The Terrorists (II) (1974) User Reviews

Hostage situation

[jotix100 · 6/10 · 15 September 2006]

The main reason for watching this thriller on the Fox cable channel was the cast. Not having a clue as to whether this movie was ever distributed in this country, but the allure of actors like Sean Connery and Ian McShane in its cast, proved to be the deciding factor for watching this 1975 British production directed by Finnish director Caspar Wrede. The film had the title "The Terrorists", in the version we watched.

After a series of bombs are detonated in London, we are taken to Oslo, where a group of terrorists have kidnapped the British ambassador to that country. The masked individuals demands are passed to the local security forces. Nils Tahlvik, the negotiator wants to put his own plan of action in place. There is a conflict with a British agent who wants to give in to the kidnappers' demands, something that Tahlvik doesn't want to do.

In the meantime, a commercial airliner, about to land at Oslo's old Fornebu airport is taken over by a group of hijackers. The captain takes a chance by making the tires of the plane blow up as they land. All attempts to surprise the kidnappers on board fail. As preparations begin to bring the ambassador and the men holding him to the aircraft, that by now has been fixed for an unknown flight, the police tries, unsuccessfully to send security forces masquerading as the criminals, but everything fails until the end when Tahlvik himself boards the aircraft and a surprise, that has been kept from us, is revealed.

The screen play by Paul Wheeler is confusing, at best. We don't have a clear picture of what is really going on, that is complicated by the ending in which that surprise comes out of nowhere regarding one of the hijackers and the duplicity of someone in the negotiating team.

Sean Connery is not at his best in the film. We get to see Mr. Connery as he looked at that time before any cosmetic enhancements, especially his teeth, which went through quite a change after this film was done. Ian McShane makes an interesting appearance as the evil Ray Petrie, who is in charge of the hijacking team on board the plane. Isabel Dean, has a good moment as the British ambassador's wife pleading with Tahlvik.

While the film is by no means horrible, it could have been probably better with another film treatment and a action director. The best thing in the movie is Sven Nykvist cinematography, which unfortunately doesn't quite show in its splendor because of the faded quality of the copy that was shown.

First film of terrorist group skyjacking

[SimonJack · 7/10 · 2 February 2015]

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.

So-so thriller in which a Norwegian Security Chief well played by Sean Connery is given the dangerous mission of handling risked situations

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 8 August 2019]

In a Scandinavian country, -name given to the three countries of Norway, Denmark and Sweden- , there a national security chief Colonel called Tahlvik (Sean Connery) is tasked to rescue the passengers of a high-jacked British airliner , only to discover that all is not what it seems . The gang of hijackers is led by Ray Petrie (Ian McShane) who seize the British plane as it is landing in Scandinavia . Meanwhile , the British Ambassador is being held hostage at his Embassy by another terrorist team. Skyjack , kidnap : A time-bomb of suspense has started ticking. Two nations are being held for ransom and... Sean Connery is the agent who takes on The Terrorists . Connery Won't Pay Ransom .Hijackers. Kidnappers. Killers. Only one man can stop them.

The action is set in Scandinavia and it concerns two terrorist events : the hijack of a passenger plane on the tarmac of a nearby airport and the kidnap of the British Ambassador whose Embassy residence has been seized by a second group of terrorists . A simple and modest thriller in the same mould as ¨The Intercine Project¨ by Ken Hughes and others at the time , which seems similarly intent on dealing with issues of contemporary relevance as grisly ¨Terrorism¨ during the violent 70s ; however all roles and events in this film are fictitious and any similarity to actual events or persons living or dead is purely coincidental . Generic title betrays its poor as well as sloppy execution . Some stock roles and formula dialogue don't help either . It turns into a straightforward , pretty enjoyable , but slow-moving and complex thriller . It results in a twisted kidnapping movie , being a decent story but middlingly adapted , if somewhat implausible terrorism tale . The movie gains in weight thanks to its typical implications and plot twists . All in all , a neat and unpretentious intrigue movie that offers more food for thought than most such unshamedly commercial movies . Although director Wrede and his cameraman Sven Nykvist are more than compelling , the film nevertheless has a distinct air of triviality due mainly to the made-for-TV ethos that seems to surround the whole production . Sean Connery gives an a decent acting as tough , law and order , Military Police Chief Colonel Tahlvik assigned to rescue the plane and its passengers but he must also deal with several problems . Just like he was a Scottish Lithuanian subcommander in ¨The hunt for Red October¨ (1990) , here Sean is a Scottish Norwegian Securirity Chief . He is very well accompanied by Ian McShane , a veteran actor still working . And a good but unknown support cast , such as : Isabel Dean , John Quentin , Robert Harris , James Maxwell , John Cording, Christopher Ellison , and other Norwegian local actors dubbed with familiar sounding British voice-over players credited at the closing credits , among others.

