A Life Through Film #038: Ransom

This thriller you forgot about was one of the most popular movies of 1996. How?

Release Date: 11/8/1996

Weeks at Number One: 1

Thanks for reading! This is my ongoing series where I track the evolution of American culture in my life by reviewing every number one film at the weekend box office since I was born in chronological order. If you haven’t already, I highly recommend reading my introduction post here, and be sure to like and share the review if you enjoyed it!

---

Here’s a peek behind the curtain for you all. The website I use to track the box office performance of every movie I write about for this column is a nifty little site called The Numbers. This magical resource breaks down the weekend-by-weekend box office of every movie that’s been theatrically released in the States, and does all sorts of neat lists for the sake of comparison. If you’ve ever wanted a place to find out, for example, that Romeo + Juliet is the 1,574th all time highest grossing non-sequel in America, The Numbers is the place to go and find out.

A lot of those lists are more fun novelty than anything else, but there are a few that I always check whenever I check through a movie’s stats. The All Time Domestic Ranking is important, though at this point in our timeline we haven’t hit many movies that feature highly on that. There’s also the version of that list that’s Inflation Adjusted, which is even more important, since the value of the dollar has damn near doubled over the past 30 years. On a week-to-week basis though, I’m more often looking at the rankings for the current year of our project, in this case 1996.

Let’s zero in on the top 5 grossing movies of that year. I’ve been tracking the big movies of ‘96 for the last six months, and as we rapidly approach the New Year into 1997, we’ve seen nearly every heavy hitter. Mission: Impossible, Twister, and Independence Day make the list real top heavy in the third, second, and first spots respectively. In just a few weeks from today, I’ll be publishing a review of the fourth highest grossing film of the year, a critically acclaimed classic that’s still well remembered to this day. Clearly, being in this upper echelon of domestic gross guarantees that your movie will be well-remembered, looked back upon with both reverence and frequency.

Or that’s what you’d think. Let’s look at number five on that list.

Ransom is a 1996 thriller directed by Ron Howard that stars Mel Gibson, Rene Russo, Gary Sinise, and Delroy Lindo. The plot follows airline tycoon Tom Mullen (Gibson) navigating criminals, the media, and the FBI after the kidnapping of his son Sean (Brawley Nolte, son of actor Nick). Mullen’s unhinged decision to not pay the demanded ransom and instead use the cash as a bounty on the kidnapper’s head twists and contorts the plot as he and the mastermind behind the scheme, a corrupt NYPD cop (Sinise), play an increasingly tense game of cat and mouse.

Seems like a pretty straight forward, if slightly compelling plot for a thriller, right? What if I told you that this movie made $300 million at the box office? I’m looking at the numbers myself and can hardly believe it, but it’s true. You’d think that financial returns like that would mark Ransom as a movie of special quality or as one that has lingered in the cultural imagination. You’d be wrong on both parts. We’ll get to why it’s slipped through the cracks of time in a bit. In the meantime, there’s an easy answer as to why so many people bought a ticket for it back in 1996.

By the early ‘90s, Ron Howard had a reputation problem. Not like Val Kilmer, who was becoming increasingly known for making his film sets hostile working environments. No, Howard, the former child star and now acclaimed director, was known for basking too much in the world of positivity and joy. His recurring role on Happy Days in the ‘70s and early directorial feats, like Tom Hanks comedy Splash and fantasy epic Willow, in the ‘80s were the base of this perception, but his biggest cinematic hit in 1995 was what cemented it.

Apollo 13 is based on the true story of the titular moon mission. After a mechanical malfunction, the astronauts in space have to work together with NASA scientists on Earth to get home safely. Spoiler alert: it all somehow comes together in the end and everyone makes it home, but boy does the movie get you worried about those spacemen (Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton, and Kevin Bacon). The ‘60s setting, the impressively large cast, the compelling narrative, and the great effects come together into what I consider the quintessential Dad Movie. Great flick [4/5, but it’s been a while since I’ve watched it].

