The Heineken Kidnapping

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.