Good photography by Sven Nykvist , Woody Allen and Ingmar Bergman's ordinary cameraman , being shot on location in Norway , and breathtaking musical score by Jerry Goldsmith are wasted . The motion picture was professional but regularly directed by Caspar Wrede . He was a director , writer , and producer, usually for TV , known for One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich , The Barber of Stamford Hill , The New Inferno , No No ,No ¡ , Private Potter (1962), ITV Play of the Week (1955) and BBC Sunday-Night Theatre (1950) . Wrede was married to actress Dilys Hamlett and he had short but prestigious career . Rating : 5.5/10 . Acceptable and passable .

Convincing thriller

[Renaldo Matlin · 13 March 2002]

Sadly neglected 70's thriller shot on location in Oslo, Norway. Sean Connery looks great as "Scandinavian Security Chief" Nils Tahlvik, and director Caspar Wrede has made some great use of Oslo scenery including a West Side residential area, Oslo's City Hall and Fornebu International Airport (which closed down in 1998). It's also nice to see one of Norway's greatest stage actors, Knut Wigert, as Connery's commanding officer.

All though slow-moving at times this gritty looking thriller has a nice realistic flair to it, including some surprising plot twists along the way.

One final note: from a Norwegian point-of-view it's fun to see how much this British production has the look and feel of a 70's Norwegian film!

Update/comment on Mike's user comment with the headline "Boring Swedish hijacking action": I don't know where he gets all this "Swedish"-stuff as the movie is mainly shot on location in Norway, it has Norwegian actors in some of the supporting roles (most notably Knut Wigert and Alf Malland) and not one Swedish actor, and as IMDb states it is a British production. Sweden had nothing to do with it.

Strong Performances by Connery and Mc Shane

[pictlady · 7/10 · 20 October 1999]

Strong performances by leads Sean Connery and Ian Mc Shane, backed good action segments, pacing and fine winter locations. Poor editing in some spots causes the film to seem a bit stiff as does some inferior dubbing. Nice twists. Connery's always a pleasure to watch, and Mc Shane's bad guy provides an interesting touch as the head terrorist.

An agreeable time-killer.

[Hey_Sweden · 6/10 · 13 January 2018]

Terrorists have seized the British ambassador (Robert Harris) to an unnamed Scandinavian country, and are counting on an associate named Petrie (Ian McShane), who's commandeered a jet, to get them to safety. The main character standing in their way is no-nonsense security chief Colonel Nils Tahlvik (Sean Connery). The passengers on the jet have cause to be concerned, as Tahlvik is not willing to play the terrorists' game. He's going to try to foil them, no matter what it takes.

Although a somewhat forgotten thriller 43 years later, it's certainly still topical enough to have some resonance. It's not particularly *exciting*, or exceptional in any way, but it tells an okay story in capable fashion. Its main asset is its forward momentum, as it races towards the finish line with no filler to speak of, and wraps up in just under an hour and a half. The excellent soundtrack by the always reliable Jerry Goldsmith is a big help in keeping it watchable. It gets off to a grand start with a couple of satisfying explosions, and delivers some twists along the way. It was largely filmed on location in Norway (the wintry atmosphere is most enjoyable), with interiors done at Britains' famed Shepperton Studios.

This viewer wouldn't necessarily consider the performances of Connery and McShane to be "indifferent". Yes, they've been better before and since, but the scenario does benefit from their presence and professionalism. The cast is mostly (and obviously) British, even in some of the Scandinavian roles, and they get the job done adequately.

Largely routine, and forgettable, but entertaining to watch.

Six out of 10.

Undistingushed Thriller.

[AaronCapenBanner · 5/10 · 7 September 2013]

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?

