MovieChat Forums > Kidnapping Mr. Heineken (2015) Discussion > Good but lacked explanations

Good but lacked explanations

posted 9 years ago by fredpoint
4 replies | jump to latest

I enjoyed the movie. I wonder how close to the real story it really is.

It was good but I thought it lacked some precisions, or details on how the cops actually profiled the kidnappers and found them in that bar. I'm not saying the whole police investigation should have been showed up, but only some hints , or questionable details that may have brought suspicion on them would have been a great addition to the movie. Things that would have made me wonder " Did someone snitch, because ..(show this on the screen).. " or " that guy shouldn't have done that because he's leaving tracks ", small details.

The gang's leader's girlfriend seemed to point directly his boyfriend for the 1st robbery, like she knew for sure that he did it. Ok, but that's not enough to make you wonder if she snitched on him. During that scene, I was thinking wow how the hell does she know he did it ? Also I thought the father maybe ? Na, not enough details about him.

It lacked those little pieces of information that keeps you guessing which are the possible actions that led to the arrests. At the end of the movie, nothing came to my mind. It's so sudden. I was just left with the impression that the police simply put 2 and 2 together without any details given to the audience. First , in Amsterdam, then in Paris in that so called secure apartment ( suposedly someone gave a tip to the police , that's what's explained at the end before the credits ).

It could have been better if just a few details on how the police found those guys had been shown.

[–] sjorsp 9 years ago

I did not see the movie yet, but i read a lot about the kidnapping, actually the police officer who lead the investigation got an anonymous tip with the hiding place of Heineken, and the names of the Kidnappers.

Boelaard was arrested directly, Meijer put his self in, and Holleeder and Van Hout where arrested in France (van Hout made phone calls from his hideout to his family).

Most of the money was found back, but the 6 millioen of Meijer was invested in the Red light district and after their release they where still fortuned.

Except Meier all stayed in crime business, Boelaard was later convicted voor killing a policeman while on the run with a large amount of cocaine and had to serve another 20 years, van Hout was killed in the third assasination attempt, and Holleeder served another 8 years for multiple crimes.

Last December he was arrested again, and is facing multiple serious charges, there is a big chance that if convicted he will get life without parole.

[–] Sidewindr 9 years ago

The reason there is not much shown on how the police discovered them is two fold..

1. The movie is shot from the kidnappers perspective and it makes you feel the same way the kidnappers would have felt.. ie. how the hell did they find out?... Did someone in the group snitch or was it someone else close to them.

2. The police were turned onto them by an anonymous tip and the identity of the person who tipped them off has never been revealed.

:D

[–] Seth_Rogue_One 9 years ago

Yeah I agree with what you said

And I didn't get why they went nuts on those punkheads in the beginning of the movie in the torned down building

Appaerantly the real life characters played by Sam Worthington and Jim Sturgess didn't have alot of brotherly love between them as depicted in the movie and "Sam Worthington" actually had "Jim Sturgess" murdered... That doesn't sound like anything the characters in this movie would do

And the co writer stated that he couldn't stand by the movie cause it was too far from reality

For us, there is no spring. Just the wind that smells fresh before the storm.

[–] rbuffinga 9 years ago

They needed money, but couldn't get a loan from the bank because they had no steady income, nor could they put up any collateral. The only asset they owned was a large building on a prestigious address in Amsterdam. Upon hearing this, the banker becomes more interested, until he learns that the building has been occupied by squatters, which greatly reduces the market value of the house. The expectation at the time is that those squatters will be granted the right to stay in the house, on the basis of a Dutch law against owners leaving a building vacant and the fact that the squatters actually use the house as their primary residence. If the squatters are 'legalized' the value of the house will probably decrease further. Although eviction by force by the owners is not a legitimate option, the (later) kidnappers feel it might work to instill terror to make the squatters leave for good.

Can't certify the amount of 'brotherly love' between Cor van Hout and Willem Holleeder at the time of the Heineken kidnapping, but the movie sufficiently explains that friendship and money don't go together very well. A lot can happen in two decades, particularly in a highly-charged relationship between hardcore criminals. Even though Holleeder appears to forgive Van Hout for giving away the location of their Paris hide-out, it is already starting to become clear that their friendship is under pressure.