06/05 (2004) Online

Well, I actually really liked it. Next to the tension this movie builds on, it has a very warm, very dutch, comforting seventies-based and natural feel to it. Despite of the actual storyline and the grim ideas behind it, I could understand where Theo was coming from when he wanted this to be made. Having lived the day when Pim Fortuyn got killed, and knowing the many unexplained details surrounding it, I think parts of the movie are terrifying in that they might very well be more true than most of us would like to believe. Just waving away the entire story as fiction somehow doesn't cut it for me. Knowing Theo Van Gogh quite well from local TV etcetera, I expected some hidden messages, telling us things beneath the surface of it all; They're not getting through to every viewer, but they're all over the place.

Theo shot this movie using the very fast 3-camera technique, giving it a documentary-like speed, which fits the writing. Some of the action scenes could have been done better (with a bigger budget perhaps), but aside from a few lesser moments (which didn't really bother me) the movie had me hooked, and the only thing I didn't like was that it ended. You know good guys can't always win, but you really want them to this time around. Even today, you'd like Pim and Theo to just re-appear on-screen like nothing had happened in our 'innocent' little country. It's hard to view the film not knowing the sickening story behind his killing, and it's even harder to notice how wrongfully he and Pim have been accused of being racist and right-wing extremists (or similar accusations). If anything, this movie is telling it like it is, and shows us how the exact opposite was true for both Pim and Theo.

The movie would have looked quite promising for Van Gogh, and still does for most of the actors in it. Theo was clearly getting better by the year, so it truly saddens me to see what could have been if he would still be alive. It's all been so silly, so stupid, so useless, and when you see this movie you want to snap out of reality, but you know you can't, because it is all so real...

Nice dutch movie about conspiracy theory's considering the murder of Pim Fortuin. I think it's a good document for dutch viewers to re-live the events pre- and post six may 2001. The plot is pretty good, as we could expect from Ross but the acting is a little rough sometimes. Every time I see someone handling a gun in a dutch movie it seems strange to me. Only LEK succeeded in making that work (for me). It's definitely a movie a for many people in The Netherlands to see, especially because it's the last movie Theo van Gogh made before he was killed by a crazy SOAB. It's funny to see the voting on this movie. 38 When i'm writing this and about half votes it a 10 and the other half votes for a 1. That's an example of how this is still a subject in the dutch society and this might be compared to a dutch JFK. It's a pity van Gogh couldn't get actors that are the same quality as JFK or even find one that speaks proper English!

First off, let's all admit that this film would probably never had a chance to see a production budget of any kind before September 11th, 2001. Secondly, two of the main characters are westernized Muslims and in the film they drink alcohol, have a sexual affair, and wear regular clothes ( no hijab for the female character ). What all of that means, exactly, is something of a mystery to me.

Third, the story-telling in this film is far better than some of the other comments might indicate. Given that the fine DVD presentation requires the viewer to read subtitles for the parts given in other languages, which is about 98 per cent of the film, it all works real well. In my less-than-humble opinion, of course.

Apparently the Dutch secret service or spy agency does not believe in or perhaps does not need warrants to break into the homes of private citizens, and is not averse to random acts of vandalism, as well.

So, yes, the story is convoluted and to see this film without some basic back-grounding on the politics involved makes it a daunting task. On the other side, the principal actors mostly do a very fine job in their characterizations of real persons. The fact that the film ends without giving the viewer any kind of "in the face" explanation of who really killed the Dutch politician, Pym, does not make the story in any way irrelevant. Nor can any sensible person find anything racist in this intriguing drama. On the contrary, the Netherlands is presented as being a most tolerant place where natives and second-generation immigrants live next to each other and work together quite well.

It's a spy story and a murder story, after all, and it does provoke the viewer to ask ... who really wanted that fellow Pym to be killed ? The colorful, controversial life of Theo van Gogh, who was in life so very central to the creation of this film, is NOT the subject here.

The pacing and the direction were really rather good, and it is not a "slow-paced" film, but it is telling a rather convoluted story. Leading lady Tara Elders does a remarkable turn in a tough role, too, as the Muslim immigrant with a checkered past.

For my dollar two ninety-five, it was worth renting and worth viewing twice. The second time around the intrigue was much easier to grasp.

It is necessary to know something about the recent history of the Netherlands to get the full value of this production.