Story was fairly interesting...whats with the ending

[hondo8 · 6/10 · 18 May 2005]

I thought the story flowed nicely and as I watched it I had the feeling it may be one of those good sleepers I had missed in the past. Really most of the actors were weak...but Connery and especially McShane were good. I have to say the ending made no sense at all...and when that happens you wonder why you watched the movie. Did I miss something or were both Connery and McShane(Deadwood) after the same guy. If so why did they fight in the plane....I may have missed something but weren't they basically on the same side? Were the hijackers on the plane all working for the Britsh? Just an absolutely bad ending to a movie that actually had some potential.

Action thriller with little action and no thrills.

[JoeytheBrit · 5/10 · 4 September 2007]

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.

Gritty kidnap thriller

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 28 October 2018]

RANSOM is a sombre and gritty British kidnap thriller, set in the chilly Scandinavian wilds where military police chief Sean Connery must lock horns with a terrorist leader who's got a passenger plane full of potential victims. This is a cold affair, highly political as were so many 1970s movies, and well acted by the principal cast members. Connery plays it down and plays it seriously here with none of that trademark charm, and Ian McShane is well chosen as the edgy terrorist. The film goes for realistic over overblown, with the action limited to a sort-of plane chase and an electrifying final sequence. It does well with the material and doesn't really feel all that dated despite the intervening decades.

Sean Connery in a non "thriller" thriller.

[csab-39797 · 4/10 · 29 December 2018]

I watched this movie because I love thrillers and love Sean Connery, so how bad can it be? IMO bad but not the worse. First off the term 'thriller' should not be used for this film as there are hardly any thrills. I could get past that if the story was at least exciting or made sense. I'm sure on paper it's easy to follow but I have no idea why they took the plane hostage, who's on who's side or why Sean Connery took this script? I feel like a child who needs someone to explain what I just watched, which shouldn't be since the entire movie takes place basically at 2 locations with very little action. If you're looking for a time killer then watch it just to see Sean Connery in one of his worse films but if you're looking for a real thriller stay away.

fine 1970s thriller with GREAT Jerry Goldsmith score

[mombasa_pete · 10/10 · 3 June 2007]

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!

Clever thriller!

[davyd-02237 · 7/10 · 9 February 2020]

You will however, have to get to the end of this to work out why its clever. Having seen it twice, this is really well done, given that a group hijack a plane in order to rescue others from finland (although mostly filmed in Norway). Connery - who leads the cast is the head of interior security and he works out through various clues throughout the film what is really going on and who everyone actually really is. The only possible negative is how badly "Her Majestys government" is portrayed within the film, but it is possible that the activities contained do actually occur without us normal mortals actually know what they are up to

Not very good...

[JasparLamarCrabb · 4/10 · 14 October 2006]

Not very good. RANSON, aka THE TERRORISTS, should have been a tightly wound suspense story involving the commandeering of an airplane by group of thugs, but instead director Caspar Wrede presents everything in such long shots that any tension is lost. When it should be claustrophobic and in your face, it's chilly and distant. Sean Connery is the negotiator who, of course, does not play by the rules and Ian McShane is the lead "terrorist." Neither one is particularly compelling. Connery is clearly collecting a paycheck. The cinematography is, shockingly, by Sven Nykvist! There have been better films of this ilk...THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1-2-3 for sure. Seek that out.

Cool, calm and exciting

[Rakesh Kumar · 31 December 2001]

This film is also called The ransom, not to be confused with the mild action film with Mel Gibson.

The film set in the Scandinavian country (called Scandinavia in the movie, while it is shot in Norway), the snow atmosphere and the heavily dressed characters somehow dictated the slowness of the pace in the movie. Nevertheless, it's exciting. The whole look is not your conventional Hollywood actioner, while at the same time deserves the same class as that of the late sixties/early seventies crime/caper movies like Bullit, French Connection, Taking Pelham One, Two and Three and Dirty Harry.

Connery is fun to watch. He really adds to the atmosphere of the movie and the relatively tame climax looks good with his presence. Good movie. 7/10

Confusing plot

[Marlburian · 6/10 · 7 February 2020]

Interesting and enjoyable film but ...

It seems that I was not the only reviewer to find the plot confusing. I didn't get what the Queen's Messenger was up to and, at first, who was fighting whom and why in the concluding fight. Some people seem to believe that Petrie really was a policeman - I think that Tahlvik merely claimed that he was to sow discord between the two gangs. And I had trouble following Tahlvik's "lighbulb" deduction.

The aircraft pursuit was very scenic and seemed to go on for a while. It was remarkable both that the Scandinavian police picked up the terrorist pilot within minutes of his landing in a very remote location and also that they got him back to the airport (presumably by road vehicles) in such a short time.

