Watch Kidnapping Mr. Heineken For Free

Wonderful Movie

Sadly Over-hyped

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

The title says it all: "The Kidnapping of Mr. Heineken." Director Daniel Alfredson's take on the 1982 abduction of the Dutch brewing magnate breaks no new ground. However, the film is engrossing and well paced, despite an evident low-budget European production. Based on real events, the movie depicts a kidnapping that resulted in the largest ransom ever paid for a single individual. Set in Amsterdam, five down-on-their-luck buddies seemingly concoct the abduction and a preliminary bank robbery without a great deal of deep thought or careful planning. Somewhat surprisingly, a man of Heineken's immense wealth is taken easily, and the first-time criminals have beginner's luck all around. However, the ransom payment is dragged out, and tensions erupt among the men.While Anthony Hopkins plays the small part of Alfred "Freddy" Heineken convincingly, when shackled in a cell, he displays familiar flashes of Hannibal Lector. Although Sam Worthington and Jim Sturgess head the kidnappers, most of the faces are lesser known, but, like Hopkins, all acquit themselves nicely. The film is better than average, and, with a fairly short running time, introduces viewers unfamiliar with the crime to some of the details, despite accusations of inaccuracy. "The Kidnapping of Mr. Heineken" moves fast, is worth a look, and will keep most viewers entertained.

This based upon a true story.Amsterdam, 1983, five construction workers go the bank for a loan to help revive their company, but are turned down. They are at a loss what to do when one of them says they should kidnap Freddy Heineken (Anthony Hopkins), the beer tycoon and get the ransom money. We see the planning, and execution of this plan, which is quite good for these amateurs. They kidnap Mr. Heineken and his chauffeur, Ab (David Denick) and both are well-treated with no harm coming to them. Mr Heineken makes some demands to make his "stay" more comfortable and he gets his way. The rest of the movie shows the five stressing about not getting the money as quickly as they planned. These actors are basically unknown to us and they do a good job. The main problem with this story is a lack of tension. They treat Mr. Heinekin and Ab in good fashion and since we know the ransom will be paid (at the time this was the most money ever paid for a kidnapping: 16-million Euros) we don't see any suspense on the horizon, and we are comfortable with it. What we don't know is how they slipped up and got caught. We have our suspicions how this happened, but we were wrong (as usual) and we are told what happened when the credits run at the end. One fairly good line comes out of this by Mr Heineken as he tries to talk his way out of bondage and he says, "there are two ways a man can be rich in this world; he can have a lot of money or he can have a lot of friends. But he cannot have both." Anthony Hopkins' screen time is short but he makes the most of it and does an excellent job as usual. (7/10)Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Yes, some not too much.

This is based on a true story/event, so if you are aware of that "case" or have read into it (I didn't before I watched the movie), you know the answer. Obviously I won't reveal that in my review. I will say that I originally planned on giving it a 6/10, but the actors involved convinced me to go for the 7.Don't get me wrong, there are many confinements in their "parts" and there are more than a couple of obstacles that seem to high to overcome. But this is as mentioned based on real people. So while some things probably were changed or added with creative liberty, the general feel of the people involved could not be just changed. And while some criticize Sam Worthingtons character and his "poor" decisions, I personally do disagree. I wouldn't act like him, but while he's a hot head, there is some sense in what he's doing

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.