The Ransom of Red Chief (1998 TV Movie) User Reviews (9)

not the best version of this story

[ender342 · 4/10 · 11 April 2009]

'Red Chief', one of O.Henry's most engaging stories, has been filmed at least three times. (I can find no record of the Alex Linz version several have referred to; it does not appear in his IMDb biography.) This version strikes me as the poorest of the three: too much slapstick, too many extraneous characters (the housemaid, the sheriff/narrator) who only slow down the action.

The story was first filmed in 1952 along with four other stories in 'O.Henry's Full House'. The kidnappers were played by the brilliant radio comedian Fred Allen and the equally brilliant pianist/comedian Oscar Levant so it should have been a winner but somehow it failed to click, to me at least. (Lee Aaker of 'Rin Tin Tin' played the boy.) But amazingly the truest and funniest version of this quintessentially American story was filmed in France. 'Le grand chef' (1959) featured Fernandel, then France's leading comic, and Gino Cervi, a prominent Italian actor. 'Red chief' was played by an enchanting youngster named Papouf. Downloadable copies are available but so far I haven't seen one with subtitles. You can use it to brush up on your French or just to enjoy the action.

Okay, I guess?

[BadWebDiver · 6/10 · 29 August 2004]

I'm a big fan of Christopher Lloyd, and I really love the original short story of this. But I'm not a really huge fan of this version (though I don't exactly hate it either).

Christopher is very good in this (and it is the sort of role that seems tailor-made for him). Alan Ruck makes a pretty good job with the small role of the thankless father. And Haley does show a lot of personality and charisma as the main kid, even if he is a bit too "soft and nice". (I swear I saw a version with Alex Linz in the role - who is a lot more inheritantly mischevous. Maybe I just imagined it).

What I don't like about this is that fact that a lot of the broad wit of the original story has been severely toned down and "cutsified". I half-suspect it's because of the mid-90s era, the time of PC and everyone in America is expected to to be gushingly sweet to each other, and nothing bad or mean should ever be shown of tv, or that sort of thing. The whole while feels really tame (and cheap), and really lacks the dynamic punch that made the original story so good.

It's alright as a cutsey family film for undiscerning kids, but it could have been a lot funnier and more "rascally".

Did they just use the title and character names?

[nellybly · 4/10 · 15 February 2006]

I realize that a short story, unless it's part of an anthology, is difficult to use as a TV or movie story without a certain amount of padding but I think there is just a bit too much padding. It's a good and fun family movie, I'll give it that, but I was hoping it would stick a bit closer to the short story. There were times I felt they'd used the title, character names, and a few of the incidents from the story and that's it.

It's best for someone who is not expecting it to be the same as the short story.

I think the 1975 version was much better and it still played rather fast and loose with the story. Being shorter it didn't have a chance to play _quite_ so fast and loose, though.

I guess I'm just disappointed that they felt they had to change so much of O. Henry's story.

I'm keeping it around for my grandson who will enjoy it but I'll also introduce him to the source story. He's almost 10 so it won't be a problem with his attention span and also will help him to realize that if you've read a jacket or cover blurb (or even seen the movie) you haven't read the story. He tends to base his book reports on blurbs.

A nice cast was assembled and they all gave good performances. Christoper Lloyd and the late Michael Jeter are very dependable and a pleasure to watch. Child actors, by their very nature, are often a bit cutesy and the boy should have been a couple of years older with a certain rough and readiness about him but I think they managed to make him a bit annoying, which is almost as good.

I thought that it was going to be another boring class movie, but I was amazed!

[shamaraakalilmara · 7/10 · 14 December 2005]

You walk into class, and your teacher states that you would be watching short stories that were developed into movies over the next couple of weeks. Your response: Yippe (in a sarcastic way). You finally get to 'Ransom of Red Chief' and it already sounds boring. This happened to me. I didn't really start paying attention until some of my classmates started giggling. Actually, nobody was watching it until it appeared to be a great movie. It was a comedy, about two guys trying to make a quick buck. They had this master mind plan about raising money by kidnapping a man by the name of Ebenezer Dorset's little boy. One would think that the boy, AKA Red Chief would get hurt, but it was the criminals who did. At the end our sides were split listening to it! Have fun with it, and believe me when I say that it is worth while.

