Kidnapping Mr. Heineken

Back in the early 1980s, Freddy Heineken, one of the richest men in the Netherlands and the head of Heineken International, was kidnapped along with his driver. Eventually, one of the largest ransoms ever was paid for his release. This film is about the kidnapping from the point of view of the crooks as well as its aftermath. This is interesting because you never see or hear anything about the police investigation--you only see the police when they are pouncing on the criminals at the end of the film. This all sounds very exciting....so why was I left so unaffected by the film? It is competently made but also rather ordinary.

On the positive side, the music is really, really nice. It provides a taut atmosphere and some of the action sequences were very nice. Oddly, the most exciting moment in the film occurs early in the movie--well before the actual kidnapping. In order to raise funds to pull off the kidnapping, the gang knocks over a bank--and it's exactly what I assumed the rest of the film would be like. However, sadly, after this the kidnapping seemed a bit anticlimactic and the film just seems to descend into a state of adequacy and nothing more. I think much of it is because I never felt particularly connected with the kidnappers and the tension just seemed to dissipate until the relatively exciting finale. The bottom line is that this would be a decent film to rent, but I couldn't see heading to the theaters for this one.

By the way, although the film is about Dutch kidnappers, everyone in the film was British! They sounded very British and although it was filmed in the Netherlands, it seemed more like a British gang there on holiday. The same story is told, incidentally, in a Dutch language film (The Heineken Kidnapping) starring Rutger Hauer as Freddy Heineken. In this British version, the filmmakers were able to secure the talents of Anthony Hopkins to play this beer baron.

I think the story could have been developed way more than what they did. In the first part of this movie, we get introduced to the main characters who - I have to say - have no blame at all in the low scoring of this movie: they are interesting, each one different from one another, with different dynamics going on. Somewhere along the way though, the director or the Writers decided that they needed to be quicker. That is where you can clearly sense how they push a Fast Forward button and every single development present in the first part of the movie is quickly and mercilessly unfold without any decent or (expected maybe)deeper explanation. As other reviewers have already written, this story could have definitely become an impressive Movie, especially thanks to the Actors who took part in it. I have given it a 6/10, but only because of the Actors and the interesting story.

"You know what your doing is completely stupid, unless you pull it off. In which case it could be completely brilliant." When a group of friends are denied a loan they are desperate for money. They come up with a plan to kidnap the founder of the Heineken beer company (Hopkins) and ask for a large ransom in exchange. What starts off as a great idea, little by little begins to unravel. This movie is based on a true story and this is something I knew nothing about. The movie itself started off good and I was interested but the longer it went on the less interested I seemed to get. I'm not sure why, the acting was good and the interactions between the kidnappers was entertaining but this was another movie that I had a hard time staying focused on. It really seemed to stumble toward the end and this was another movie that I was thankful that it wasn't longer. Overall, I wondered why a movie with this cast didn't have a wider release, after watching it I can see why. I disappointingly give this a C.

All the elements are here but some things are not working. The actors give their all, but are a little cliched. I got the sense there was too much dialogue. The story itself is exciting enough, but I guess I've been spoiled by movies about Baader Meinhof and Gomorrah, where the leads were charismatic and the danger more pronounced, and the vision of Europe had more depth and colour. Call me crazy but I thought the lighting and the film stock used were running counter to the intrigue. It all seemed a little too high contrast indoors, and not enough contrast for the night scenes. And the film stock used seemed to lack a little definition and could have been, well, less ordinary, more big screen. There were plenty of locations, but I still got the sense that all the action was taking place in a rather dull, single suburb. Then again, maybe in reality it did. On the plus side, I did think the depiction of the early 1980s was pretty good. I also thought the use of Sir Anthony Hopkins to be a redeeming stroke of genius. Of all the actors his sparse yet crucial use was a joy to behold, and lifted the entire movie. I thought Sam Worthington good too, and to be fair he somehow outshone his immediate friend and unofficial leader of the group, being a darker character and definitely better groomed. That's what I found frustrating about the movie, little things like the lead's uncombed hair. I also don't remember the soundtrack at all, so maybe that was an opportunity that went begging. Kidnapping is an interesting ride and worth a watch, especially as it is all true, but I do believe it could have had a lot more clout.

'Kidnapping Freddy Heineken' is a story about a gang of Dutch crooks who decide that holding one of Holland's wealthiest businessmen for ransom will be a fast-track to easy money. It's hardly an inspiring premise, but the thing that makes it – slightly – better than the rest, is that it's based on a true story.

If you check out the literature online about it, you'll see that – surprise, surprise – liberties have been taken with the plot, but, from what I can gather, it is reasonably faithful – if you excuse the obvious parts which have been 'Hollywooded up' to speed the story up. The second plus point is Anthony Hopkins, who plays the titular millionaire. Always a good performance from 'Sir Tony.' Unfortunately, he's not in it as much as most of us would probably like. The main story focuses on the criminals, half of which are pretty bland, although one is played by Sam Worthington and another does have a family who features prominently, fleshing out his character a bit more. You may have to wait about forty-five minutes before we meet Hopkins though.

The film does its best to get us to empathise with the criminals and, for the most part, it sort of succeeds. We can see that they're the down-on-their-luck sorts who are only really after the money, but, at the end of the day, they are criminals, so – deep down – we're pretty much waiting for them to get their comeuppance.

If you're interested in the history of the case, it's probably best to read one of the books. Granted, I haven't, but I'm happy to settle for the big screen adaptation. Yeah, it passes the time – it's nothing special and I probably won't remember it in a year or so, but it kept me just about entertained enough while I was watching it.