RANSOM
A film review by Christopher Heyn
Copyright 1996 Christopher Heyn
Rating (out of *****) ***
Ransom has already received rave reviews, and is certain to be one of the highest-grossing films of the fall season. It may even be nominated for a number of Academy awards. Nevertheless, all the praise heaped upon Ron Howard's latest effort is due not to Ransom's brilliance, but to the noticeable lack of quality thrillers that have been released in the last few years. Despite the film's solid acting and high production values, Ransom suffers from weak scripting that sabotages what is otherwise an involving scenario. In a word, Ransom is overrated.
Ransom contains the same problems that plague all of Ron Howard's pictures (yes, even Apollo 13), in that the film certainly isn't bad, but it's nothing great, either. However, Ransom does feature some of the best directing of Howard's career, and Howard has overcome his tendency to make a "nice" film. Ransom is quite bloody and violent, and does not shirk away from the unpleasantness of its subject matter. Ransom also features some great acting (most notably Mel Gibson and Gary Sinise), and the film wastes no time jumping into the story. However, despite all these positive elements, Ransom has some serious plot and character weaknesses that leave one asking a lot of questions after the film is over.
The film's biggest flaw is the weak motivation of its antagonist, Jerry Shaker (Gary Sinise). A police detective who uses his experience to mastermind what seems to be an airtight scheme to squeeze $2 million out of the high-powered airline entrepreneur Tom Mullen (Mel Gibson), Shaker's character motivation is never fully explained.
At first, it seems Shaker is only after the money. If so, why? Is it because he is deeply in debt to mob figures? Because he and his girlfriend/co-conspirator (played by Lily Taylor) plan to escape to a desert island for the rest of their lives? Who knows? That issue is never even touched upon. Then when Mullen turns the tables on Shaker, offering $4 million as a reward for his capture, dead or alive, Shaker's determination to hold onto Mullen's boy indicates a personal vendetta. Mullen says so himself later in the film. The audience is then left waiting for Shaker's explanation as to why he would risk an otherwise successful police career over such a high-profile stunt. This explanation never comes.
If Shaker's motivation *is* personal, then why doesn't he go ahead and kill Mullen's son once it is clear that Shaker will never get the money he seeks? Best to realize it's a botched affair, kill the boy, and call it a day. When it looks like Shaker and his three co-conspirators are going to be discovered, Shaker hides behind his badge, killing all three of them in a shootout, claiming later to have acted in self-defense. Questions linger, but Shaker is nevertheless a hero, and soon after goes to Mullen's home to collect the $4 million. However, when he does, he's armed with not one, but two handguns. If all Shaker wanted was the money to begin with, why doesn't he just play the hero role, take the check and deal with any fallout later... even leaving the country if the investigation of the case comes crashing down on him? Instead, Shaker risks killing a celebrity executive just when media attention on the case is at its highest. This would certainly indicate Shaker's motivation is a personal one. But again, we never learn what it is.
What's most disappointing about Ransom is that with just one scene or a few well-placed lines, this script flaw could have been easily resolved.
Another flaw in the movie is a result of director Howard lapsing back into "nice" mode at the most inopportune time. When Shaker is on the phone with Mullen, threatening to kill his son, Mullen calls his bluff. Immediately, Shaker kills Mullen's son. Quickly, Howard reveals to the audience that no, Shaker just shot the gun in the son's direction, but did not kill him. Meanwhile, Gibson and his wife (Rene Russo) are weeping out on the balcony over the "death" of their son. As the audience, we know their grief is misplaced, so the scene has no impact whatsoever. Up to this point in the film, we wonder whether Mullen plays things too fast and loose, especially when lives are involved. If we also believed that Mullen's son was dead, it would give credence to those of us that disagreed with Mullen's risky decision. Instead, Howard fumbles a potentially cathartic moment in the film.
One could continue on, giving examples of other logical plot flaws, but that would belabor the point. Ransom has its heart in the right place, and the high emotional pitch of the film is what audiences will respond to. However, those of us who expect a film to not only emotionally move us, but intellectually engage us, will come away from Ransom disappointed. It's unfortunate that the state of the modern thriller is so poor that Ransom is considered brilliant by comparison. One longs for the return of Alfred Hitchcock.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews