User reviews

Amsterdam 1982, the recession has hit hard. A group of friends and builders are down on their luck and are refused a bank loan. It's spokesman Cor van Hout proposes an outrageous plan, to kidnap local millionaire, the successful Freddy Heineken. The group test the waters by carrying out a bank heist, then carry out the daring dead, taking Heineken and his driver, holding them hostage, issuing a huge ransom demand. Cracks appear in their unit, and their family lives suffer too.

Most of the positives surround Hopkins, he gives a masterclass in acting, his performance is understated and yet believable. Some of the best scenes in the movie revolve around his demands for Chinese food, books, Schubert etc, it's very random but enjoyable.

One entertaining moment when the team realise they've left the ransom note in a photocopier nearby.

Sadly the film didn't keep my attention, it's the kind of film you'll need a crossword or Sudoku puzzle. Unfortunately it is quite boring, the plot was a good one, I think possibly had some humour been added to it that may have helped, as a thriller it just doesn't work, there's no tension or drama caused, you never feel at any point that the gang truly mean business.

As for the accents, some of them wanted to go Dutch, some of them didn't, it felt inconsistent.

It could have been so good. I've only seen a trailer for the Dutch production, but that seems to have the atmosphere that was needed, this production is sadly a week old unwanted glass of Heineken, FLAT.

5/10

"You know what your doing is completely stupid, unless you pull it off. In which case it could be completely brilliant." When a group of friends are denied a loan they are desperate for money. They come up with a plan to kidnap the founder of the Heineken beer company (Hopkins) and ask for a large ransom in exchange. What starts off as a great idea, little by little begins to unravel. This movie is based on a true story and this is something I knew nothing about. The movie itself started off good and I was interested but the longer it went on the less interested I seemed to get. I'm not sure why, the acting was good and the interactions between the kidnappers was entertaining but this was another movie that I had a hard time staying focused on. It really seemed to stumble toward the end and this was another movie that I was thankful that it wasn't longer. Overall, I wondered why a movie with this cast didn't have a wider release, after watching it I can see why. I disappointingly give this a C.

'Kidnapping Freddy Heineken' is a story about a gang of Dutch crooks who decide that holding one of Holland's wealthiest businessmen for ransom will be a fast-track to easy money. It's hardly an inspiring premise, but the thing that makes it – slightly – better than the rest, is that it's based on a true story.

If you check out the literature online about it, you'll see that – surprise, surprise – liberties have been taken with the plot, but, from what I can gather, it is reasonably faithful – if you excuse the obvious parts which have been 'Hollywooded up' to speed the story up. The second plus point is Anthony Hopkins, who plays the titular millionaire. Always a good performance from 'Sir Tony.' Unfortunately, he's not in it as much as most of us would probably like. The main story focuses on the criminals, half of which are pretty bland, although one is played by Sam Worthington and another does have a family who features prominently, fleshing out his character a bit more. You may have to wait about forty-five minutes before we meet Hopkins though.

The film does its best to get us to empathise with the criminals and, for the most part, it sort of succeeds. We can see that they're the down-on-their-luck sorts who are only really after the money, but, at the end of the day, they are criminals, so – deep down – we're pretty much waiting for them to get their comeuppance.

If you're interested in the history of the case, it's probably best to read one of the books. Granted, I haven't, but I'm happy to settle for the big screen adaptation. Yeah, it passes the time – it's nothing special and I probably won't remember it in a year or so, but it kept me just about entertained enough while I was watching it.

All the elements are here but some things are not working. The actors give their all, but are a little cliched. I got the sense there was too much dialogue. The story itself is exciting enough, but I guess I've been spoiled by movies about Baader Meinhof and Gomorrah, where the leads were charismatic and the danger more pronounced, and the vision of Europe had more depth and colour. Call me crazy but I thought the lighting and the film stock used were running counter to the intrigue. It all seemed a little too high contrast indoors, and not enough contrast for the night scenes. And the film stock used seemed to lack a little definition and could have been, well, less ordinary, more big screen. There were plenty of locations, but I still got the sense that all the action was taking place in a rather dull, single suburb. Then again, maybe in reality it did. On the plus side, I did think the depiction of the early 1980s was pretty good. I also thought the use of Sir Anthony Hopkins to be a redeeming stroke of genius. Of all the actors his sparse yet crucial use was a joy to behold, and lifted the entire movie. I thought Sam Worthington good too, and to be fair he somehow outshone his immediate friend and unofficial leader of the group, being a darker character and definitely better groomed. That's what I found frustrating about the movie, little things like the lead's uncombed hair. I also don't remember the soundtrack at all, so maybe that was an opportunity that went begging. Kidnapping is an interesting ride and worth a watch, especially as it is all true, but I do believe it could have had a lot more clout.

