CommentsXp
Best movie ever!
Neive Bellamy
Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.
Kayden
This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama
Alyssa Black (Aly200)
Not quite your average kidnapping drama in this relatively unknown film from the mid-2000s, but be prepared for intense moments. Loosely based on an actual murder case from Brazil, Pieter Jan Brugge directs an A-list cast in the story of a businessman abducted by a vengeful engineer while the businessman's wife awaits the safe return of her kidnapped husband.Robert Redford takes on the role of the kidnapped victim, Wayne Hayes, a successful businessman whose life is rockier than most people know. We learn he had cheated on his loving wife with a younger woman and has a strained relationship with wife Eileen and their two grown children. Redford brings his usual gravitas to the role, but manages to inject a vulnerability of sorts into Wayne; demonstrating what a disadvantage he is at in the hands of his captor. However the actor brings an intelligence that combats the ideals held by his kidnapper and challenges the odds of survival at every turn in order to escape. Wayne nearly bests his captor at every chance he gets, the only resource at his disposal to try and survive.Future Oscar winning actress Helen Mirren portrays Redford's wife, Eileen, though not quite with the same talent the British star is known for. We know very little about Eileen besides what we see from her role as wife and mother, but her background is left obscured from us. Eileen does maintain calm under the initial pressure of Wayne's kidnapping thanks to Mirren's trademark stoicism, but eventually the gravity of the situation dawns on her and Eileen begins to worry more and more. We watch as Eileen must confront the demons of her husband's infidelity which doesn't give Eileen much closure in the matter, but eases her guilt. It's truly haunting to see a strong actress like Helen Mirren break down by the film's end when she realizes what has happened to the husband she supported and loved.Playing the role of the kidnapper is the ever reliable Willem Dafoe. Here the actor brings a restraint to the part of disgruntled former engineer Arnold Mack. There are some secrets hidden away in Dafoe's performance as throughout the film, we begin to uncover Arnold's reasons for disliking Redford's Wayne even after there is an uneasy trust built between them, but we don't quite learn exactly why Arnold has kidnapped Wayne. However it soon becomes clearer through the subtlety of Dafoe's performance and the actor's trademark intensity (which is kept low-key without ever veering into over the top) why Arnold has done what he's done and it becomes a matter of time wondering whether the desperate engineer will kill his captive, will Wayne kill Arnold or is Wayne gonna make it out? Again the narrative is based on an actual case that ended tragically. The movie does a mediocre job at replicating the events in a loose fashion, but thanks to the acting talent involved it is watchable and engaging. The dialogue between actors Robert Redford and Willem Dafoe is well written, giving small insights into their characters and ramps up the tension as we follow them further and further into the woods.A good little thrill ride.
vanoostende
I was watching this movie and everything reminded me of the Gerrit Heijn kidnapping in the Netherlands in 1987. I even regognised the road and the bridge where the murder took place. It is near Wolfheze in the woods, just next to the A12 highway from Utrecht to Arnhem. I could find no credits anywhere and only one mention on Wikipedia. I can only suspect the family never gave permission for this movie. And I believe they are right. All the characters are flat and there is no depth in them. This movie could not hold my attention and I think it was a waste of time on three great actors. We have a Dutch saying: Shoemaker stay with your own tools, meaning you should always stick with what you do best. This is so true for Pieter Jan Brugge. A good producer does not make a good director
Wuchak
In "The Clearing" (2004) Robert Redford plays a rich executive in the Pittsburgh area kidnapped by a working class guy (Willem Dafoe) while his wife (Helen Mirren) tries to handle the situation.Those hoping for a conventional Hollywood crime thriller will be disappointing by "The Clearing." This is a reflective adult drama/mystery about a kidnapping, based on a true story that occurred in Holland in 1987.While decidedly low-key, there are interesting psychological elements rooted in class warfare (the executive and kidnapper's relationship) and the nature of happiness in marriage and the stumbling blocks thereof (the executive, his wife and another woman). The three acting giants make the drama believable and compelling. There's only one roll-your-eyes part (the aftermath of the fight between two guys; you'll know what I mean when you see it).The movie has left some people confused, but it's pretty straight-forward and everything is there if you pay attention. The two story lines are not parallel. One takes place over the course of a single day and the other over several days and, ultimately, the better part of a year (you'll note the seasons change).The city scenes were shot in Pittsburgh and the forest scenes in the Asheville, NC, area. Some parts were shot in Atlanta as well.The film runs 95 minutes.GRADE: B+
sophia-eight
I was looking forward to this - Redford, Defoe & Mirren, all great actors, all in the one film. But this is not one they can be especially proud of. First off, why was Redford made to look like Donald Trump? The resemblance is so unmistakable that it couldn't have been accidental. Maybe it was meant to convey the fact that he's a millionaire? But it instead irritated me - I kept wondering why they didn't try to make Mirren look like Ivana! Then there was the amount of the ransom demand - $10 million. When she heard that, Mirren's character didn't gasp, and start going on about how they couldn't possibly raise that much in a couple of days, she'd have to mortgage the house, talk to the accountants about selling shares and so on. Instead, she simply agrees to it. That is just not believable. Sure her husband's a millionaire, but he had that much in liquid assets he wouldn't be driving himself to work, and he'd have a security staff to protect him from kidnap. And a canny businessman like him would anyway make sure that all his assets would be in an untouchable company trust or something similar (especially if he's lately been messing around and might face a divorce!) There is no way his wife would be able to lay her hands on that kind of money in just three days. Then there's all the soppy stuff about families and relationships - that family was like no family I know; where's the arguments, the distrust, the dragging up of bitter memories? Instead, it was all soft-focus hugging and tears. Dafoe's character, the way he was represented, was unstatisactory as well. This man was depicted as a loser, to frightened to leave an unhappy marriage r even get a job. Yet he was bright and organised enough to meticulously plan the kidnap; he even remembered nearly word-for-word a conversation he had had with the Redford character years before. So why exactly was he such a loser? Whereas Redford's character was presented in a completely positive fashion; he was a nice, sensitive, considerate guy even though he had clawed his way to the top of his company and made lots of financial deals. Sorry, but guys like him are NOT nice! On the plus side, the scenes with Redford and Dafoe were mesmerising; two fine actors teasing their way through their characters and slowly building up a relationship. The slow building up of tension, the "what is he going to do, is he telling the truth or not?" questions kept me gripped. If the film had been stripped down to just these two, I would have been happy.
