On a cold November day in 1983, is the world's most successful and richest brewer Alfred Heineken and his chauffeur Ab Doderer the door of his office abducted. What follows is the most notorious and infamous kidnapping case that the Netherlands has ever known. Twenty exhausting and nerve-grueling days staying the manufacturer in a cold, cramped cell, chained down and for the first time in his life utterly powerless. His kidnappers, four criminal friends from Amsterdam, encounter great difficulty to collect the ransom (excerpt from http://www.heinekenontvoering.com/synopsis).
Writer:Kees van Beijnum (scenario), Maarten Treurniet (scenario)
A bold, amateur kidnapping goes wildly awry in this fictionalized account of beer magnate Freddy Heineken's 1983 abduction, which would go on to become one of The Netherlands' most infamous crimes. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Jen S (fr) wrote: I was actually embarrassed for ice-T while watching this. The acting was so horrible that I laughed through most of the movie. It's sad that this is a true story because the movie is ridiculously stupid and I'm pretty sure monkeys have more acting skills than most of the people in this, including the lead.
Replevin R (mx) wrote: worst movie everdon't watch thisit's a waste of time
Andrew S (us) wrote: The continuing story of Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda and Samantha as they struggle to manage their love lives, friendships and careers in New York City.
Nathan S (br) wrote: Why so much hate? Yes there are some flaws in the movie like: how Colin Ferrell has an Irish accent and how the movie isn't 100% accurate on the life of Alexander, but so what? I bought the Final Cut which is probably the best version just because it was more well put together. I liked how it wasn't in chronological order so throughout the movie you were thinking about these plot holes that would later be filled it. If they made the theatrical cut like that and if Colin Ferrell lost the accent than the film would have been more praised. They practically should have just gotten the Final Cut, trimmed it down 30 minutes to an hour, and there you go! Then critics would have praised it more and then viewers would have praised it more and then Oliver Stone would be even more praised. If only, if only.
QT C (jp) wrote: Similar to the Bourne movies but the Bourne movies were better. Jason Statham would be better to play the part of the main character in this film. Overall, not a really interesting movie. Too much about politics and power.
garth m (jp) wrote: That this teenage romance, young love, disease of the week flick rises above the genre is credit to its young stars. Josh Hartnett and Chris Klein square off like two young banty roosters fighting over a pullet. Chris Klein has been described as a thinking man's jock. Josh Hartnett is one of those character actors who inhabits a part to the point that he leaves one saying, oh that's who that was. The girl they lock horns over just happens to be the local sheriff's daughter. Annette O'Toole plays her mother having come a long way since Beach Blanket Bingo, she later plays Superman's mother in Smallville. Michael Rooker, Cruise's competition in Days of Thunder plays Hartnett's father though it is interaction with his mother that assumes more importance in his life. The reconstruction project at the centre of the movie seems to be a community event. This is another one of those townie vs rich spoiled private boy's school stories. The point is driven home repeatedly that Richie Rich's father treats his son just like another one of his investments whereas the local yokel has loving parents who are involved in their son's life. Thrown in as best bud is a muscular bleached blonde whose parents obviously own the local general store.
Charles C (au) wrote: What you see is what you get; Shakespeare's classic about starcrossed lovers strained through the reality filters of Troma Studios. What's surprising....is how good this actually is. Aside from all the weird ass shit and violent gore, this is a creative and enjoyable adaptation, as long as you don't take it too seriously. Quite possibly my favorite of all Troma movies.
Callum C (gb) wrote: A very entertaining film and while I haven't read the book it's still a great film and all the actors felt like they were really there espicaly the kid but at the same time I don't like it when films put children in danger no different here but other than that it was a really good film.
Dan B (kr) wrote: Wartime invasion drama that turns the normally cosy Ealing world into a nightmare of betrayal and violence. It??s tempting to read the film as a sociological dissection of British society and the class system, but (while there??s certainly plenty one could discuss) it feels like that would be missing the point; more than anything, this is a quiet celebration of British pluck and self-sacrifice, made all the more resonant by that fact that it was shot in 1942, when the outcome of the war was far from certain. What was once pure propaganda lives on as a curious counter-factual fantasy and one that is definitely worth seeing.
Adam K (jp) wrote: I know I shouldn't, but I probably will!
Ethan P (jp) wrote: The Help has incredibly rich characters, an elegant design, an intriguing premise and a lot of passion, but it's guilty of sugar coating the dynamic issues of race and gender issues that it examines. It looks spectacular. The beautiful Southern estates, exquisite dresses and dolled up women have a striking contrast to the dirty, crooked houses and plain uniforms of their maids. Visually, the movie already suggests that there's a disparity between the two. It hammers the point home by constantly insulting the maids, building them separate bathrooms, forcing them to do their bidding. It's a film with a lot of energy and emotion, it's heart-breaking and touching, inspiring and insulting. It had some tragic moments of cruelty, like when Constantine and Abilene get fired, and had some stirring themes of change and acceptance. It was powerful to watch them rise up and take a stand and it was very rewarding to see the hilarious events fallout of their efforts. One of the issues with the film, though, was that it didn't hurt enough. It was offensive and inconsiderate at many points, but racism in the South cut so much deeper than this movie displays. It tends to treat some of the issues in the film like girly gossip rather than the ugliness that actually took place. It handles the issues delicately, which is good and bad.One thing I didn't particularly like about the film was the inconsistency of the acting. Viola Davis's performance is undeniably incredible. She's a caring women that's been broken by the loss of her son and constant harassment by white people, but she has brief moments where she has a beautiful wide grin and giggles at something or has an intimate moment with the daughter she's hired to take care of. She shows a woman in pain that still has life in her and I really liked that she was willing to sacrifice herself to try to help herself and her people. Emma Stone is also great, but I don't know how if any Southern girl would've been as progressive as her. Her mother has a very rewarding turn at the end and a lot of the other maids give strong performances. The antagonists in the film have no range, though. They are thin, undeveloped characters. The main "villain" wasn't like a nice girl who had a racist, unaccepting side. She was a total bitch who demeaned everyone and acted very superficial. She had no depth, it felt like something out of Mean Girls or another high school melodrama. The immaturity of a lot of the women was irritating. The other superficial wives were annoying and unrealistic too, but they're designed to be petty.It's also interesting how focused the film is on underrepresented groups. Most films focus on males and this film is almost entirely focused on women. Not many films have such dynamic, interesting female performances and even fewer focus on the struggles of African Americans, so I think if nothing else, that should be appreciated. Few films have the courage to do that.