I think the story could have been developed way more than what they did. In the first part of this movie, we get introduced to the main characters who - I have to say - have no blame at all in the low scoring of this movie: they are interesting, each one different from one another, with different dynamics going on. Somewhere along the way though, the director or the Writers decided that they needed to be quicker. That is where you can clearly sense how they push a Fast Forward button and every single development present in the first part of the movie is quickly and mercilessly unfold without any decent or (expected maybe)deeper explanation. As other reviewers have already written, this story could have definitely become an impressive Movie, especially thanks to the Actors who took part in it. I have given it a 6/10, but only because of the Actors and the interesting story.

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.

"Kidnapping Freddie Heineken" is just as its title tells us. It is about how a group of five down-and-out young men who pulled off the kidnapping of a noted beer magnate Freddy Heineken in 1983. They were able to demand 35M Dutch guilders (about 16M Euros), the biggest ransom ever paid for a kidnap victim. Will their sudden windfall help them with their most cherished dreams?

This British-Dutch production gathered Hollywood stars to portray the characters in this crime drama. For the kidnappers, they have gathered a group of twenty-something actors who had previously top-billed a number of films on their own already. For the victim, the producers went all out and got a revered senior Oscar-winning actor to play him.

Jim Sturgess is an actor who deserves to break into the big time. He is a chameleon able to disappear into any role he plays. Since his big break in "Across the Universe" in 2007, he has been consistently turning in remarkable performances in films like "21", "Upside Down", and "Cloud Atlas". In this film, he plays the charismatic Cor van Hout, the mastermind behind the Heineken kidnapping. He was able to show more acting depth than the rest of the younger cast, especially since he was also given a pregnant girlfriend to worry about.

Sam Worthington is an Australian actor who came on strong in 2009 to 2010 with the lead roles in major productions like "Avatar" and "Clash of the Titans". His career never really progressed too much in subsequent films after his auspicious Hollywood debut. His star power always felt secondary to the special effects of his big films. In this smaller, quieter, character-driven film, Worthington's screen presence as Willem Holleeder is obviously weaker than those of his co-stars Sturgess and Kwanten.

Ryan Kwanten is another Australian actor. He broke into mainstream consciousness as a regular cast member of the HBO vampire-themed TV series "True Blood" which ran for seven seasons before concluding last year. Kwanten also registers strong on the big screen with punkish charm as Cat Boellaard, who owned the boat house where they hid Heineken.

Those scenes where Sir Anthony Hopkins would be talking to the kidnappers individually were the best of all. The tension in those scenes were so thick with Hopkins chewing into their conscience with his masterful performance as Freddy Heineken. The scenes were definitely the saving moments for this film. Too bad these were only few and far between.

On paper, this sounded like it could be a very interesting crime film. Five complete amateurs in crime dream big, kidnap a multimillionaire and earn a huge payback and then some. How did they pull it off? How did they treat their victim who was their goldmine? What was the aftermath of their actions? Unfortunately, the script by William Brookfield, adapted from the books by Dutch investigative reporter Peter de Vries, was more turgid than exciting. The uneven direction by Daniel Alfredson also failed to make the weak script fly.

The setting is obviously Amsterdam, but the kidnappers talked and behaved like they were London punks. The abduction scene per se was not shot with much cinematic imagination nor verve. Everything was done so seriously, with hardly any sense of humor (except maybe for the Bang Bang chicken scene). The filmmakers were not able to create any moments to really remember it by. In fact, this movie even felt tedious despite its brevity. 5/10.

All the elements are here but some things are not working. The actors give their all, but are a little cliched. I got the sense there was too much dialogue. The story itself is exciting enough, but I guess I've been spoiled by movies about Baader Meinhof and Gomorrah, where the leads were charismatic and the danger more pronounced, and the vision of Europe had more depth and colour. Call me crazy but I thought the lighting and the film stock used were running counter to the intrigue. It all seemed a little too high contrast indoors, and not enough contrast for the night scenes. And the film seemed to lack a little definition and could have been, well, less ordinary, more big screen. There were plenty of locations, but I still got the sense that all the action was taking place in a rather dull, single suburb. Then again, maybe in reality it did. On the plus side, I did think the depiction of the early 1980s was pretty good. I also thought the use of Sir Anthony Hopkins to be a redeeming stroke of genius. Of all the actors his sparse yet crucial use was a joy to behold, and lifted the entire movie. I thought Sam Worthington good too, and to be fair he somehow outshone his immediate friend and unofficial leader of the group, being a darker character and definitely better groomed. That's what I found frustrating about the movie, little things like uncombed hair. I also don't remember the soundtrack at all, so maybe that was an opportunity that went begging. Kidnapping is an interesting ride and worth a watch, especially as it is all true, but I do believe it could have have a lot more clout.

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.