My own dad quoted Apollo 13 to me throughout my childhood (I lost track of how many times he’s called me a steely-eyed missile man), but he was far from the only person to get wrapped up in movie. It ended up being the third highest grossing movie of 1995, behind only Toy Story and Batman Forever. This was great for Ron Howard’s reputation as a director of acclaimed hits, but the hopeful nature of the movie did somewhat box him. To many, he may as only have made inspirational, uplifting works. Howard found this frustrating, especially considering his personal life was not as rosy as his movies.

A couple of years ago, Ron and his daughter, the actress Bryce Dallas Howard, revealed that their family had been targeted by a mysterious group of criminals in the early ‘90s. Their phones had been tapped, suspicious vehicles were spotted in their Los Angeles neighborhood, and the FBI had to get involved. The threat was so serious that the whole family had to relocate, all while the Rodney King riots were happening around them.

The Howards were never ultimately the victim of a crime, but the family patriarch couldn’t help to not only worry, but wonder. What would drive someone to stalk and potentially kidnap the child of a stranger (which is what Howard assumed was being planned)? What goes through the mind of a serious criminal like that?

Howard began searching for a script that had to do with kidnapping for his next project. Coincidentally, his producing partner (and foundational part of The Nutty Professor) Brian Grazer had just gotten one. Screenwriter Richard Price, most known for The Color of Money, had just written a thriller about the rich son of an airline executive being kidnapped for ransom in a loose remake of the 1956 movie Ransom!

This new project, which carried over the same title minus the exclamation mark, was originally deemed too dark to be in Howard’s wheelhouse, but the director was eager for a chance to flex. He insisted in interviews that he wasn’t insecure about being seen as a source of optimism; it was more about being able to stretch his creative muscles, since he had never made anything so gritty and tense before. Based on everything I’ve read and seen about Howard, I buy that explanation. It’s easy to experiment when you have confidence in your work paying off, and the director had all the reason in the world to be feeling good about Ransom’s commercial prospects.

Not only was the director of Apollo 13 back, he was bringing in one of the biggest stars he could.

Obviously, the name “Mel Gibson” carries a lot of baggage nowadays. After a 2000s more defined by outbursts of antisemitism and racism than movies, the actor and director has spent most of the last 15 years as persona non grata in Hollywood. It hasn’t been a complete isolation; 2016’s Hacksaw Ridge was a major production directed by Gibson that was nominated for plenty of awards, and he’s even got a movie in theaters as I write this. But compared to the prominence of his star in the ‘90s, Gibson may as well not exist.

At this point in 1996 though, Mel Gibson may be at the height of his powers. You ever heard of Braveheart? Historical epic about William Wallace’s 13th century Scottish rebellion against the British starring and directed by Gibson? That wasn’t quite as big a commercial juggernaut as Apollo 13, but Braveheart was a major cultural touchstone regardless. It was one of the biggest box office hits of 1995, and was so critically acclaimed that Gibson had to pause production on Ransom to go accept the Oscars for Best Director and Best Picture (he also had to pause shooting to get an emergency appendectomy. Busy time for the guy!).

Gibson was already a movie star thanks to franchises like Mad Max and Lethal Weapon, but his already high level of fame blew up to a whole other level thanks to Braveheart. Disney’s Pocahontas probably would have done big numbers regardless, but as the first movie featuring Mel Gibson to release after Braveheart, it became a $350 million smash. And now, Ransom would combine that leading man drawing power with an even more commercially successful director in Ron Howard.

The names associated with this movie are the strongest thing about it. Ransom is a perfectly fine, decent little thriller that is somehow one of the most commercially successful movies of the mid ‘90s.

Let’s talk about tension. For a thriller like Ransom, the crux of the movie is built on raising the stakes through conflict and getting the audience on the edge of their seat before releasing the tension through some catharsis. The best thrillers (like Whiplash, for example [an easy 5/5]) can play you like a fiddle by toying with your anxiety and need for relief with expert pacing and a clear cinematic vision. Ransom is good at this about half of the time.

