Return to the Hiding Place

irstly, the story follows the lives of students and their involvement with the Dutch resistance. For me, I felt mixed emotions from the film. The storyline appeared to have great potential for a big blockbuster that could have sat nicely next to Defiance and Winter In Wartime on the movie shelf and while I enjoyed the film, sadly, there was much left to be desired. The German Colonel (Stass Klassen), by far led the film in the acting department. His performance was solid and at times comparable to Christoph Waltz's performance in Inglourious Basterds, but sadly, he was alone in this department. John Rhys Davis held his own but really too brief a role to help the film. David Thomas Jenkins, Craig Robert Young and the beautiful Rachel Spencer Hewitt made their presence felt, but I felt their characters lacked depth and consistency needed for them to truly grow on you and take you into their world which I put mostly down to the next part. The directing and screenplay seemed to prove the greatest inconsistency and biggest let down with the film. Maybe due to low budget. At times characters were not clearly introduced or very briefly which left me as a viewer putting 2 and 2 together a lot throughout the movie. Also the story pace was up and down like a roller-coaster sometimes dragging slowly but then moving so fast that the scene changed to hours/days ahead and left me wondering where it was at until once again putting 2 and 2 together. For me this is what hurt the story/movie the most.

There was a strong element of religious notion in the film. Religious values were incredibly important during those times and quite often determined where ones stance lied with regards to helping the Jews.

But having said all this, and it will really depend on the individual, I think overall wanting to watch for the storyline itself and to see the evil Colonel Stass in action kept me glued enough. But you will leave the seat having watched this, with the feeling it could have been so much more, in paying homage to those brave souls portrayed in the film.

I found it quite hard to digest that the lighting, coloring, brightness, costuming, etc. was so bright. Usually war-time movies have that tinge of muteness in tone and brightness, giving an older feel and look. OK, no matter. One thing I noted was, as another wrote above, some of the SS were too old, and heavy set one mentioned, however not all German soldiers were thin. One big faux-pau was the doctor in the concentration camp who wrote the medical slip for Hans (stating he had TB) had a gold wedding ring. No camp inmate would have had a gold wedding ring on, needless to say, any piece of jewelry or personal item-they were all taken from people when they arrived to the camps! During the movie I thought perhaps some of the stories and characters were just story, but since there was some portrayal of the Tan Boom family and their actions, it seemed perhaps to be real. Only until I read about the movie on this website did I realize that many of the stories and characters were factual. Also, everyone was so darn clean, clean shaved. I mean, after being in prison, or running around doing clandestine operations, one would expect to see people pretty dirty and for men, unshaven? As one survivor told me, movies, even some of the big and provocative films as Schindler's List, always white-wash the Holocaust, never do justice as to the brutalities and harsh conditions endured. One question: the Nazi commandant, who was a crazed hunter--did he actually have a lampshade made out of the little Jewish orphan with the large birthmark on his chest, the shade he showed to Hans, when Hans was being questioned in his office? I know about lampshades and soap being made out of dead Jewish bodies from the camps, but have never seen such a topic being shown in a movie. I wonder if this was actual fact or fiction. Sickening either way. And there are those that say the Holocaust was a myth. What fools!

I don't know what stars to give the movie. It is okay, and some actors are very good, like the guy who plays the Nazi colonel. But because he plays his role so well you'll notice that other actors in the movie are not so talented/experienced. Sometimes you see some actors just standing there like they don't know what to do until it's time for them to say a line. Also the director could make some more cuts. The story is too slow here and there. The story is good, but maybe the screenwriter could focus more on how the resistance could stop the 'rabit hunt' on Jewish children and keep some parts that didn't have anything to do with that out of the story to keep the movie going. But nevertheless it's a fine movie with historical value. It's about the Christian resistance in the Netherlands during the second world war and how they fought against the evil national-socialist empire of Adolf Hitler.

This movie was previously released in an unapproved edition. The new movie has new scenes and has deleted some unnecessary scenes and subplots, with new editing.

The U.S. version is being released later this year and is very good. IMDb should do a separate page on the U.S. version, but they have been unresponsive to this, which is very strange. People should see the reportedly much improved U.S. version before dissing the movie, and the ratings should be re-set for the U.S. opening, which will then be sent around the world.

RETURN TO THE HIDING PLACE is superbly written. There are several fascinating subplots that move the story forward. There are several romances that break your heart. Within the strong plot structure, the movie highlights true story after true story of people willing to sacrifice their lives for others, even those who don't like them. The direction, cinematography, and music are excellent.

I'll skip the bad acting, stereotypical characterizations and sum with this: This is a piece of religious propaganda and an inaccurate portrayal of the Dutch under Nazi control and the Dutch resistance.

This movie could only be viewed in a good light by Christian fundamentalist, that care not so much for truth but rather that they are always cast as both the victim and the hero - a characterization not supported by history, let alone by the Christian church's tolerance, acceptance and sometimes outright promotion of the Nazism.

As a movie it was bad acting, mixed with some good stuff. As a piece of history, it was simply Christian wishful thinking and revisionist history.