It's films like this that make my regret the closure of the old IMDB message boards, whose content sometimes helped me - and others - to a better understanding.

Boring Swedish hijacking action

[Mikew3001 · 6/10 · 21 April 2004]

"Ransom" is a Swedish 1974 action thriller about a bunch of terrorist taking the British ambassador in Sweden and an airplane full of passengers on an airport as hostages for blackmailing the government to free some radical political prisoners - a typical plot of seventies' politics and thriller books and movies. It's Sean Connery's turn now, playing the Swedish secret service boss Tahlvik, to free the hostages, and he finds out a shocking political conspiracy between the governments and the terrorists...

Well, only Sean Connery is worth being watched in this movie, playing a moustache-wearing agent in his European post-007 years with the well-known James Bond touch, but with a sharper and more tragical edge. The other actors are rather mean (watch out for Germany's legendary "Kommissar Keller" Erik Ode in a cameo), but Finnish director Caspar Wrede and his production team didn't do a really good job!

Although the story is good, Wrede didn't know how to produce action, thrills, subplots and interesting characters. Except for some explosions in the beginning of the films and a short showdown at the end, the pacing is boring, the characters are dull and the editing seems like from a first-step student short cut. With an experienced director, photographer and editor, this movie could have been a lost little treasure maybe. So you can only wonder why Connery and Jerry Goldsmith, who provided a rather weaker score here, got involved with this picture. "Ransom" is far away from the great new wave of Swedish action, thriller and political crime books and films of the last 15 years - and it can't compete at all with Joseph Sargeant's brilliant subway hijacking drama "The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3" which was released a short time before.

Smørbrød of fishy plot and cheesy convolution

[shakercoola · 5/10 · 9 June 2018]

A British thriller; A story about a ruthless military police chief assigned to rescue a plane and its passengers from hijackers, and an ambassador whose residence was seized by a group of terrorists. Filmed in Norway, this melodrama builds tension quite well with the terrorists convincing in their terrifying aims and desperation. The icy landscape and snow setting lend an interesting atmosphere and Jerry Goldsmith's musical score adds to the suspense. However, it underwhelms in a few ways: the direction lacks style, sound dubbing is awkward, and the storyline is a little far-fetched.

Ransom

[Prismark10 · 6/10 · 9 April 2024]

Ransom would had worked better if it had a better director. Like Sidney Lumet who Sean Connery worked with several times.

There is an interesting story here. Writer Paul Wheeler had a history of working with the British Foreign Office and the British security services. He certainly brought his knowledge to bear here.

Set in a Scandinavian country. The British Ambassador has been kidnapped by a political terrorist known as Shepherd responsible for a series of bombings in London.

Hard headed, uncompromising and controversial security chief Colonel Tahlvik (Sean Connery) is dealing with the hostage negotiations.

The British diplomatic representative Captain Frank Barnes (Jeffry Wickham) working with Tahlvik wants to negotiate with the terrorists. Tahkvik does not believe in being soft to terrorists.

Matter are complicated when a gang led by Ray Petrie (Ian McShane) hijacks a British plane about to land at the airport. Petrie is in communication with Sheperd (With Tahlvik listening in.) Apparently the plane is to give safe passage to Shepherd and his gang as their original escape means has been compromised.

Now Colonel Tahlvik is dealing with terrorists on two fronts. Shepherd will meet up with Petrie on the plane. The British Ambassador is seriously ill. The passengers on the plane are at risk. The pilot bought some time by somehow bursting the tyres of the plane. (However the airport does not have a jack for the plane to replace the tyres!)

Ransom is a convoluted but intriguing thriller. It works on several layers if you are into complex espionage stories. It is more of a talky slow burn film than action.

There are several clues laid about potential duplicity. Petrie's people are surprisingly not that bloodthirsty as hijackers. I just think the movie could had been better.

**

[edwagreen · 4/10 · 16 June 2016]

I was wondering when all the action was going to start. After all, this film concentrates on a hijacking thriller and with the exception of one passenger who resisted, no violence whatsoever goes on during the 90 minutes of this film.

Sean Connery plays a hard-nosed by the book chief assigned to end this situation where a British Ambassador, dying from heart disease, is held captive by terrorists and as they make their escape, they're warned of impending doom. Along comes some cohorts to hijack an airplane and threaten to blow it up with the 100 passengers and crew on board.