Bad reviews made me curious and tease me to watch. Especially if its about a true story (book). I am glad I watched it. As my family is partly Dutch I do have some knowledge about the kidnapping. As far as I know the movie is correct and according to reality. The story is thrilling at the moments it should be. From the perspective of the kidnappers: you almost feel pity for them. The great work of Sir A. Hopkins, although his role is limited, is as we want it to be! Superb. Maybe to short, but absolutely genius. Not toforget Sam Worthington (Avatar), Jim Sturgess, Ryan Kwanten, they made their positive contribution to the movie: scamp as they were, in scenes with Heineken and the driver! Nice scenes in Amsterdam and Paris. And yeah... the bottles must be brown instead of green: who cares!? Worth watching: absolute! Best film ever: no, but which one is? A kidnapping is always thrilling and excited: and so is this movie.

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.

Anthony Hopkins lends his name and histrionic talents to uplift an otherwise pedestrian real- life crime thriller KIDNAPPING MR. HEINEKEN. Without his presence this would be just another direct-to-video feature of European origin.

Don't get me wrong -I've been a huge fan of European-made caper and action movies since childhood, growing up watching innumerable dubbed -into-English low-budget imports on TV via syndication packages back in the '60s. At the high end, Jules Dassin's RIFIFI remains the unbeatable greatest caper movie of all time, and the various big-budget, in-joke titles like the original and update series of OCEAN'S ELEVEN are watchable. But give ma a silly Brad Harris-Tony Kendall intl. co-production and I'm in heaven.

With a weak script by William Brookfield, based on Peter de Vries' reportage and book about the beer company magnate's 1982 kidnapping, this film turns out to be lacking in entertainment value. The criminals, a rag-tag group of businessmen/slackers who turn to crime when their unreasonable application for a business loan is turned down, are simply an uninteresting bunch and their reluctance to resort to violence (lethal or otherwise) is morally laudable but leads to dullness - the picture has no sex and no real violence, hardly suitable for today's audiences. And it lacks humor, not even of the Disney or OVER-THE-HILL GANG puerile variety.

Only interesting structural note (which ultimately backfires) is the script's purist approach whereby every scene is presented from the criminals' point-of-view. In a kidnapping story the viewer is used to time-honored clichés regarding the police (or FBI or Interpol) and the victim's family and associates -what they are doing to get Heineken back alive and catch the baddies. But here we have none of this, only scenes about the kidnappers and their apprehension at getting caught. This novel structure (cops only appear sans dialog to pursue or make arrests) violates Hitchcock's famous dictum about suspense -all we get are surprises because we (like the kidnappers) are narratively left in the dark. We never see the net closing in on them, apart from a few red herrings based solely on the criminals' own paranoia.

Jim Sturgess as head kidnapper Cor, a family man with pregnant wife who inexplicably throws all that away to become a fugitive merely longing to return home from his Paris hideout, is empathetic and acts well enough, but can hardly carry a film. The role called for an A-list name, perhaps his supporting co-star Sam Worthington, miscast as Cor's brother-in-law, written as a hothead but unconvincingly played by Sam who the viewer is used to seeing (after AVATAR) as a leading man.

Hopkins in as brief a screen time as won Judi Dench an Oscar for Shakespeare IN LOVE, easily dominates the film with his brief but pungent & idiosyncratic monologues -he gets to speak unanswered because the hooded kidnappers don't want to respond to him verbally at all. You can see the wheels turning in Hopkins' head as he cleverly tries to get into the heads of his adversaries and casting him was a bold stroke (probably the reason Worthington signed on to an unpromising project at this stage in his career).

I did not like the camera-work and editing of the movie, especially during action & chase scenes such as a boat vs. cars sequence on Amsterdam's canals after the boys had robbed a bank delivery van to raise capital for their big Heineken snatch score. And the musical score is horrendous, sounding like a distant copy of those classic 1970s British action movie scores, notably echo-chamber brilliance for Roy Budd's GET CARTER (a movie by Mike Hodges that was among my very favorite films when I saw it several times in 1971 in first-run).

Regarding film's factual basis, that issue is irrelevant to me - I love both LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI regardless of either's allegiance to the original text. HEINEKEN merely proves that a purely fictional movie has more leeway to be entertaining and fanciful - the details here are pretty mundane, the degree of jeopardy for Heineken and his also-kidnapped chauffeur being minimal. The actual bank heist and people snatching are over in seconds, robbing the viewer of the fun which crime caper movies (TOPKAPI, RIFIFI) can provide, even in a silly one like Connery/Zeta-Jones' ENTRAPMENT. And the decision to make HEINEKEN the usual faux-British movie with all principal roles given British accents and speaking English (why not Dutch accents, as Holland with Derek De Lint, Rutger Hauer and endless beautiful actresses has the best English-speaking talent in all of Continental Europe) hurts its real-life credibility. I half expected a certain class of characters here to speak Cockney like Hollywood movies used to do in the 1930s for working-class characters in German or Russian set stories.

