I had high expectations of this movie, everybody in The Netherlands was shocked when they heard the news that a man took a building and the people in it hostage. Sometimes the movie is quite confusing you do not always know what is real, at the end it becomes clear. Probably the reason why the rating is so low. But it tells the story about the man who takes people hostage and how he comes to his act and justifies it. I think they did a great job in trying to tell the story behind this man. You even start feeling for this guy. I gave it a 7 out of 10. Go see it, it is worth it. Jeroen Krabbé was good as ever and I also liked Jan Decleir. Both are very good and experienced actors. Definitely no waste of time.
11 Reviews
Great character study.
Boba_Fett113812 June 2005
I was very skeptic when this movie came out. The movie is based on a true story of a man who takes a building and several employees hostage because he is convinced of it that there are hidden encoded messages in Philips widescreen televisions and he demands that Phillips admits this to the general public, in a TV press conference. Only problem is...he has taken the wrong building hostage. Sounds like more than enough material to make a comedy about, so needless to say that I was very skeptic and even a bit angry when I found out that they wanted to make a serious heavy drama about this man and what drove him to his actions. But the movie ended up being far better than I could have ever had expected it to be.
The movie perfectly shows the growing paranoia of the main character and how he slowly looses all sense of reality. The already unstable character (his wife has left him after more than 30 years and he has trouble at his work as a bus driver) becomes more understandable, he's a man who has got nothing more to loose and wants justice.
The two main actors are really what drives this movie. Jan Decleir is a truly fantastic actor. This guy has had several big Hollywood offers already (Kubrick wanted him in "Eyes Wide Shut" and he was offered a part in "The World is not Enough" and he has played in several Academy Award winning Dutch movies.). But Jeroen Krabbé really impressed me the most. I already knew what a great actor he was of course but I had never seen him playing a better role as he did in this movie.
It's too bad that the story is told in a typical 'Dutch way'. The story keeps jumping from present time to what happened prior to this man's desperate action. It feels kind of pointless that the story is told in this way and it became a bit irritating after a while.
Still the movie is not worth the low rating it receives here currently. (Only a 5.3? What's up with that?) and obviously so far all the other movie reviewers here agree with that. The movie is not just good, it's great, thanks to the good directing from big talent Pieter Kuijpers and the acting of the two main actors, Jan Decleir and Jeroen Krabbé. The script could had used some more work here and there though.
8/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
The movie perfectly shows the growing paranoia of the main character and how he slowly looses all sense of reality. The already unstable character (his wife has left him after more than 30 years and he has trouble at his work as a bus driver) becomes more understandable, he's a man who has got nothing more to loose and wants justice.
The two main actors are really what drives this movie. Jan Decleir is a truly fantastic actor. This guy has had several big Hollywood offers already (Kubrick wanted him in "Eyes Wide Shut" and he was offered a part in "The World is not Enough" and he has played in several Academy Award winning Dutch movies.). But Jeroen Krabbé really impressed me the most. I already knew what a great actor he was of course but I had never seen him playing a better role as he did in this movie.
It's too bad that the story is told in a typical 'Dutch way'. The story keeps jumping from present time to what happened prior to this man's desperate action. It feels kind of pointless that the story is told in this way and it became a bit irritating after a while.
Still the movie is not worth the low rating it receives here currently. (Only a 5.3? What's up with that?) and obviously so far all the other movie reviewers here agree with that. The movie is not just good, it's great, thanks to the good directing from big talent Pieter Kuijpers and the acting of the two main actors, Jan Decleir and Jeroen Krabbé. The script could had used some more work here and there though.
