De Heineken ontvoering

Being someone from the Netherlands, I've seen probably a lot more Dutch movies than the average non-Dutch person. I also know that the average quality of these movies isn't very high (not to bash the efforts, but many Dutch films are quite flat). There are of course some exceptions, but altogether it results in being skeptic about every Dutch movie before I see it. However, this should not prevent me from actually seeing them without any biased feelings beforehand. I went to see this film yesterday night with a friend of mine. A movie that stars Rutger Hauer, whom I see as the best Dutch actor, is very interesting. Even more so when he has picked up the role of Freddy Heineken, one of the most iconic figures in the (Dutch) beer industry on the planet. The abduction of Freddy Heineken was in 1983, 10 years before I was born, so I must add that I really missed the cultural impact it made.

The review itself. This movie does not feature a fully nonfictional version of the story, nor does it claim to do so. It is clearly stated that the facts and additional dramatic elements are mixed together, which results in this film.

I must say, one of the greatest elements of the film is the variety of tension and ease. Scenes that feature the abduction crew tend to be very hasty and feature a lot of action, while the older Mr. Heineken provides the audience with a much more calm impression. This split of perspective is very important for the film, because it also tries to emphasize on the lives of the members of the abduction crew: They are all poor lads caught in the crisis of the 80's and they disrespect any kind of authority. The main character in this perspective is the young Rem Humbrechts, who has yet to prove himself in the world of crime. Only of his life do we really get to see a lot: his father is an alcoholic, claiming to be so because he used to work for Heineken, and that he had to drink a lot. Rem wants to help his father, one of the main reasons to abduct Heineken for a lot of money (35 million Gulders). Abductors are mainly villains in black clothing, completely anonymous. That is little different here, but we also get to see the poor, struggling side of Rem, and how he was actually born a very kind lad.

The acting is very, very good. Rutger Hauer shows his experience and acting abilities once more as a very convincing Freddy Heineken, seeking revenge, seeking his captors to be put behind bars. But also he shows weakness, fear, as we can see in the many nightmares about the guy in black, similarly clothed as his captors, as this is all he knows of them. We see an old man's struggle to regain his normal life, yet having the fear that someone, somewhere, might be waiting to get him. The less well known Reinout Scholten van Aschat, who took up the role of Rem Humbrechts, shows quality in that he manages to grow with his character: In the beginning, he is but a greenhorn, he means naught. This changes later in the movie, as he planned the whole abduction and he gets credit for his work. He becomes a lot more remorseless and bitter, though eventually getting caught. This contrasts the other captors, who remain quite consistent in character, throughout the movie. They have rather flat personalities. Little do we know, or get to know of them. We do not need to though, it's not a problem.

Another strong element is that the movie is far from over even after the police have found Heineken. The story continues, justice must be dealt to the captors. Which turns out to be quite the challenge.

In short, this movie is a great exception of Dutch cinema. I really enjoyed watching this movie, it features some very grim and exciting action and Rutger Hauer shines like a bright star in a clear night sky. I can recommend this movie to everyone looking for a good action/thriller.

Having watched the American version of the same incident, it is tough to say which one you should prefer. Obviously both have their limitations, but also strong points. It's the same story, but the weight lies on different things with those movies. While this feels more like a cold, going through what happened movie, the American version was a bit flashier.

This also relies even more on Heineken himself (the character/personal life) and the aftermath, which was handled fairly quickly in the US version. So both can be watched under different aspects and sort of work as companion pieces.

This was a film I came to in a very circuitous route. There was a wonderful piece in The New Yorker in August 2018 entitled "How a Notorious Gangster was Exposed by His Own Sister" by Patrick Radden Keefe. It was about the events leading up to what was the biggest court case at the time and one that had the attention of all of the Netherlands. The article was so well written and interesting that I picked up Astrid Holleeder's book Judas while in Aruba (the translation to English is disappointing as it would have done better to have the story told by an actual writer/storyteller vs. Astrid herself. Also, Astrid seems to have no remorse for living off of the money begot from crime...making her a very unsympathetic character.) After reading the book and feeling very let down, particularly about details of the Heineken kidnapping, I sought out this film to watch.

Rutger Hauer does an excellent job playing the esteemed businessman Heineken, he had just the right amount of smart savvy that exposed the "criminal masterminds" for what they were...crazy and poorly coordinated. It is sad when there is so much work put in to ill begotten gains.

Decently told kidnapping story, worth watching, based on the real-life kidnapping of Freddie Heineken that was masterminded by the infamous Dutch gangster known as "De Neus".

Well done for bringing these talents together. Rem annex Holleeder is a great invention and makes the movie worth seeing. I also liked Heinekens wife a lot. What is great that the film also brings some humor to it. Before the premiere I was a bit skeptical but it worked out really well. I loved all the scenery. Great locations. I waited almost 30 years for this film. It was worth waiting for it. I think it must have been difficult to leave some details out. Something I was surprised of is that they put emphasis on Heineken personal life. They literally brought two worlds (gangsters and Heineken) together in their private world, which makes it interesting and not to factual.

Freddy Heineken was with his namesake company for almost 50 years, eventually becoming the president. He was the driving force behind Heineken becoming an international brand. He married Lucille Cummins, an American from a bourbon family. He was at the pinnacle of Dutch corporate life.

In 1983, six years before retirement, he and his chauffeur Ab Doderer were kidnapped and held for ransom by a gang of Amsterdam petty criminals: Cor van Hout, Willem Holleeder, Jan Boelaard, Frans Meijer and Martin Erkamps. They demanded and were paid a ransom of 35 million guilders. They successfully escaped to France, where they were eventually caught and extradited back to the Netherlands to do time. Some of the money was never found. Meijer escaped for a while to Paraguay, but he too was caught eventually.

Holleeder served his time and was released in 1992. (Hey, this is the Netherlands.) He emerged wealthy and well connected in the Dutch underworld and was later convicted of another famous crime. In the eyes of the Dutch media he has become notorious, the country's best known criminal.

Dutch director Maarten Treurniet has made a film about this very famous crime. However, like in most Dutch historical movies, telling a good story is paramount, so the film is deliberately not quite historically accurate. For example, Heineken's wife is portrayed as Dutch. Holleeder and others have complained about the inaccuracies in the film, Holleeder even litigating from prison to object at how he was portrayed and the inaccurate details. Holleeder has been renamed "Rem" in the film.

Even if the story wasn't totally accurate, it brought the whole affair to life for me. I thought it was a good film. The story, pace, acting, technical aspects all worked well. The melodrama you often see in Dutch movies was toned down.

The movie hinged on the personal relationship between Heineken and Holl..., er, Rem. Civilisation is a thin veneer. None of us, even the rich, are ever that far away from the Darwinian world of the schoolyard. The movie Heineken doesn't take kindly to being terrorised by Rem, but Rem understands the impact of physical violence. The movie unexpectedly humanised Holleeder for me, at one point trying to show that bad boy Rem himself was the victim of circumstances.

Rutger Hauer's performance was superb: he WAS Freddy Heineken. Reinout Scholten van Aschat (who really looks like the young Holleeder) brought the character to life. He projected both the physical magnetism and mean spirit of the narcissistic bully.

I enjoyed this movie for what it was. For me, it was one of the best Dutch movies in a while, and still is. I recommend this film.