (still with the familiar Scottish accent, however) who is hired to end the siege. His mission is complicated further when a second hostage situation arises at the nearby residence of the British Ambassador.

The snowy landscapes fit nicely with the cold, cynical plot. There are infrequent tense sequences, such as the bit where a team of counter-terrorist soldiers make a bungled attempt to seize the aircraft. Connery and McShane have a few well played scenes in which they taunt and torment each other over the readio transmitter. The reason that the film fails to take off is that it is too low key, and suffers from a bad twist ending which renders the entire film a bit pointless. Too many of the scenes are flat, and Caspar Wrede (the director) doesn't get interesting performances out of any of the secondary characters.

Not a full-on catastrophe, then, but not a great film either.