8/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Superb Psychological Thriller from the Lowlands!
info-367513 February 2005
I have seen this movie, because I was curious about the way the fact of the hostage was being filmed and about Jan Decleir and Jeroen Krabbé working together. The film tells the story behind the hostage taker John V. He is lonely man living in his own world. He is product of our society. Wesselinck is a self made top manager and can afford everything. He gets to know John by coincidence ( or not ). John is writing letters to Philips because he suspects the multimedia company of putting encoded messages in 'widescreen'tv-sets. John is no longer seeing his wife and children and is a bus driver. In his spare time he writes letters to Philips and watches recorded tapes of a popular knowledge quiz. When he meets Wesselinck the top man, they become friends because they are alike. Wesselinck lets John in on a top secret project which has to do with manipulation. The film takes the audience behind the screens and only reveals at the end. All the time you think it's like this and in the end there is a complete turnaround! Superb! I happened to have an interview with Jan Decleir in Rotterdam last February and he told me the movie had been made in three weeks. The cast worked very hard and the result is a great movie! Go and see for yourself!
Creative nonsense
johno-217 February 2006
I saw this film screened at the 2006 Palm Springs International film Festival and Director Peter Kuipers was on hand to introduce the film and take Q&A after. This is an interesting film with two great acting performances by John Decleir and Jeroen Krabbé. The film begins with and is based on the true story of a 59 year old bus driver who was protesting the introduction by Phillips of widescreen TV's and resisting them as unnecessary technology being forced down the consumers throats. Armed and with a bomb in his briefcase he takes hostages in a building that Phillips had only temporarily been housed in and had moved out of six months before. The film then goes on to tell the fictional tale of the events that led the hostage taker to start a consumer guerrilla war by himself. Since the film is drawn from an actual event and then becomes fictitious you don't really know what is fiction and what is fact and what is real and what is imagined from the viewpoint of the central character and since the actual company name is used throughout the film it really throws you off. The real hostage taker who was identified by the Dutch press as only John R and in this movie as John Voerman, actually sent a communique about the reason for his actions that he was resisting "manipulation by sellers of widescreen television sets who were guilty of creative nonsense." Were he around today to see this film he might indeed find it as creative nonsense. I would rate this a 6.5 to a 7.0 on a scale of 10 and hope to view it someday on a widescreen TV.
Confusing, unsettling and strange
Extinctive22 October 2005
During this hostage-taking I worked at a News Broadcast station here in Amsterdam, and I remember how this was not a cut-and-dry very angry (or worried) customer thing, it was all pretty weird, and almost seemed like a setup or joke. Many things were left unclear in this hostage-case. This made me curious about what this movie would tell us that could have lead to this.
Basically it seems the story is warning us about PHILIPS (or companies with similar powers), which makes it all the more strange; Would a company this huge let a movie like this hit the theaters and stores worldwide? Presuming that PHILIPS knew about the movie beforehand, does this mean at least some of the facts are actually true? Was this just a bus-driver regretting the fact that he never was anything more than a bus-driver? We are to think this is not the case, because he really loved his job. Did he or did he not know more than he should have known? The facts show that he must have been very intelligent. Would a guy like that do a thing like this for something as insignificant as widescreen TV or was there more? Are we to understand that this PHILIPS CEO was not his friend, and was not with him when he shot himself? Or did the police find out that the gun he was using was a gift from this PHILIPS man, and that he handed his (ex-)wife that other present because they had really met the way we see in this story? I can't really say how you could do this movie or tell this story any better, but the matrix-like views of flashing through time are a bit over the top, and don't do much good for the switches to and from the hostage-taking scene. The casting for the story is really outstanding though. Perfect actors for the jobs at hand.
The movie leaves you with lots of unanswered questions and it is a bit unsettling because nothing is going in a satisfactory direction. There's no hope or dream to be found here. It doesn't have a happy ending in any way, shape or form, and it is almost too much like real life; Harsh, without purpose, unfair and full of coincidences that remain unexplained. Not a fun movie to watch, but one that you will remember due to all the vague references to reality.
