"Ransom" is one of those films that defined the late 90s. With large budgets, larger than life sets, bigger stars, and predictable situations, "Ransom" demonstrates that overabundant Hollywood escapism. There was no worry that a Mel Gibson movie would flop – there was no concern that ticket prices would drive audiences away – there was no worries about putting $80 million dollars on the table because this had everything late-90s cinema goers wanted to see with their popcorn and soda. This movie was melodramatic; this gave audiences an evil guy that was loved in "Forrest Gump", and it kept us cool for nearly two hours. It had everything. This was a time of taking risks and pushing big names into theaters – now, well, (and one could argue "thankfully") that recycled magic has gone. A film like this could not exist today. The "safe" nature of this film would be pushed aside for quirky camera footage, younger actors, and less tears with more violence. Audiences have changed, and while I have grown up beyond the "Ransom" excitement, I was feeling this love/hate relationship with this film.
In 1996, when this film was being released, I was first being introduced to cinema. I was going to theater at any opportunity, I was being pulled into these less-than spectacular situations, and people like Gibson, Sinise, Russo, and Howard were idols because of what they could accomplish on screen. But like any child, I was pulled into the glamour, the hype, and the glitz, while in retrospect, the basics were being missed. Watching "Ransom", now thirteen years later, it just doesn't seem like the type of film that deserved wide release. Watching this film today, it felt more like a superimposed made-for-TV movie than a blockbuster. To begin, director Ron Howard was out of his element with this film. "Apollo 13", "Blackdraft", "Splash", even "Willow" seems to be more nature based dramas, so to feel him helming this violence-based drama, it just felt staged and unfocused. In the director commentary, Howard discusses how he attempted to use POV shots to convey the story and develop his characters, and while the idea was present, the execution just felt phony. The juggle between Gibson and Russo's perspective at times felt dizzy to the viewer. Yes, the details around a kidnapped child have that effect; it creates havoc for the viewer – ultimately missing stronger themes throughout. That isn't to say Howard didn't have some powerful shots with his cinematographer, overall "Ransom" just missed the strength behind the camera. Then, as if to overcompensate for this, Howard allows his actors to overpower the screen with their over-the-top characters. Gibson, a wealthy airline tycoon, goes from passive father to vengeful cynic (a la "Payback") in a mere instant, allowing – sadly - more drama to unfold between Russo and Sinise.
Who was the central focus of this film? This is an excellent question for Mr. Howard as well as the cast. Is Gibson the main character? Is his child the main character or merely the developing plot? Is the wooden Delroy Lindo a major player, or is Sinise just trying to keep up with Gibson's anger? Valid questions that, alas, cannot be answered by this film. "Ransom" attempts to bring too many twists and turns into an already filled suitcase, and the end result is catastrophe. If this would have merely been a story about Gibson reacting to the capture of his son, and Sinise never being revealed until the end, then "Ransom" would have successfully accomplished with what it set out to do. The pivotal ending would have been more controlled and dramatic, that this would have made this normal film stand proud. Instead, Howard incorporates two "family" dramas together, the Gibson family, and the jumbled undeveloped Sinise family whom includes Lili Taylor, Liev Schriber, Evan Handler, and Donnie Wahlberg. Again, this would work well on paper if we would have the opportunity to see via each perspective, but we do not even within the two hours. Therefore it becomes further unfocused, and disruptive to the central conflict.
Finally, the last twenty minutes were mere fluff. Not to give away plot, but it felt like it was placed there for those wishing Gibson would provide some much needed action to the screen. Nothing that developed, nothing that revealed, nothing that enhanced, merely staged action for a drunk with Hollywood money audience. It was shameful.
Overall, I disliked "Ransom". When I first began this review, I was in a love/hate relationship, but as I wrote I found more issues with this film. The lack of development between minor characters, the entire Jackie Brown subplot was embarrassing, and the scene in which Russo visits the church just wasted my time. The transitions between scenes and plots were lacking, which I blame directly on Howard's inability to control what was happening. He had a strong focus, but the execution is where it faltered. I do not see myself watching this film ever again – and ultimately will smile when seen on late night TV or in the dollar bin – that was the feel of "Ransom".
Grade: ** out of *****
In 1996, when this film was being released, I was first being introduced to cinema. I was going to theater at any opportunity, I was being pulled into these less-than spectacular situations, and people like Gibson, Sinise, Russo, and Howard were idols because of what they could accomplish on screen. But like any child, I was pulled into the glamour, the hype, and the glitz, while in retrospect, the basics were being missed. Watching "Ransom", now thirteen years later, it just doesn't seem like the type of film that deserved wide release. Watching this film today, it felt more like a superimposed made-for-TV movie than a blockbuster. To begin, director Ron Howard was out of his element with this film. "Apollo 13", "Blackdraft", "Splash", even "Willow" seems to be more nature based dramas, so to feel him helming this violence-based drama, it just felt staged and unfocused. In the director commentary, Howard discusses how he attempted to use POV shots to convey the story and develop his characters, and while the idea was present, the execution just felt phony. The juggle between Gibson and Russo's perspective at times felt dizzy to the viewer. Yes, the details around a kidnapped child have that effect; it creates havoc for the viewer – ultimately missing stronger themes throughout. That isn't to say Howard didn't have some powerful shots with his cinematographer, overall "Ransom" just missed the strength behind the camera. Then, as if to overcompensate for this, Howard allows his actors to overpower the screen with their over-the-top characters. Gibson, a wealthy airline tycoon, goes from passive father to vengeful cynic (a la "Payback") in a mere instant, allowing – sadly - more drama to unfold between Russo and Sinise.
Who was the central focus of this film? This is an excellent question for Mr. Howard as well as the cast. Is Gibson the main character? Is his child the main character or merely the developing plot? Is the wooden Delroy Lindo a major player, or is Sinise just trying to keep up with Gibson's anger? Valid questions that, alas, cannot be answered by this film. "Ransom" attempts to bring too many twists and turns into an already filled suitcase, and the end result is catastrophe. If this would have merely been a story about Gibson reacting to the capture of his son, and Sinise never being revealed until the end, then "Ransom" would have successfully accomplished with what it set out to do. The pivotal ending would have been more controlled and dramatic, that this would have made this normal film stand proud. Instead, Howard incorporates two "family" dramas together, the Gibson family, and the jumbled undeveloped Sinise family whom includes Lili Taylor, Liev Schriber, Evan Handler, and Donnie Wahlberg. Again, this would work well on paper if we would have the opportunity to see via each perspective, but we do not even within the two hours. Therefore it becomes further unfocused, and disruptive to the central conflict.
Finally, the last twenty minutes were mere fluff. Not to give away plot, but it felt like it was placed there for those wishing Gibson would provide some much needed action to the screen. Nothing that developed, nothing that revealed, nothing that enhanced, merely staged action for a drunk with Hollywood money audience. It was shameful.
Overall, I disliked "Ransom". When I first began this review, I was in a love/hate relationship, but as I wrote I found more issues with this film. The lack of development between minor characters, the entire Jackie Brown subplot was embarrassing, and the scene in which Russo visits the church just wasted my time. The transitions between scenes and plots were lacking, which I blame directly on Howard's inability to control what was happening. He had a strong focus, but the execution is where it faltered. I do not see myself watching this film ever again – and ultimately will smile when seen on late night TV or in the dollar bin – that was the feel of "Ransom".
Grade: ** out of *****