Here’s an example: the whole point of this movie is that Mel Gibson’s son gets kidnapped, so there’s no tension about whether that’s gonna happen or not. The movie recognizes this and just does the abduction scene about 15 minutes in. There’s still room for building that tension in this scenario though, since we don’t know what the circumstances of that kidnapping will be. There are plenty of shifty glances from strangers to generate that anxiety, but the movie fails to make the actual taking of the boy compelling at all. Liev Schreiber walks up to him, a column blocks our view, and the two may as well disappear through a portal.

Worse, the score by James Horner undercuts the moment musically. Rather than building the tension with shrill instrumentation and growing intensity, the tone of the music here is almost wistfully nostalgic? It’s a noticeable mismatch that doesn’t feel like an intentional choice for the sake of dramatic irony. This is just one of the more egregious scenes as an example, but for such a crucial moment to fall flat is not the most stirring endorsement of Ransom.

There’s also the strange narrative choice to remove basically all mystery from the plot. The reveal of a corrupt detective being behind the biggest kidnapping case of the decade could have been an incredible third act twist, but instead we see it revealed within the first half hour without much fanfare.

There are no great reveals of motivation or hidden depths of the scheme. Instead, the tension comes from characters going against what you might expect them to do in the narrative. This isn’t a bad way to build a thriller necessarily, but it does make the bigger thematic swings in Ransom on topics like class warfare feel half baked as a result.

The film’s plotting doesn’t always fall flat on its face though. The best moments of tension and release in the movie are built off of its two main performances. It would be easy to dismiss Mel Gibson as a talentless hack since by all accounts he seems like a pretty rotten fellow, but that would just be disingenuous. His lead performance as Tom Mullen is varied and surprisingly dense.

This is the kind of business magnate that would bribe a union to keep his airline going but refuses to pay the ransom for his son. What kind of obstinate, strange man would act like that? Gibson hits the full range of this character, never quite making him the righteous hero but instead something closer to a frustrating antihero.

We’re given no such nuance for our villain though. Gary Sinise, in his first major role since stealing the show in Forrest Gump [4/5], is almost comically evil as the ringleader of the kidnapping plot, Detective Shaker. Howard’s interest in showing both sides of the abduction doesn’t morally equivocate at all; one or two of the goons involved clear a very low bar by not being cool with child murder, but Sinise is a straight up monster here.

He attempts to frame his plot as the poor bringing the wealthy down low, but it’s clearly a misdirect. Shaker’s a greedy bastard, willing to enact horrible violence on anyone to get his way. Sinise doesn’t chew the scenery like a moustache twirling villain. Instead, he’s brutal and dastardly in a way that almost feels real. In a twist near the end, the character does something so clever and dastardly that it nearly single-handedly makes me want to recommend Ransom (so I won’t spoil it here).

There are a couple of scenes where Gibson and Sinise have extended conversations over the phone and they’re the best part of the movie. The two leads have incredible adversarial chemistry, even with Sinise’s voice often disguised from Mel’s point of view. I won’t say they carry the movie, because technically the movie is fine without them, but they elevate it to the point of actually being pretty decent.

The rest of the cast does alright, even if they’re not given a ton to do. I like Rene Russo and Delroy Lindo generally (just realized that this is a Get Shorty reunion), but I wish they were given more to do here, especially Russo. The gang hired by Sinise to enact the kidnapping is filled with recognizable faces like Liev Schreiber and Donnie Wahlberg, but they never step out from the shadows as supporting players.

I was actually surprised by how little the young Nolte is actually featured in Ransom, considering his kidnapping is the central point of the plot. He does alright I guess, but he didn’t do much acting beyond this, so I guess the showbiz bug wasn’t genetic.

My main qualm with the movie is that I was left feeling like there should have been more. Ransom is less ambitious than Apollo 13 or Braveheart. It looks and sounds competently made (some strange score choices aside), but there’s nothing that really stands out to me as special in its craft. Most scenes take place in one of two interior sets, there are only a few action scenes of low complexity, and the color grading looks muted and flat. The context of the movies that it was following up made it a big deal, but Ransom doesn’t look or feel like a major studio tentpole at all.