Basically it seems the story is warning us about PHILIPS (or companies with similar powers), which makes it all the more strange; Would a company this huge let a movie like this hit the theaters and stores worldwide? Presuming that PHILIPS knew about the movie beforehand, does this mean at least some of the facts are actually true? Was this just a bus-driver regretting the fact that he never was anything more than a bus-driver? We are to think this is not the case, because he really loved his job. Did he or did he not know more than he should have known? The facts show that he must have been very intelligent. Would a guy like that do a thing like this for something as insignificant as widescreen TV or was there more? Are we to understand that this PHILIPS CEO was not his friend, and was not with him when he shot himself? Or did the police find out that the gun he was using was a gift from this PHILIPS man, and that he handed his (ex-)wife that other present because they had really met the way we see in this story? I can't really say how you could do this movie or tell this story any better, but the matrix-like views of flashing through time are a bit over the top, and don't do much good for the switches to and from the hostage-taking scene. The casting for the story is really outstanding though. Perfect actors for the jobs at hand.
The movie leaves you with lots of unanswered questions and it is a bit unsettling because nothing is going in a satisfactory direction. There's no hope or dream to be found here. It doesn't have a happy ending in any way, shape or form, and it is almost too much like real life; Harsh, without purpose, unfair and full of coincidences that remain unexplained. Not a fun movie to watch, but one that you will remember due to all the vague references to reality.
genial movie!!
ogrv62111 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The movie is simply excellent. The plot is intriguing and it really makes you wonder of what is true. Is it really all the fantasy of John Voerman, or is Philips director kleisterlee really lying. Philips has always been a company with a lot of secrets and a certain "mist" around its tech knowledge.. and in this story it all comes together.... the movie shows a drama of a lonely bus driver who commits a desperate deed and works with flashbacks to how it all came that far. The viewer always remains in doubt of what is true and what isn't....
The cinematics, the music, the script, the brilliant acting(!!) it all comes together in a marvelous movie with shocking end (even if you know the story from the newspapers) In one word brilliant movie!!!
The cinematics, the music, the script, the brilliant acting(!!) it all comes together in a marvelous movie with shocking end (even if you know the story from the newspapers) In one word brilliant movie!!!
A fantasy life inside of a confused man's head confuses audience until the end
jakagmom13 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is made with mastery and excellent timing. It draws the audience in to the point where you may get completely lost.
A near 60 year old man loses everything in his life, his job and his family and is now losing his mind. The film is not told in an especially emotive way, which is why it may be difficult to follow. When this man, John V. takes it upon himself to crusade against a large company, his internal life runs away with him with imagined friendships and conversations, until he goes over the edge.
This film is extremely well made, from the art direction to the lighting to the costumes and especially the work of the actors, director and writer. The twist in the story will stay with you for a long time and will make you think about the characters, the director, the writer and about yourself.
A near 60 year old man loses everything in his life, his job and his family and is now losing his mind. The film is not told in an especially emotive way, which is why it may be difficult to follow. When this man, John V. takes it upon himself to crusade against a large company, his internal life runs away with him with imagined friendships and conversations, until he goes over the edge.
This film is extremely well made, from the art direction to the lighting to the costumes and especially the work of the actors, director and writer. The twist in the story will stay with you for a long time and will make you think about the characters, the director, the writer and about yourself.
Simply a great movie!
