User Reviews

The events of 30 November 1983 when Freddy Heineken was kidnapped in Amsterdam are well-documented. It resulted in the highest paid ransom up to that point in history.

The movie is a bit disconcerting because it features an all-star cast of British actors, and a former Brit as Mr Heineken, but overall did not detract too much from the story when you finally realize they are all Dutch.

The group of five men are depicted as needing money, they have what seems like a legitimate business but need a bank loan. Unable to secure that they resort to crime. The plan is to kidnap Freddy Heineken, hold him for ransom, and expel all their financial woes.

Anthony Hopkins, former Brit and now American citizen, is very effective as Freddy Heineken. As history witnesses the men were able to get the money, split it up, and get away. But only for a short time. Even though two of them managed to get to France, and one to Paraguay, they all ended serving prison terms. Not all of the money was recovered.

There is nothing very special about this movie, mainly interesting because of its historical account. The crooks are depicted as mostly bumbling, they had no real strategy for the aftermath of the kidnapping and ransom delivery.

2015's Kidnapping Mr. Heineken is the latest film co-starring Anthony Hopkins. At 95 hasty minutes, it's a true story adaptation devoid of inspiration yet loaded with veneer. Hopkins, with a voice that seems as mellifluous as the sound of crashing waves in the ocean, plays the title character. Portraying Freddy Heineken, he's a wealthy guy, the CEO of Heineken International (the beer company natch), and a debonair soul taken hostage by five desperate criminals. I gotta tell ya, Hannibal Lecter is a hoot playing this character. There's no fear in him and a certain nonchalantness to the way he's held captive in a soundproof room. He wants books to read, he needs some variance in the music played while awaiting ransom demands, and boy does he crave plenty of bang bang chicken from the local Chinese restaurant. Truth be told, I've never seen a characterized victim so laid back in his catastrophic predicament. This is just another business transaction for a guy who pisses a poultry, one million dollars.

"Heineken", with its crackling dialogue and Holland-based locales, is directed by newcomer Daniel Alfredson. As a motion picture, it moves at a riotously fast clip. It's witty and dark, nasty and last-ditch. We're talking lock, stock, and five smoking bandits. The film score featured is very calculated. It's baseline for a heist/abduction spectacle. And mind you, it's only made more effective by the lightning-quick editing that Mr. Hakan Karlsson bestows upon us (he cut the TV series, Millennium). But what's the basis for this vehicle I'm about to propose as a mixed review? Well, things end on a run-of-the-mill note. We're talking about true events with minimal evidence via the fugitives (an anonymous tip, really?), vacant spacial reckoning, and absolutely no one to root for. In all honesty, I figured the bad guys who were despicably charismatic here, would carry this thing through. I was wrong. I denounce these proceedings as a misstep of the most exorbitant order. Give me Point Break or 2010's The Town as a true, alternative viewing prospect.

With a script based on a book by Peter R. de Vries and some rugged violence early on, Kidnapping Mr. Heineken follows five down on their luck schleps who use to run a business (it was unclear to me what they did for a living and that was frustrating). The time setting is early 80's posh and within the first few minutes, the thirtysomethings are seen trying to get a bank loan. They are in a sense, broke. Things then go afoul (loan approval is denied) leaving them no choice but to abduct Freddy Heineken (Hopkins). He's worth a boatload of money and their plan is to get at least thirty-five million Dutch guilders from him (at the time this was the highest ransom on record). The merry men/culprits consist of Willem Holleeder (played by Sam Worthington), Cor van Hout (played by Jim Sturgess), Jan Boellard (played by Ryan Kwanten), Frans Meijer (played by Mark van Eeuwen), and Martin Erkamps (played by Thomas Cocquerel). The names just mentioned are all real life people. They are Dutch criminals who are serving lengthy prison terms. The actors that play them give off a sort of goofball vibe. One moment they're serious and astute. The next minute they're ribbing each other, telling penis jokes, and taking male bonding to an unhinged, fraternity level. In essence, "Heineken" didn't garner my recommendation but I liked the way the cast played thespian ping pong on the back and forth tip.

