Riphagen
What disturbed me most was the disgust caused by watching someone move through horror with such skill. He is not just a war criminal or another collaborator; he is a man who turns other people’s fear into business, who knows how to seem useful, approachable or even protective while calculating how to exploit everyone. Some villains impose themselves through direct violence. This one is more uncomfortable because he seduces, deceives and makes others lower their guard.
The true story already has tremendous force. During the Nazi occupation of Amsterdam, this man extorts Jewish people, sells false promises of protection, plays with the resistance, with the Germans and with anyone who allows him to keep accumulating power. The most repulsive thing is that he does not seem driven only by ideology, but by profit, vanity and personal survival. For him, war is not a collective tragedy, but an opportunity. That idea, horror turned into a market, leaves a very unpleasant aftertaste.
The film works above all because of Jeroen van Koningsbrugge. His performance is very good because he does not present him as an obvious monster from the first minute. He builds him as someone charismatic, confident, intelligent, even likeable when it suits him. That is the trap. You understand how he can manipulate, how he can inspire trust and how he can move from one world to another without everyone immediately seeing what he is. The more human he seems, the more repulsive he becomes.
I also liked the atmosphere. Amsterdam appears beautiful and poisoned, with its streets, canals and houses crossed by the fear of occupation. The film conveys well that feeling of everyday life contaminated by denunciations, secrets, favors, uniforms and silences. It does not need to turn everything into war spectacle; it is enough to show how barbarity enters relationships, business and trust. The terrible thing is that evil does not always arrive shouting. Sometimes it knocks politely.
As a historical story, I find it interesting because it speaks of a very dirty moral zone: that of those who grow rich in the middle of disaster, disguise themselves as saviors and play all sides. We are not only facing the uniformed enemy, but the neighbor, the intermediary, the man who knows everyone’s fears and turns them into currency. That is why the film leaves so much anger behind. It is not only about violence, but about lies, betrayal and calculation.
I understand, even so, that it can seem rather classical. The narration is quite conventional and perhaps such a murky life needed a series to unfold its layers better. Some secondary characters remain more functional than complex, and sometimes you want more detail, more depth and more time to understand the whole network of lies, complicities and cowardice. The story is so strong that it feels as if there was still more poison to extract.
It can also feel a little long in its final stretch. Not because it stops being interesting, but because the indignation caused by the protagonist weighs heavily. You wait for justice, for a fall, for some kind of moral balance, and the film plays with a fairly bitter frustration. In that sense it works, but it also exhausts. Some films leave you sad; this one also leaves you in a bad mood. And perhaps that is part of its effectiveness.
What I value most is that it does not try to make him likeable, although it does show why he could seem convincing. The difference is important. The film shows his charisma, intelligence and ability to perform in front of everyone, but it does not absolve him. On the contrary: the more we see his charm, the more disgusting it is to think about the lives he destroys. He is not an abstract force of evil, but a man capable of choosing, lying, enriching himself and handing others over while protecting his own comfort.
The hardest part is thinking about the people who fell into his net: families trying to survive, people who believed a false promise, lives placed in the hands of someone who saw only loot. There the film gains a truly cruel dimension. Fear makes anyone vulnerable, and someone always appears willing to exploit that vulnerability down to the last coin.
In the end, it seems to me a notable, uncomfortable and highly recommendable film if you are interested in historical cinema about the Nazi occupation and its lesser-known dark zones. It is not perfect, and it could have been deeper and less conventional, but it has strength, good atmosphere and a central performance that holds almost everything together. Above all, it makes you feel disgust for that man, for his smile, for his ability to survive and for the injustice of some people crossing horror while leaving others buried behind them. A true story that hurts because it does not feel exaggerated, but like a warning.
The true story already has tremendous force. During the Nazi occupation of Amsterdam, this man extorts Jewish people, sells false promises of protection, plays with the resistance, with the Germans and with anyone who allows him to keep accumulating power. The most repulsive thing is that he does not seem driven only by ideology, but by profit, vanity and personal survival. For him, war is not a collective tragedy, but an opportunity. That idea, horror turned into a market, leaves a very unpleasant aftertaste.
The film works above all because of Jeroen van Koningsbrugge. His performance is very good because he does not present him as an obvious monster from the first minute. He builds him as someone charismatic, confident, intelligent, even likeable when it suits him. That is the trap. You understand how he can manipulate, how he can inspire trust and how he can move from one world to another without everyone immediately seeing what he is. The more human he seems, the more repulsive he becomes.
I also liked the atmosphere. Amsterdam appears beautiful and poisoned, with its streets, canals and houses crossed by the fear of occupation. The film conveys well that feeling of everyday life contaminated by denunciations, secrets, favors, uniforms and silences. It does not need to turn everything into war spectacle; it is enough to show how barbarity enters relationships, business and trust. The terrible thing is that evil does not always arrive shouting. Sometimes it knocks politely.
As a historical story, I find it interesting because it speaks of a very dirty moral zone: that of those who grow rich in the middle of disaster, disguise themselves as saviors and play all sides. We are not only facing the uniformed enemy, but the neighbor, the intermediary, the man who knows everyone’s fears and turns them into currency. That is why the film leaves so much anger behind. It is not only about violence, but about lies, betrayal and calculation.
I understand, even so, that it can seem rather classical. The narration is quite conventional and perhaps such a murky life needed a series to unfold its layers better. Some secondary characters remain more functional than complex, and sometimes you want more detail, more depth and more time to understand the whole network of lies, complicities and cowardice. The story is so strong that it feels as if there was still more poison to extract.
It can also feel a little long in its final stretch. Not because it stops being interesting, but because the indignation caused by the protagonist weighs heavily. You wait for justice, for a fall, for some kind of moral balance, and the film plays with a fairly bitter frustration. In that sense it works, but it also exhausts. Some films leave you sad; this one also leaves you in a bad mood. And perhaps that is part of its effectiveness.
What I value most is that it does not try to make him likeable, although it does show why he could seem convincing. The difference is important. The film shows his charisma, intelligence and ability to perform in front of everyone, but it does not absolve him. On the contrary: the more we see his charm, the more disgusting it is to think about the lives he destroys. He is not an abstract force of evil, but a man capable of choosing, lying, enriching himself and handing others over while protecting his own comfort.
The hardest part is thinking about the people who fell into his net: families trying to survive, people who believed a false promise, lives placed in the hands of someone who saw only loot. There the film gains a truly cruel dimension. Fear makes anyone vulnerable, and someone always appears willing to exploit that vulnerability down to the last coin.
In the end, it seems to me a notable, uncomfortable and highly recommendable film if you are interested in historical cinema about the Nazi occupation and its lesser-known dark zones. It is not perfect, and it could have been deeper and less conventional, but it has strength, good atmosphere and a central performance that holds almost everything together. Above all, it makes you feel disgust for that man, for his smile, for his ability to survive and for the injustice of some people crossing horror while leaving others buried behind them. A true story that hurts because it does not feel exaggerated, but like a warning.
Mini Review: What disturbed me most was the disgust caused by watching someone move through horror with such skill. He is not just a war criminal or another collaborator; he is a man who turns other people’s fear into business, who knows how to seem useful, approachable or even protective while calculating how to exploit everyone. Some villains impose themselves through direct violence. This one is more uncomfortable because he seduces, deceives and makes o...