bfetter11 February 2005
This simply is a great movie! I voted 9 out of 10. It shows that it's possible, even in the Netherlands, to make intelligent movies about actual topics or events. For ages the only themes in serious Dutch films were the Second World War and sex. Luckily this is changing now. For instance last year we saw the comedy "Shouf Shouf Habibi" about the problems of immigrants from Marocco in Holland, and the murdered filmmaker Theo van Gogh made "05/ 06" about the murder of the politician Pim Fortuyn. "Off Screen" is also based on true events. Two years ago a confused man (a bus driver) took hostages in an office building because he wanted to speak to the top executive of Philips Electronics, about the introduction of widescreen television. He thought this was one big scam, and that the consumers were mislead, because in Holland there are hardly any broadcasts in the widescreen format. (In fact he was right of course!) It was a bit of a sad event, because just a few days before the Philips offices were moved to an adjourning office building. It ended with the confused man committing suicide. The film was made on a very small budged, but that's hardly visible. The film focuses on the life of the divorced bus driver. It shows the psychological process and the supposed encounters he had with the Philips executive that led to his actions. I say supposed encounters, because the best thing about the film is that it never becomes exactly clear what's real, and what's not. Did things really happen, or is it all just in the mind of the bus driver? In this aspect the film reminded me of films like "Swimming Pool" (Francois Ozon), "Als Twee Druppels Water" (Fons Rademakers), or even "Big Fish" (Tim Burton), "The Usual Suspects" (Brain Singer) and "Fight Club" (David Fincher). The two main actors are absolutely great! In their separate scenes, but also in their scenes together there is a real chemistry. The Belgian actor Jan Decleir (as the bus driver) is always good. Jeroen Krabbé (as the Philips executive) has made great movies, but also a few awful ones. Here he shows he still is a one of Holland's best actors. Let there be made more intriguing movies like this, and let there be less money wasted on big budget productions (to Dutch standards that is) like the recent turkey "Floris". And let Paul Verhoeven finally make the definitive and absolutely last Dutch movie about WW II, the long awaited "Zwartboek"!
Great actors movie!
arno.f@hetnet.nl16 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Two of THE great actors of Dutch/Belgium cinema are opposite each other in this drama/thriller based on actual events: Jeroen Krabbe and Jan Decleir.
This movie (based upon actual events) tells the story of a man who enters a building with the intention of keeping one of the Philips directors hostage, only to find he is in the wrong building, since Philips moved to the building next door. The movie is mainly a character study and isn't so much about the hostage taking itself as about the events leading to the man's action.
SPOILERS******SPOILERS******SPOILERS*******SPOILERS**** The events leading to the main character's action are not so much what actually lead to it, but the movie's point of view is from the main character himself. We see things through his eyes/memories and we are dealing here with a man who gradually but surely starts to lose every sense of reality. All the meetings with the Philips director are more or less figures of his imagination, something I understand from other reviews, not everybody is grasping, at least not immediately.
END OF SPOILERS******END OF SPOILERS*******END OF SPOILERS***** I feel this is a very good movie indeed carried by two great actors who both make the most of their roles. Both actors deserve a chance in international big movies. Jeroen Krabbe has played in several of them in the end of the 80's, beginning of the 90's (No Mercy, License to Kill, the Fugitive) and plays a role now in the new Deuce Bigalow movie with Rob Schneider, but please please let someone give this man an interesting character role in a quality drama and the same goes for Jan Decleir who has been offered some international roles, but turned them down, cause from an actor's point of view they were not the most interesting, witch is a daring thing to do, but maybe a good thing to. These are two fine actors who can really bring a movie to a higher level as they prove with this movie!
This movie (based upon actual events) tells the story of a man who enters a building with the intention of keeping one of the Philips directors hostage, only to find he is in the wrong building, since Philips moved to the building next door. The movie is mainly a character study and isn't so much about the hostage taking itself as about the events leading to the man's action.
SPOILERS******SPOILERS******SPOILERS*******SPOILERS**** The events leading to the main character's action are not so much what actually lead to it, but the movie's point of view is from the main character himself. We see things through his eyes/memories and we are dealing here with a man who gradually but surely starts to lose every sense of reality. All the meetings with the Philips director are more or less figures of his imagination, something I understand from other reviews, not everybody is grasping, at least not immediately.
END OF SPOILERS******END OF SPOILERS*******END OF SPOILERS***** I feel this is a very good movie indeed carried by two great actors who both make the most of their roles. Both actors deserve a chance in international big movies. Jeroen Krabbe has played in several of them in the end of the 80's, beginning of the 90's (No Mercy, License to Kill, the Fugitive) and plays a role now in the new Deuce Bigalow movie with Rob Schneider, but please please let someone give this man an interesting character role in a quality drama and the same goes for Jan Decleir who has been offered some international roles, but turned them down, cause from an actor's point of view they were not the most interesting, witch is a daring thing to do, but maybe a good thing to. These are two fine actors who can really bring a movie to a higher level as they prove with this movie!