Now in all uprightness, I've never seen a movie where the screenwriters are so enthralled with the intricacies of kidnapping. It's as if they consulted known criminals currently serving life without parole. Every detail is woven into the first hour like the villainous characters wearing masks, all the felonious activity being done locally, the use of voice alteration to talk to victims, and the adage of a ransom note untouched by human fingerprints. Granted, this isn't an exercise about the people being taken nor is it a character study about law enforcement heavy on certain malefactor's trails. No what's on screen is strictly about the art of holding someone against their will. And it involves characters we really know nothing about. I mean how did these guys become professional criminals so quickly? And how is it that they know so much about the planning of such a heinous act? Finally, they are businessmen with families so what begot their vile nature? Then there's the other questions I asked myself during "Heineken". They pertained to the police. So OK, why doesn't a law official have any speaking lines? And why don't we the audience, get an idea of their inside strategy via bringing these despairing crooks to justice? Obviously, a lot of research went into formulating a hypothetical Kidnapping For Dummies. Too bad every other attribute fell by the wayside.

All in all, this is not a disastrous crime drama, just a mediocre one. I viewed "Heineken" wondering why it took thirty-three years for its true story sensibilities to come to fruition. And as its ending credits filtered in, I also thought to myself, "this is the culmination of three plus decades in development?" The lowest point: Everyone involved really drops the ball with period detail. We're supposed to be taking in Amsterdam circa 1982. Instead, what's on screen could have probably passed as present day (all you gotta do is look at everybody's modern hairstyles to know what I'm getting at). Bottom line: This is a ho hum tribute presented by its filmmakers. It almost veers into slick, direct- to-video territory. In the beginning of its hour and a half-plus running time, the Jim Sturgess character (Cor van Hout) says, "that's all crime is, it's a wager." Interesting thought. I'd say if I had to wager anything on the staying power of this flick, it'd be a middling investment. My rating: A disappointing 2 and a half stars.

This film is based on such a bizarre crime, that it almost seems unreal. 'Kidnapping Mr. Heineken' or 'Kidnapping Freddy Heineken' as it's known in some foreign markets is the true life story of a group of friends who decide to kidnap the owner of Heineken Beer and force a ransom for millions of dollars. This crime actually happened back in the early 80s in the Netherlands.

It's a decent enough story, however director Daniel Alfredson never brings any of the characters to life, nor does the story have any real intent other than just showing what happened, before abruptly ending after the last person was arrested. Alfredson is a great director too. His resume includes a couple of the original versions of 'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo' series where his younger brother Thomas directed the original 'Let The Right One In' film as well as 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy'.

So off the bat, Daniel nor his brother Thomas are exactly lightweights. But with 'Kidnapping Mr. Heineken', Alfredson really only wanted to show the actual events with no depth whatsoever. The cast is solid as well with Sir Anthony Hopkins being chained and confined to a cell through most of the film as he plays Mr. Heineken. His kidnappers are played by Jim Sturgess ('Across the Universe'), Sam Worthington ('Avatar'), Ryan Kwanten ('True Blood'), amongst a couple others.

This group of friends seem to be paid be some unknown person to evict and literally throw out squatters living in condemned housing. But these guys want more money and decide to kidnap the wealthiest person for a big ransom. That lucky person is Freddy Heineken of the beer company of the same name. They want to come across as professionals, which they are anything but, so they rob a bank to secure financing to build a sound proof room to make it look like an organized crime outfit executed this job.

I'm sure you already know the outcome or can read it about it in a number of books, but was it worth making a film about? While the answer may be "yes", there needs to be some sort of depth to the characters other than that one of their girlfriend's is pregnant. Beyond that aspect, each kidnapper might as well be the same exact person. There just isn't much to work with, which is a shame. Sir Anthony Hopkins turns in a great performance, but is on screen for only a few minutes, and doesn't give us time to connect or sympathize with him whatsoever. At the very end of the film, which ends abruptly, there are title cards for each character of what eventually happened with them. The two lead kidnappers went to prison for a decade, but upon being released became the leaders of the biggest and most vicious mafias in the Netherlands.

This would have made for such a better movie to see their rise to power with this kidnapping starting the entire reign of terror. Why they didn't make that, I'll never know. But as this film goes, 'Kidnapping Mr. Heineken' doesn't amount to much other than watching a few people kidnap a wealthy person and struggle with whether or not to release him or wait for the ransom money.