Ian MacShane plays the devilish heavy here, but is really a heavy? Routine fanfare.

Scandal avian.

[bbjzilla · 6/10 · 18 February 2023]

It's the mid 70s and a post Bond Connery has to explore the options available in order to expand his "range". Hollywood has gone "youth" with genre breaking thrillers from new talent ushering in a new realism and political awareness.

These things are evident in "Ransom" which is not particularly violent but seems to want to play a dystopian understanding of global hypocrisy while keeping a fairy tale ending, kind of like another airport bound thriller, Die Hard 2 would do with a higher body count and more sophistication.

Bad guys are loosely sketched, the wife of a diplomat hostage goes nerve shreddingly irrational, the plot is moved from signpost to signpost as our hostage negotiator solved the case almost completely out of nowhere. There's crosses and double crosses but nothing that surprises and no sequences that hold the tension.

Sadly, it's got the talent, it's got the movement and the intent but it's only got an idea for a script rather than a fully realised screenplay. A real missed opportunity.

The storyline doesn't make much sense

[CrimeDrama1 · 4/10 · 26 April 2022]

I have been a big fan of Sean Connery's films for decades so I was intrigued by the two different titles to this movie on FXM Retro. The opening scenes were confusing with only music over the chaotic fires and explosions.

The way the story was constructed left an underlying conflict: The British Government didn't trust Colonel Tahlvik enough to tell him what was really happening on the airplane, even after he nearly screwed up their complicated undercover operation the first time, but they left him in charge unchecked? It wasn't explained why the British didn't trust Tahlvik but it seems to me there is a greater risk NOT telling him the truth. If the British had informed Tahlvik that Petrie was working undercover to capture Shepherd, the only real terrorist, they could have devised a plan right away. Not that it would have been easy but Tahlvik ended up working against the British but only because they didn't tell him the truth, ever.

I did like the way they showed how Tahlvik figured out what was really happening. Too many times there are big leaps right to the dramatic conclusion. I also call B. S. on selling the fact that anyone would have believed at that time that a bomb could be remotely detonated with a wristwatch that had no battery. If Tahlvik or anyone else had figured out that there was no bomb on the airplane it would have changed everything.

Great, but underrated movie

[adam-1009 · 10/10 · 21 July 2007]

I bought this movie only because I was curious what would Sean Connery do in Swedish movie... Well, it turned out to be British movie filmed in Norway, but the story takes place in Sweden. But that wasn't the big surprise...

After watching "Ransom" I was really surprised that I've never heard of this movie, because it was really good - intelligent, surprising and entertaining - what more could you expect from a thriller?? I was even more surprised when I saw how low the rates are in IMDb - perhaps some people were expecting lots of explosions and car chases, but instead it is brilliantly handled thriller which really worked for me :)

Where is the country of Scandinavia?

[kris-gray · 6/10 · 6 November 2019]

I mean that is really, really stupid, everyone knows there is no such country as Scandinavia, it was filmed in Norway so why not say it's in Norway? Other than that blunder it's not a bad film.

What the low rating reviewers are missing is that it was made in 1975 when event like this happened quite a lot, it was easy then to smuggle guns onto a place, there were no scanners or any kind of security before boarding planes. There certainly wouldn't be any problem with nail clippers! I've had mine confiscated before but was allowed to take a bottle of vodka which could have been turned into a Molotov cocktail or broken up for a lethal weapon, speech over, I digress.

Okay not Mr Connery's finest moment, however he has done at lot worst, Zardoz comes to mind. Sure he never quite manages to loose that Scots accent but as a lot of them are descendants from Scandinavia you should excuse it.

To say the plot has been done many times before isn't quite correct, remember it was made a decade before Die Hard a film it has been unfairly compared with.

Not a great film but certainly not a 1 or 2 star film either so I really don't understand them.

Well I enjoyed it.

Ransom

[henry8-3 · 5/10 · 13 November 2019]

McShane hijacks a plane demanding safe passage for a terrorist group who are holding the British ambassador captive in Norway. Head of Security Connery gets the job of sorting things out.

This is a solid enough thriller in the snow with the best bits being with tough uncompromising Connery. There are also a few good set pieces and one or two twists in the tale. The bits in between though don't really add to the tension and the endless dubbing of every other character actor is distracting.

Not bad, but could have been better.