Being of Dutch origin and reading Dutch newspapers almost daily, I should have known about the existence of this film. But I did not. By accident I came across this DVD at my favorite movie-letter. This is the first full length Dutch feature film I ever saw and I must say, I am impressed. It is a very typical Dutch film-too much emphasis on family problems and never ending discussions about understanding each other-, the story though is very acceptingly with the stumbling role of the Dutch version of the CIA (the AIVD)and the political lack of interest in finding out the truth. Pim Fortuyn was too big for Holland, his violent death was too much for the rather closed and upright society, that Holland in fact still is. The repetition of the things politicians of that time ventilated about Fortuyn was shocking and amazing. It is obvious that Holland is still suffering about his loss and about the circumstances that lead to his brutal death.The wound is too fresh to be dealt with in a objective manner. Theo van Gogh tried to do that and was also murdered, although for different reasons, you might think. But there is a connection for sure.

I think the movie insufficiently shows how the immigration debate was muddled by intolerance, obscurantism, intimidation and character assassination, and how it eventually led to physical assassination. Some user comments give you a flavour, though. Pravda-5 seems to be consumed by the most intense racial animosity, directed against the Dutch, who stand accused of "in-bread racism" (the word is inbred, by the way). This is exactly the Soviet-like unmeasured demagoguery that had Fortuyn killed. Would I be allowed to make a generalization of my own? Would it be off-limits to present some statistically significant data about crime committed by immigrants, which makes the Dutch a bit wary and suspicious? Now that would be racism, wouldn't it? Or the fact that a significant minority is involved in gang and violent criminal activity and that large portion of these people feel alienated from the dominant culture and have made it explicitly clear that they will do as they please, regardless of what the laws say. Another fact is that we are one the most racially diverse of the leading industrialized nations, with the biggest percentage of non-Western immigrants. That we have done many things for the eternally "disaffected" Muslims: We have build them mosques with imposing minarets all over Rotterdam, Amsterdam and the rest of the country, we have authorized state grants to Islamic schools etc. etc. Many Muslims however relate to their host countries in ways that are diametrically opposed to the multicultural indulgence that they have received. Did I mention that Van Gogh is dead, like Fortuyn? And that two prominent politicians are into hiding for the rest of their lives? That sort of proves their point, doesn't it? I also can't say that I'm much impressed by the idiot schoolmarmish cant about racism and xenophobia from SnoopDogDog from Albania. To call opinions you don't like racist is such a debasement, the question is: are they t-r-u-e?". A phobia is an irrational fear of something or someone. It is not irrational to fear those who follow issued fatwa's. Fortuyn was a public-spirited person doing his citizenly best to promote his idea that freedom of speech is more important than the supposed feelings of Muslims. Fortuyn's opinions were politically incorrect, the opinions of the left were simply incorrect, comparing him to Hitler in a very volatile period of World War II commemorations, which was an offence to objective truth and reason. However, Fortuyn never thought that any speech should be legally banned. By the way, we take the p*ss out of everyone, we're Dutch! Catholics, protestants, homosexuals, foreigners and since recently Muslims. No suffering stronger than hurt feelings is involved.

It certainly isn't the best Van Gogh movie i've ever seen, but certainly worth watching. Like all Van Gogh movies the plot is weird and incoherent, but the story is interesting and full of suspense. I guess knowing something of the background of this story and the opinion of the director and believing there might be a setup involved in the murder of Pim Fortuyn helps liking this movie. The "real scenes" of Marcel van Dam and others are great. Even more "funny"is the fact that Van Dam didn't want this in the movie, the television company refused to give the images to Van Gogh, but somehow he managed to get them! More important however is the absurd atmosphere of the movie. Like in his other movies there is a lot of beautiful shot scenes. Some very funny dialog and not so ordinary characters (i didn't like the acting of some though). Only i thought that in for example Blind Date this was done better, maybe because that movie is more psychological and the subject is not based on facts like 06-05.

Conspiracies by virtue are US made. The Dutch have never cared much about conspiracies. The events of the day that Pim Fortuyn was murdered have triggered a wild variety of conspiracies about almost anything nowadays. The Dutch have become Americans in more ways than they would like to acknowledge. This movie is clearly based on Oliver Stone's masterpiece JFK. Theo van Gogh has made a clever attempt in pointing out facts that almost everyone who had something to lose in the elections of 2002 or something to gain wanted Fortuyn out of the way. The resemblance with the death of JFK is apparent.