Not bad and based on true story. Some good acting but in total an average thriller.

I suspect that not too much Hollywood was added to the story, so the film is not as action packed as viewers may wish. However, Hopkins as well as the rest of the cast turn in a respectable performance. A very watchable film

Well told absorbing tale of a notorious kidnapping by audacious middle class culprits.

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.

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.

This is based on a true story/event, so if you are aware of that "case" or have read into it (I didn't before I watched the movie), you know the answer. Obviously I won't reveal that in my review. I will say that I originally planned on giving it a 6/10, but the actors involved convinced me to go for the 7.

Don't get me wrong, there are many confinements in their "parts" and there are more than a couple of obstacles that seem to high to overcome. But this is as mentioned based on real people. So while some things probably were changed or added with creative liberty, the general feel of the people involved could not be just changed. And while some criticize Sam Worthingtons character and his "poor" decisions, I personally do disagree. I wouldn't act like him, but while he's a hot head, there is some sense in what he's doing

Kidnapping Freddy Heineken certainly lacks fizzle telling a true story set in Amsterdam in 1983. A group of friends who are builders fallen on hard times are turned down for a bank loan and decide on an outrageous plan to kidnap the head of the Heineken beer group.

They take Freddie Heineken (Anthony Hopkins) and his driver holding them hostage in specially built cells and issuing a massive ransom demand. The ransom is delivered but then their problems begins. The getaway with the money is not meticulously planned and their lack of experience as criminals backfires on them such as the desire to phone loved ones or feeling guilty about the crime.

Hopkins delivers a glorified cameo and like a wounded lion, shouts and screams with random outbursts and demands Chinese food, music and books. He is also worried that his chauffeur also being held in the next room is expendable.

The rest of the actors, Sam Worthington, Jim Sturgess put in bland performances because the script is so flat. Worthington does have one scene in a dress for some weird reason.

Director Daniel Alfredson directs with a lack of verve and urgency. The film does have one sequence of a car chase in Amsterdam which is impressive as they not only had to clear out all the tourists and install period details of the early 1980s. It would had been better such effort had been expended on the rest of the movie.

Fact more strange than fiction Peter R. de Vries both participated in and wrote the book about this true story from 1983 and collaborated on the screenplay with William Brookfield for this non-stop rousing caper film with a very bright young cast of actors directed by Daniel Alfredson. The film is well made, well photographed, well scored with an excellent musical selection and arrangement, and very well acted by a fine cast of young actors.

In 1983, a group of childhood friends - Cor van Hout (Jim Sturgess), Willem Holleeder (Sam Worthington_ Jan 'Cat' Boellard (Ryan Kwanten), Frans 'sSpikes' Meijer (Mark van Weuwen), Martin 'Brakes' Erkmpps (Thomas Cocquerel) - pulled off the crime of the century: kidnapping one of the richest men in the world, the heir of the Heineken beer empire (Anthony Hopkins). The shocking capture --by gunpoint in broad daylight on the streets of Amsterdam--resulted in the largest ransom ever paid for a kidnapped individual. It was truly the perfect crime…until they got away with it. This is the inside story of the planning, execution, rousing aftermath and ultimate downfall of the kidnappers which resulted in the largest ransom ever paid for an individual. For a fast moving credible caper, this is a fine film, never letting down for a moment.

"Kidnapping Mr. Heinekin" from 2015 is a case of what happens when the true story is told so rigorously that it saps the excitement of the story.

Beer tycoon Alfred Heineken's 1983 kidnapping resulted in the largest ransom ever paid, 16 million Euros. The job was executed by Cor van Hout (Jim Sturgess), Willem Holleeder (Sam Worthington), Jan Boelaard (Ryan Kwanten), Frans Meijer (Mark van Eeuwen), and Martin Erkamps (Thomas Cocquerel), men turned down by the bank for a business loan who resort to crime. Heineken himself is played by Anthony Hopkins.

Unfortunately there is not enough back story about the criminals, about Heineken himself, or about Heineken's chauffeur who is also kidnapped. The whole movie is about the kidnapping, attempts to get the ransom, and the men dispersing in order to hide out. There is just not enough to pull the movie together into anything exciting.

Anthony Hopkins is fantastic, of course, but he doesn't have that big of a role. He can't really carry the film. As Heineken, he remains calm and isn't afraid to ask for things that will make his stay chained in a room more comfortable - books, better food, etc. His main concern seems to be his chauffeur (David Dencik) who seems really frightened. It's easy to see, from this performance anyway, how Heineken built his company with such success. He has a keen analytical mind and inner strength. Too bad we didn't get to see more of it, it might have helped.

The rest of the acting is good but somehow one stays disassociated from the kidnappers, probably because we don't know that much about them.

Not horrible, but not the best crime film you'll ever see.

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