Mel Gibson’s reason for doing this is that the kidnappers are villains, and if they take the money, they will not let go of the hostages who may already be familiar with their voices. They still have to tear the ticket. It is the right way to only capture heavily and force the kidnappers to release the hostages unconditionally. This will obviously anger the kidnappers and is tantamount to risking the life of the hostage (his son), but if his inference is correct, this should be inevitable.
If you are a kidnapper, will you release someone after you get the ransom? Or to tear up the ticket for your own safety? If the other party offers a reward for arresting you, will you tear up the ticket in anger or continue to think of ways to get the money?
Maybe you, who have never been a kidnapper, have a hard time thinking about it. So let's switch to the other side's point of view. If your son is kidnapped and you pay the ransom, will you pay the ransom or turn it into a bounty to capture the kidnappers? How do you grasp the purpose and emotions of the kidnappers?
The kidnappers in "Ransom Storm" finally used their police status to "rescue" the hostages and claim bounty. Even if he succeeds, the hostages are undoubtedly safe. However, if the thinking of the kidnappers in the real world is different from the film, then the film undoubtedly played a very badly misleading role.
On this issue, the film brought the audience to the position of kidnappers and victims to experience and think, and it did a good job. However, the work in other aspects of the film is very mediocre, background explanation, character creation, etc., you can see the screenwriter's ideas, but the director has not implemented them well.
WeChat public account: feidudumovie (feidudumovie)
View more about Ransom reviews