Movie to watch twice
tim@vdhoff.nl21 February 2005
When watching the trailer I was amazed about the mediocre acting performances of the entire cast, save Jan Decleir... However, I did want to see the movie and went to Antwerp last weekend to find out if the acting was poor throughout the movie. Fortunately the story of somewhat deranged bus driver John Voerman explained my notion. This certainly is a good movie, worth watching a couple of times to make sure you grasped the true story: both in his personal affairs and hunt for the codes hidden in the black bars of widescreen television John regularly looses track of reality and his deluded mind alters the way things really are...
I'm very glad I did take the chance to see it, because it's definitely worth your time. 7,5/10
I'm very glad I did take the chance to see it, because it's definitely worth your time. 7,5/10
An excellent head-scratcher with great promise
jhmoore29 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was quite well constructed, if not a tad confusing. Then again, I tend to enjoy movies that aren't subscriptive to the standard Hollywood format that spoonfeeds you the plot like easy-to-digest babyfood.
It beings by telling a story that is fairly simple to understand, about a disgruntled bus driver who has a bone to pick with Philips for their push to have consumers purchase widescreen television sets when presumably their old sets behave just as well for most of the available content in 2000.
Then a sort of undertone sets in, very subtly, as if the movie is simply telling a matter-of-fact story that the audience is supposed to just understand. There is no mention nor even hints to help the audience put the pieces together, it is as if they are just supposed to "get it" As it continues towards the end, we/the audience is questioning exactly what is real and what is not.. Does the protagonist know the Head of Sound and Vision at Philips? Does he come over to his house with the host of The Quiz? Does he give him a handgun? None of this is explained, but as the plot comes to a close we suddenly might see it as merely the paranoid delusions of an elderly man on the edge of dementia, rather than an actual plot to infect the audience through widescreen television..? One main clue towards this argument is that apart from his initial audience with Wesselinck in his office, all the rest seem to be disjointed, as if the conversations are taking place inside his head.. The visit to the secret research facility for Pandora, even the shooting range with Astrid, which also seems to be housed in the same facility as Pandora..
Either way, this is an excellent film, and I'm also surprised it has such low ratings. I'm giving this an 8, when I wish i could give it an 8.5. Some of the overall plot is a bit poorly presented, and it leaves the audience very confused at the end, and while this may have been the director/writers purpose, the level of disjointedness is quite unsettling.
It beings by telling a story that is fairly simple to understand, about a disgruntled bus driver who has a bone to pick with Philips for their push to have consumers purchase widescreen television sets when presumably their old sets behave just as well for most of the available content in 2000.
Then a sort of undertone sets in, very subtly, as if the movie is simply telling a matter-of-fact story that the audience is supposed to just understand. There is no mention nor even hints to help the audience put the pieces together, it is as if they are just supposed to "get it" As it continues towards the end, we/the audience is questioning exactly what is real and what is not.. Does the protagonist know the Head of Sound and Vision at Philips? Does he come over to his house with the host of The Quiz? Does he give him a handgun? None of this is explained, but as the plot comes to a close we suddenly might see it as merely the paranoid delusions of an elderly man on the edge of dementia, rather than an actual plot to infect the audience through widescreen television..? One main clue towards this argument is that apart from his initial audience with Wesselinck in his office, all the rest seem to be disjointed, as if the conversations are taking place inside his head.. The visit to the secret research facility for Pandora, even the shooting range with Astrid, which also seems to be housed in the same facility as Pandora..
Either way, this is an excellent film, and I'm also surprised it has such low ratings. I'm giving this an 8, when I wish i could give it an 8.5. Some of the overall plot is a bit poorly presented, and it leaves the audience very confused at the end, and while this may have been the director/writers purpose, the level of disjointedness is quite unsettling.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