That doesn’t make it a bad movie, mind you, just a confusing one. Gibson and Sinise charge the movie’s energy with their performances, and there aren’t any elements I’d single out as bad. Much of the movie just strikes me as slightly above mediocre. Ransom is fine, just fine. The strangest part about it is that this just fine movie was the fifth highest grossing movie in America the year it came out.

Can this all be laid at the feet of the recent success of both Gibson and Howard? People lament the lack of movie stars these days because of films like Ransom as a comparison point. If Austin Butler starred in a so-so thriller that was directed by the director of Wonka [3.5/5], it wouldn’t even come close to breaking even. But Broken Arrow had a couple of major stars in it and was helmed by a buzzy director and made half as much money as Ransom at American theaters in 1996.

It’s not just movie stars. It’s time to go back to the thesis of this column, because there’s something else going on here.

One source of information that I frequently use when researching these movies is the interview archive of one Bobbie Wygant. Mrs. Wygant was a reporter from the Fort Worth area who interviewed hundreds of celebrities over her 70 year career. Her style is friendly and casual, and I’ve found she does a good job combining softball press junket questions with allusions to larger cultural context around the movie. Wygant passed away last year at the age of 97, but hours of her interviews exist on an official archival YouTube channel.

In Wygant’s interviews with both Ron Howard and Mel Gibson, she asks both men what they’ll say when Donald Trump inevitably comes up to each of them and asks why they made a movie about him.

I couldn’t believe it. This is the third time that our current President has come up as part of my research of this column, and the last time it happened it sent me into a meta spiral that ruined a whole week of work. Wygant’s insistent questioning about Trump baffled me. Tom Mullen is a character who legitimately grinded his way from a working class background and became a successful airline magnate through shrewd and occasionally illegal business decisions. He’s ultimately a decent person, but is maybe too clever and maverick for his own good or the good of those around him. I hope I don’t need to tell you that none of these descriptors apply to our President.

And yet, that image of Trump and celebrity businessmen like him was strangely prevalent in the ‘90s. In his interview with Wygant, Howard tells the reporter that while Mullen isn’t based on any real person in particular, the script pulled from men like Trump, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates for inspiration. In an insane direct quote to consider when you remember the crazy bullshit that Tom Mullen does over the course of Ransom, the director says this:

In this era, there are a lot of CEOs and Chairmen who have become famous for running their business well.

This has never been true of Donald Trump, and arguably it isn’t true of Mullen, either. As the founder and CEO of his airline, the character is for sure wealthy. But he explicitly bribes and incriminates union leaders to further his business interests and acts irrationally during the kidnapping of his son due to an unproven hunch. The fact that he turns out to be correct is almost immaterial; Mullen had no way of knowing that his gamble to turn the ransom into a bounty would pay off. If I had a boss who very publicly put his son at risk out of sheer ego, I’d quit on the spot. That’s not a guy who’s going to be making good business decisions, no matter how much money he personally ended up with.

And yet that reckless abandon is seen as a positive trait in both our fictional millionaires and our real ones. In our capitalist society, we both laud and loathe the ultra wealthy for their success. No matter if it's Donald Trump skipping out on paying hundreds of contractors or Tom Mullen publicly refusing to pay the ransom for his kidnapped son, you’ll always find people ready to defend their actions as smart business. After all, if they’re that rich, they must be doing something right.

This class of celebrity businessman in America dates back to at least the Gilded Age with robber barons like JP Morgan and Andrew Carnegie, but this ‘90s wave of celebrated entrepreneurs came at the right time for Ransom to make the big bucks.

Unlike my crashout over The First Wives Club a few weeks back, I don’t feel that same existential dread watching Mullen be a wealthy protagonist in this film. His in-universe nickname is Mr. Risk, and while by the end we’re supposed to admire Mullen as a daring maverick, it’s also clear that the situation was made far more dangerous with his behavior. Plus, Ransom at least acknowledges the class divide between criminals and victims, though the former group’s attempts to frame the kidnapping as revolutionary praxis are unbelievable at best.

