Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Absolutely Fantastic

A very feeble attempt at affirmatie action

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

This movie promised a heist, a historical kidnapping plot leading to the largest ransom paid in modern history AND Anthony Hopkins as the titular Mr. Heineken. Sadly, this movie failed to deliver. The motivations were at times unclear (There was mention of a major recession but we were never shown its far-reaching effects and thus could not empathize with out protagonists) and at times forced (all of a sudden there is a girlfriend involved who is now pregnant and needs to be financially supported and one protagonist's father appeared momentarily only to reveal he was fired by Mr. Heineken himself and we never hear from him again). The kidnappers were virtually indistinguishable yet the focus was on them instead of the police investigation or on Mr. Heineken's (and his driver's) plight in solitary. To top it off, the end text credits detailing the outcomes of the various characters (which can be found on wikipedia) were more interesting than most of the movie. I have to recommend passing on this and reading a brief synopsis of the real life case instead.

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.

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.

How a crime drama with such good cast can be so dull is borderline a crime. The actors are good, but the characters they play have the personality of barren unsympathetic schmucks. The screenplay and conversation are dry, primarily dabbling in curses and complaints for nearly the entire movie. While there are clearly a couple of good moments by the actors, they are too few to sustain interest for the rest of boring banters.Kidnapping Mr. Heineken is exactly what it advertises, the story of five men who are down on their luck and decide to snatch a billionaire in hope for monetary gain. It's amazing that none of these five character is even close to being relatable. The movie tries to depicts individuals who are pushed to do illegal things, yet they are all manipulative, aggressive and severely lacking empathy.At latter half they are even interchangeable since everyone has a knack for whining, in exception of Sam Worthington's character who surprises audience with poor and crazy decisions. Probably the best decision the movie did was to put Anthony Hopkins as Heineken in a box and let him do a few monologues. Still, there is no tangible connection between Heineken and the kidnappers, there's not even connection between the kidnappers. When the movie tries to pull friendship theme, it only makes things more awkward.For action crime, one would expect an intelligent plot, perhaps major twists and thought out plans. There's a barely any level of sophistication here as five of them partially wing it and hope for the best. In fact, most of the times they are just fooling around, laughing annoyingly and verbally abusing each other.The film offers the shallow sense of helplessness and uneasiness as audience watch five aversive men threatening an old man for money and bicker with each other.