shakercoola 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.

SimonJack 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.

Jaromir Adamek 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 :)!

JoeytheBrit 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.