I find Ransom slightly on the positive side of mediocre, but a lot of critics in 1996 found it to be a worthy follow-up to its 1995 forebears. Roger Ebert really dug it, calling it “smarter than your average thriller” in his three out of four star review, though he did also admit to the film “[setting] up more elements than it deals with” narratively. Meanwhile, Steve Davis at the Austin Chronicle hated it, offering an anti-establishment Gen X take in his review:

Though Ransom makes veiled criticisms here and there of those who enjoy the privileged life, their impact is undermined by the film's depiction of the eventual rewards that such an existence brings, even if that involves bending the law when necessary. In other words, guess who you're supposed to root for as the hero? (Given some of Gibson's offscreen macho remarks and conduct the past few years, one wonders where the character begins and the actor ends.)¹

The movie’s politics remain thorny, but based on the box office, most people were willing to admire a millionaire like Tom Mullens. Ransom grossed $34 million that opening weekend, putting it in conversation right away with Twister and Independence Day in terms of financial success. Romeo + Juliet held on in second place but only needed to take in $9 million to do so; the weekend was Ransom’s to lose.

That’s a strong first weekend, but this is an R-rated thriller at the end of the day. It faced stiff family-friendly competition the next week (ooh boy, can’t wait to talk about that one) and never was able to reclaim the top spot. It stuck around forever though, with some theaters still showing it in the middle of April ‘97. Ransom cleared $100 million domestic gross after a month. By the time it finally left theaters, it had passed $136 million in America, and with an even stronger international box office of $172 million, this simply decent thriller ended up with an overall gross of $308 million.

That’s a major number, and yet I had never heard of this movie before researching this column. Had you?

This is where things get weird: in an era of instant access to thousands upon thousands of movies up and down the ladder of obscurity, one of the biggest money makers of the mid 1990s is frankly impossible to find legally. Though anecdotally it seemed to have been a TV staple in the early aughts, a 15th Anniversary Blu-Ray in 2011 was, to this point, the last physical release it ever received. Today, it’s available on no streaming platform, and cannot be rented or purchased digitally on any online marketplace.

What gives? This was a Touchstone release, meaning that the distribution rights should still be held by Disney. It’s a decently bloody and profanity-laden affair, but so what? You can watch the Deadpool movies on Disney+ right now. Does the House of Mouse want to distance itself from the controversial Mel Gibson? If they do, why am I able to watch 2002’s Signs, also starring Gibson and also released by Touchstone, on Amazon Prime right now? Something doesn’t add up.

I found one MSN article pointing out how weird it is that Ransom isn’t widely available anywhere despite its commercial success, but it offers no answers. Frankly, this difficulty of access is a shame. This movie isn’t so good that you need to go find an out-of-print Blu-Ray or scour your usual illegal streaming sites for it, but it’s exactly good enough for a passive sort of watch at midday on a hungover Sunday. It doesn’t ask much of you intellectually (in fact, it’s probably better if you don’t think about its plot much at all), and it has a couple of fun moments. Mediocrity is not so great a sin that movies like Ransom should be impossible to find, but unfortunately that so-so quality means I’m not willing to push you to seek it out.

How about this: if you’re programming a triple feature for your local cinema or your next all-day gathering of friends, consider Ransom. If you lead into it with Apollo 13 and Braveheart before framing it as a confluence of the creative minds behind those films, it acts as a bit of a curiosity. A surprisingly whatever film that has left no legacy except its bizarre digital absence. Tt could serve as a good comedown from the adrenaline peaks of the movies that guaranteed its absurd commercial success in 1996.

Rating: 3/5

Works Cited

NEXT WEEK: COME ON AND SLAM. AND WELCOME TO THE JAM.

See you then!

-Will

1. Though Gibson’s major scandals would break a decade later, by this point he had already been in some minor hot water over homophobic comments made back in ‘91