Haley Joel Osment is the big surprise here - and an unexpected one.

[Atreyu_II · 6/10 · 27 December 2011]

This is the typical TV movie. You can tell from its budget, from its look, from its minimalism...

Seriously, this movie is nothing (and I mean, nothing) special. Although very far from being good, it does offer some fun to its audiences, particularly by Haley Joel Osment (he really is the one who steals the show). This was before Haley got widely known. Even in his early years he already possessed great potential for dramatic roles ('Bogus' is one good example of that) and he is better known for his acting skills in drama rather than in comedy. However, in this TV movie he is hilarious (I never thought I'd say this about him one day), particularly anytime he mimics indians and calls himself Red Chief. Not just that, he is way funnier than gloomy in this movie. This is the living proof that Haley could do comedy as well as he could do drama.

As a movie, it actually deserved a 5 rating, but I gave it a 6 as a gratitude gesture over Haley's fantastic performance in an unusual role for him.

Feel-good movie

[MMiicchheellllee · 7/10 · 5 August 2005]

I thought this movie was indeed a little bland at points, but overall it's a good movie to watch, sitting at home with your family, and gives a sense of warmth into the picture. I have always liked Christopher Lloyd (Back to The Future, Dennis The Menace, etc.) and I feel that he has done well in this movie. Haley Joel Osment (I'll Remember April, The Sixth Sense, Forrest Gump etc.) has always been one of my favourite child-actors, (next to Trevor Morgan of course), and does an explicitly wonderful job. I can admit, maybe he was a little too soft and, the little boy he played, is anything but nice. A dastardly, mischievous, little wretch, who enjoys nothing more than breaking the rules, (and no, no-one imagined Alex Linz playing the role of the little boy in a previous movie, he did, and played the role with much more trouble in him) but, I can say, that I did enjoy this movie immensely. And so did my kids, sat through it and watched it the whole way through without any interruptions. (Which is actually quite of a miracle, because usually all they enjoy watching is cartoons and The Disney Channel). I say well done, apart from the mishaps, and unfortunate casting in some parts (that I won't mention) a feel-good movie that I enjoyed, and would watch again! Also, I recommend it to anyone who enjoys a little mischief, and also, quite some feeling.

Well written, well acted, Good Film

[Darthginger · 10/10 · 30 July 2001]

This film came as a shock to me, i found this extremely funny and intelligent (not including bill.) Good performances by the cast and an excellent screenplay make this a must see film. Bill, the bumbling side-kick has his share of laughs, and Andy's father gets a lot of laughs with his sarcasm.

Haley Joel Osment, even though much younger still manages to steal the show with another excellent performance.

A class act all round, top notch film 10/10, and thats only because i can't go higher.

Not that bad

[wxman-6 · 8/10 · 19 December 2007]

I saw this movie in Language Arts and it's a well acted, well written, generally funny. There are some very corny cliché' jokes at the beginning (bad guys falling into mud, been there, done that). It's based on O Henry and of course the storyline and especially the ending is fantastic (he is famous for those ironic twist endings, like THE GIFT OF THE MAGI. Girl sells hair to buy husband chain for watch but husband sold watch to buy girl combs. Classic.) This film does have some great jokes and really surprisingly great acting. I was surprised to find out this was only a TV movie! The plot basically is that a troublemaking little boy is kidnapped by two bad guys (your average bumbling, kinda stupid, yet nice,) trying to make some money when their recent purchase of a mine fails. Since the boy is a trouble maker so, naturally, the parents don't believe him at first. I can't spoil the ending now can I?

I was pleased when I saw this. Flows nicely with the actual story.

[SG1Freak · 18 October 2003]

I read this story when I was in seventh grade, and was happy to see this television movie. It flowed nicely with the actual story, and I did not have one complaint. For anyone who has ever wanted to watch or read a family oriented piece, 'Ransom of Red Chief' is a good one.