It’s exciting to see Shyamalan on such confident footing once more, all these years later.
The real test for a first-rate actor is whether they can be good in a bad role in a bad film. Anthony Hopkins, maybe our greatest living actor, has passed that test many times over the years, and in “Kidnapping Mr. Heineken” he is at it again. The filmmakers were able to pay his fee, and so Hopkins shows up for another rubbishy, misbegotten project and shames the whole enterprise with his open and volatile face, his incisive voice, his mere ultra-soulful presence.
Hopkins plays Freddy Heineken, the beer tycoon who was kidnapped in Amsterdam in 1983 and held for ransom. “Oh, what are you doing?” Hopkins’s Heineken asks his abductors, in a rather bored tone of voice, as they spirit him and his chauffeur Ab Doderer (David Dencik) into a waiting van. At first, you might think that it is Hopkins himself who is bored with this pedestrian film, but that boredom in the tone of his voice is actually part of his character here.
After he has been confined and chained in a soundproofed room, Hopkins’s Freddy addresses one of his kidnappers with smooth demands for a bathrobe and a decent chair. In further meetings, Freddy says he doesn’t like the music that is being played on a speaker and requests some Schubert instead, and he wants some inexpensive Chinese food instead of the ham sandwiches that he’s been getting. Freddy takes command of the situation as a kind of CEO of his own kidnapping, and Hopkins finds a somewhat amusing way of playing his incongruous authority. Trying to entice one of the kidnappers, he offers a life of wealth and blondes. “No?” he asks. “Are you gay or something?” And then he gives him a little air kiss! When Freddy finally calls his kidnappers morons, it comes as a relief, because they really are irritatingly dopey, making mistake after mistake but getting away with them.
The major problem among many in the unfocused “Kidnapping Mr. Heineken” is that very little thought seems to have been given to how this story should be told or why it merits telling. Most of the movie is about the five kidnappers, who are led by Cor Van Hout (Jim Sturgess), and though they all get a lot of screen time they are barely characterized. After getting turned down for a loan from a bank, Cor and his cohorts violently evict some punk squatters from a building, and it’s hard to tell during this eviction fight scene just who we’re supposed to be rooting for; at one point the camera catches Cor smiling at his friend Willem (Sam Worthington), so it would seem we are supposed to view these guys as misguided but likable badasses (no such luck). When Cor talks to his gang about taking the risk of a kidnapping for a big payday and mentions that he’s been planning something like this since they were kids, it doesn’t ring remotely true, and when the guys rob a bank in order to finance their kidnapping scheme, it becomes clear that director Daniel Alfredson is only interested in shooting rushed chase scenes without context or motivation.
This message came to me from a reader named Peter Svensland. He and a fr...
Chaz Ebert highlights films with the potential to get us through the confusing political times of the Trump presidenc...
A review of Netflix's new series, Lemony Snicket's "A Series of Unfortunate Events," which premieres January 13.
One of the most audacious American films from the 1960s is now available via the Criterion Collection.