Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Hostage melodrama filmed in Norway. A gang of hijackers seizes a British plane as it lands in the fictional country of 'Scandinavia'. A ruthless military police chief, played by Sean Connery, is assigned to rescue the plane and its passengers. An ageing, unwell British Ambassador, whose residence has been seized by a second group of terrorists, is taken hostage. There is a power to the film - the terrorists in question are convincing in terrifying aims, angst and desperation. The atmosphere helps with the snowy, icy landscape. Jerry Goldsmith's score adds to moments of good suspense. However, with some obvious dubbing, far-fetched storyline and an array of upper-class English accents seemingly unlikely to carry out such dastardly deeds, the film becomes more underwhelming as it progresses.

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.

Recap: The British ambassador is kidnapped by a known and ruthless terrorist. He is responsible for many bombings with many civilian deaths. So the British government is willing to accept the demands. But, the problem is that they are not in England, but in Scandinavia. The Scandinavian government first regards it as a British matter, but when accomplices of the terrorist hi-jack a plane, it becomes their problem. In charge of security is Colonel Tahlvik, and he is not about to give in to any demands.Comments: The first thing I noticed, or got stuck on, is the concept of Scandinavia. It is clearly set and filmed in Norway, why not let it be Norway. Why create an error, when you don't have to? Well, disregarding that, it is still a rather average thriller. It has some twists and turns. Quite a solid story actually with some details revealed in hindsight. But it is slow. Connery is strong as the main character, the powerful and resourceful Tahlvik, but he is almost too alone. The supposed terrorist is not his main opponent. The terrorists friend, the hi-jacker must be regarded as the main opponent, but it is divided among several characters, those just being two of them. The intention is clearly to force Tahlvik to battle on many fronts. Unfortunately the result is a lack of focus. No real opponent gives no real fight, and no real dramatic climax.Some scenes, I think especially of the air-plane chase, is very beautifully filmed. However it doesn't add anything to the story. It seems the move provides one or the other. Story or picture. However, the really good movies provide both in the same scene.The movie seems a little forgotten, especially considering that Connery is the lead man. Not his best work, but good enough. Works well enough for an evening, but probably won't stick with you forever.5/10

Almost standard thriller (the ethanol :) ).I like the role of Sean Connery which was very calm :). Something as, "it's only other day in work, don't disturb, take your meal...". He doing everything with cold head, in right moment and precisely. Good role for good actor.Sean Connery is the best part (for me) on this film. Without him the film was true B.The story of Ransom was shiny clear but will little complicat later.Someone calling this film as ancestor of Die Hard (I'm loving Die Hard, it's the best film :) ). I don't agree at all. Bruce Willis was same good guy as Sean Connery but, Die Hard was much better, it's higher class.In summary it's good standard thriller with classics turn of events, which you will not wait! So watch it, isn't better thing, than will be surprised :)!