De Heineken ontvoering

Rutger Hauer in great shape, as he has but a few lines, as Alfred Heineken bullied by a young criminal, who in fact build a scary career afterwards. Story well told, much better than the English remake. Heineken never fully recovered, not all the money was traced. More interesting, I admit, once you know what happend afterwards. Not every kidnapper managed to grow old. The young criminals sister, a lawyer, later wrote a book on him, that shocked the a Dutch readers. On basis of her testimony, incl recorded phone calls, he was convicted. With Hauer on screen, there' s a strange effect, he draws your attention, even when he is silent. Sad he is no longer among us.

The producers of this movie stressed that this movie was not strictly based on the book by Peter R. de Vries, the crime reporter. This book is (claimed to be) an accurate account of what the planning, kidnapping and aftermath actually was like. One of the greatest features of that book is the planning stage, which was incredibly meticulous and exciting.

The producers decided to go their own way, but made a critical error. They assume that people know the story, and subsequently leave out key parts of the narrative. This leaves the audience guessing at times what is actually happening. The planning stage is almost completely skipped with the kidnapping taking place in the first 10 minutes of the movie. A bit later there is a scene where the kidnappers are waiting for a ransom money transfer but this goes awry. The problem is that it is not explained that this is a ransom transfer attempt, and uninformed people that are not familiar with the actual kidnapping do not have a clue what is going on.

So the producers decide to NOT base the movie on the book, but trust that the plot is explained by the knowledge people have of the book. It's easy to see that this will not work, and so it doesn't.

Pacing is also a problem as scenes seem to drag on forever and overall atmosphere is very negative and pressing. It seems like there is a fire burning underneath the movie and pressure is building, but it is never released soon enough to be a pay off for the audience.

Acting is quite good, but the script and wooden dialogue aren't doing the actors much favor. Hauer as Heineken is a good fit, as is the main character who is a dead ringer for Willem Holleeder.

It was a mistake to make a movie about a topic so famous that (almost) everyone knows the complete story and subsequently twist the story in the extent that they did. I almost wish Peter R. de Vries will go through with a script more strictly based on his book.

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".

Rem Hubrechts' family is struggling after the Heineken plant closing. He blames his father's deteriorating health on the company. After a run-in with Freddy Heineken (Rutger Hauer), he recruits his brother-in-law Cor van Hout with his friends to execute their kidnapping plans on the brewery tycoon. The second half of the movie chronicles their escape after getting the ransom. Freddy hounds the four kidnappers across the globe.

The movie is altered from the true story. Rem's story is too convenient. His personality change is jarring. It's relying too much on his hatred as a reason. The way to make it work is to have an underlying personality flaw for Rem. The second half could have been more compelling if Rutger Hauer's powerful persona is released. He's turned into a wimp and it's not as compelling. There is a lack of intensity due to the pacing. The real story has good potential but this is unable to harness it fully.

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.