Il caso Freddy Heineken

This movie promised a heist, a historical kidnapping plot leading to the largest ransom paid in modern history AND Anthony Hopkins as the titular Mr. Heineken. Sadly, this movie failed to deliver. The motivations were at times unclear (There was mention of a major recession but we were never shown its far-reaching effects and thus could not empathize with out protagonists) and at times forced (all of a sudden there is a girlfriend involved who is now pregnant and needs to be financially supported and one protagonist's father appeared momentarily only to reveal he was fired by Mr. Heineken himself and we never hear from him again). The kidnappers were virtually indistinguishable yet the focus was on them instead of the police investigation or on Mr. Heineken's (and his driver's) plight in solitary. To top it off, the end text credits detailing the outcomes of the various characters (which can be found on wikipedia) were more interesting than most of the movie. I have to recommend passing on this and reading a brief synopsis of the real life case instead.

"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.

Bad reviews made me curious and tease me to watch. Especially if its about a true story (book). I am glad I watched it. As my family is partly Dutch I do have some knowledge about the kidnapping. As far as I know the movie is correct and according to reality. The story is thrilling at the moments it should be. From the perspective of the kidnappers: you almost feel pity for them. The great work of Sir A. Hopkins, although his role is limited, is as we want it to be! Superb. Maybe to short, but absolutely genius. Not toforget Sam Worthington (Avatar), Jim Sturgess, Ryan Kwanten, they made their positive contribution to the movie: scamp as they were, in scenes with Heineken and the driver! Nice scenes in Amsterdam and Paris. And yeah... the bottles must be brown instead of green: who cares!? Worth watching: absolute! Best film ever: no, but which one is? A kidnapping is always thrilling and excited: and so is this movie.

Anthony Hopkins lends his name and histrionic talents to uplift an otherwise pedestrian real- life crime thriller KIDNAPPING MR. HEINEKEN. Without his presence this would be just another direct-to-video feature of European origin.

Don't get me wrong -I've been a huge fan of European-made caper and action movies since childhood, growing up watching innumerable dubbed -into-English low-budget imports on TV via syndication packages back in the '60s. At the high end, Jules Dassin's RIFIFI remains the unbeatable greatest caper movie of all time, and the various big-budget, in-joke titles like the original and update series of OCEAN'S ELEVEN are watchable. But give ma a silly Brad Harris-Tony Kendall intl. co-production and I'm in heaven.

With a weak script by William Brookfield, based on Peter de Vries' reportage and book about the beer company magnate's 1982 kidnapping, this film turns out to be lacking in entertainment value. The criminals, a rag-tag group of businessmen/slackers who turn to crime when their unreasonable application for a business loan is turned down, are simply an uninteresting bunch and their reluctance to resort to violence (lethal or otherwise) is morally laudable but leads to dullness - the picture has no sex and no real violence, hardly suitable for today's audiences. And it lacks humor, not even of the Disney or OVER-THE-HILL GANG puerile variety.

Only interesting structural note (which ultimately backfires) is the script's purist approach whereby every scene is presented from the criminals' point-of-view. In a kidnapping story the viewer is used to time-honored clichés regarding the police (or FBI or Interpol) and the victim's family and associates -what they are doing to get Heineken back alive and catch the baddies. But here we have none of this, only scenes about the kidnappers and their apprehension at getting caught. This novel structure (cops only appear sans dialog to pursue or make arrests) violates Hitchcock's famous dictum about suspense -all we get are surprises because we (like the kidnappers) are narratively left in the dark. We never see the net closing in on them, apart from a few red herrings based solely on the criminals' own paranoia.

Jim Sturgess as head kidnapper Cor, a family man with pregnant wife who inexplicably throws all that away to become a fugitive merely longing to return home from his Paris hideout, is empathetic and acts well enough, but can hardly carry a film. The role called for an A-list name, perhaps his supporting co-star Sam Worthington, miscast as Cor's brother-in-law, written as a hothead but unconvincingly played by Sam who the viewer is used to seeing (after AVATAR) as a leading man.

Hopkins in as brief a screen time as won Judi Dench an Oscar for Shakespeare IN LOVE, easily dominates the film with his brief but pungent & idiosyncratic monologues -he gets to speak unanswered because the hooded kidnappers don't want to respond to him verbally at all. You can see the wheels turning in Hopkins' head as he cleverly tries to get into the heads of his adversaries and casting him was a bold stroke (probably the reason Worthington signed on to an unpromising project at this stage in his career).

I did not like the camera-work and editing of the movie, especially during action & chase scenes such as a boat vs. cars sequence on Amsterdam's canals after the boys had robbed a bank delivery van to raise capital for their big Heineken snatch score. And the musical score is horrendous, sounding like a distant copy of those classic 1970s British action movie scores, notably echo-chamber brilliance for Roy Budd's GET CARTER (a movie by Mike Hodges that was among my very favorite films when I saw it several times in 1971 in first-run).

Regarding film's factual basis, that issue is irrelevant to me - I love both LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI regardless of either's allegiance to the original text. HEINEKEN merely proves that a purely fictional movie has more leeway to be entertaining and fanciful - the details here are pretty mundane, the degree of jeopardy for Heineken and his also-kidnapped chauffeur being minimal. The actual bank heist and people snatching are over in seconds, robbing the viewer of the fun which crime caper movies (TOPKAPI, RIFIFI) can provide, even in a silly one like Connery/Zeta-Jones' ENTRAPMENT. And the decision to make HEINEKEN the usual faux-British movie with all principal roles given British accents and speaking English (why not Dutch accents, as Holland with Derek De Lint, Rutger Hauer and endless beautiful actresses has the best English-speaking talent in all of Continental Europe) hurts its real-life credibility. I half expected a certain class of characters here to speak Cockney like Hollywood movies used to do in the 1930s for working-class characters in German or Russian set stories.

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.