I gave up on this movie about 10 minutes in, solely because of the frenetic cuts (eg 1 second of footage between cuts) added to extremely shaky hand-held camera and "everyone talking / yelling at once" action... I am willing to accept that this is an "artistic" choice by the director/editor..... but it drove me to screaming "HOLD THE F#$%^ CAMERA STILL" at the screen after 10 minutes.. if this technique doesn't bug you, you may well enjoy the movie.. I'll never know ... :^) I didn't get to see sir anthony at all ..

Based on a true story the film had the ingredients to be a brilliant film with big success, just look at the line up of cast in this film!! You would not of needed anthony hopkins if it was done right but there is that word "if" the screenplay and the script is very disappointing the film is good (well passable) but its just that it could and should of been done better the camera shots are like they were done by a toddler and when your looking forward to seeing this film your actually glad its only on for 92 minutes. I am being kind by giving the film a 5/10 but overall its a disappointment save your money and buy a case of Heineken and watch something else

source: Kidnapping Mr. Heineken

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.

I gave up on this movie about 10 minutes in, solely because of the frenetic cuts (eg 1 second of footage between cuts) added to extremely shaky hand-held camera and "everyone talking / yelling at once" action... I am willing to accept that this is an "artistic" choice by the director/editor..... but it drove me to screaming "HOLD THE F#$%^ CAMERA STILL" at the screen after 10 minutes.. if this technique doesn't bug you, you may well enjoy the movie.. I'll never know ... :^) I didn't get to see sir anthony at all ..

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 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.

" . . . He can have a lot of money, or he can have a lot of friends. But he cannot have both," is the Gospel according to Alfred "Freddy" Heineken of the green glass beer bottle fortune, paraphrasing Jesus about a man being able to hoard more than an average amount of stuff on Earth, or gain a place in Heaven, but definitely NOT both. Though any logical person who believes in Heaven knows that Mr. Heineken has been in that Other Place since he died in 2003, many Believers are unwilling to put their Faith in either Logic or Jesus' Teachings. KIDNAPPING MR. HEINEKEN is about five guys who think they can steal their way into the One Per Cent to figuratively rub elbows with Heineken and his ilk. What they do not realize is that any members of the One Per Cent with brains in their heads are paranoid and unhappy all the time with the threat of thugs like themselves staring them in the face, as well as the inevitability of spending Eternity in that Other Place. Taking money from the brainless One Per Centers (many of who inherited their excesses) is easier than saying "Bernie Madoff," but KIDNAPPING MR. HEINEKEN proves that this is a quick route to Misery (unless you're a Robin Hood capable of distributing "your" wealth to the poor before it makes you radioactive).

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.

Back in the early 1980s, Freddy Heineken, one of the richest men in the Netherlands and the head of Heineken International, was kidnapped along with his driver. Eventually, one of the largest ransoms ever was paid for his release. This film is about the kidnapping from the point of view of the crooks as well as its aftermath. This is interesting because you never see or hear anything about the police investigation--you only see the police when they are pouncing on the criminals at the end of the film. This all sounds very exciting....so why was I left so unaffected by the film? It is competently made but also rather ordinary. On the positive side, the music is really, really nice. It provides a taut atmosphere and some of the action sequences were very nice. Oddly, the most exciting moment in the film occurs early in the movie--well before the actual kidnapping. In order to raise funds to pull off the kidnapping, the gang knocks over a bank--and it's exactly what I assumed the rest of the film would be like. However, sadly, after this the kidnapping seemed a bit anticlimactic and the film just seems to descend into a state of adequacy and nothing more. I think much of it is because I never felt particularly connected with the kidnappers and the tension just seemed to dissipate until the relatively exciting finale. The bottom line is that this would be a decent film to rent, but I couldn't see heading to the theaters for this one. By the way, although the film is about Dutch kidnappers, everyone in the film was British! They sounded very British and although it was filmed in the Netherlands, it seemed more like a British gang there on holiday. The same story is told, incidentally, in a Dutch language film (The Heineken Kidnapping) starring Rutger Hauer as Freddy Heineken. In this British version, the filmmakers were able to secure the talents of Anthony Hopkins to play this beer baron.