It is a fact that heavy police activity was noticed in the area of the assassination prior to the shooting. It is a fact that Mat Herben was a little known politician who rose to power after the election. In true conspiracy style Van Gogh links the election with king makers very much like the king makers in Being There. Reference is made to the Bilderberg Group. Apparently Mat Herben was spotted at one of those secret meetings. Mat Herben is known to be a Freemason. It is interesting to note that then Prime Minister Win Kok was quoted as saying "that he thought that political assassinations were a thing of the past". No journalist ever followed up on that rather odd remark.

The movie is entertaining, the acting is much better than expected and the plot does contain holes as Van Gogh took too little time to further develop the story. The Dutch have a lot to learn about conspiracies in general. They make the fundamental mistake of filling in gaps left in the official story without asking the right questions first. In JFK the movie, there is a famous quote by Jim Garrison: "Ask the question!". Maybe, just maybe the official story intentionally leaves holes for conspiracy theorists to make the number one mistake..

As a political statement, this is a failed attempt, I have to agree with others here. The ridiculous ending points towards lack of self respect and respect for the viewer. Maybe it was done out of trying not to take oneself too seriously, if this was so, then that's failed too. It fails to make clear that killing Fortuyn was in response to what left-wing politicians said, and that it was necessary for Volkert van der G. to do so.

The only support for the conspiracy theory which is sort of makes sense is the fact that VvdG was arrested so quickly. However, we have to remember that in conspiracy theories, you don't have to prove anything, the lack of proof is proof itself. Still, you might cling to that old who-dun-it meme: "Follow da money!" Who benefited from his death? The left? Not really, (or rather, really not) they were vilified at the elections, lost 50 percent of their seats in Parliament and they didn't recover until recently. The loony Right? Maybe, because they had a martyr, and they milked that cow until it had Mad Cow disease, too. The arms/JSF lobby? Hmmm, yes and no. The JSF has been the govts choice, but it's controversial, since Dutch defense industry didn't get any deals out of it, so the left can make the truthful case that we're being sucked dry by the Americans. The centre party, the Christian Democrats? They DID profit, electorally, they were seen as a sensible alternative to the opportunistic Fortuyn-party. But perhaps the ones who profited most were the 'sensible' right, the conservatives. Everyone agrees that it is the Iron Heel of THEIR political agenda which now rules the Netherlands ...

Technically, the film was good, some of the camera work was even very good. Sparse, not too much. The lead actor wasn't bad, but he mumbled too much for him to get Best Actor prize. Totally ridiculous was the casting of the daughter! Especially in the scenes with the father, sometimes HE looked younger, despite his beard,

I found it totally unbelievable that she was 15! She's pretty, she's a good actress, but looked too old. Most ridiculous, the scene in the pool/waterparadise. Embarrassing.

"06/05", referring to the day Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was murdered, is the last movie by Dutch filmmaker and infant terrible Theo van Gogh, who was killed by a Muslim extremist shortly after he completed shooting this movie.

"06/05" tries to convince the viewer that the Dutch intelligence services was aware of a conspiracy to kill Fortuyn, but chose not to intervene because this would benefit their political agendas. It also claims that various politicians and media personalities, by saying very harsh things about Fortuyn, created an atmosphere that facilitated or even directly led to the murder.

For a movie that makes such bold statements, everything hinges on how convincing it can carry those statements across. Unfortunately, "06/05" fails to make its statements believable. It does make it clear that various people went way too far in the things they said to and about Fortuyn, but it fails to explain why this would automatically lead to murder. There's a difference between words and deeds, you know, and holding an entire group responsible for the actions of one madman is cheap, to say the least. It also glosses over the fact that Fortuyn consciously chose the role of the victim and cleverly provoked a lot of the reactions, and insulted lots of people himself.

The actual conspiracy theory presented here is very straightforward and rather predictable, but not all that convincing . It's good enough to serve as a movie plot, but it's not nearly good enough to make you believe that something like it actually happened since it's very clearly mostly just fiction.

So, as a political statement, "06/05" mostly fails, but is it still good entertainment? IMHO, not really. Theo van Gogh's directing style might work for documentaries, but it's too straightforward and rushed to create any form of tension, or to make you care about any of the characters. Fairly uninspired acting and dialog don't really help either. The leads are OK, but some of the supporting roles are horribly miscast (Jack Wouterse as head of intelligence...yeah right) and the Dutch actors that speak English are embarrassing. Also, the action sequences really could have used some work, because they're utterly amateurish.

All in all, it's an OK movie, but it's not very convincing as a political statement, and only mildly successful as entertainment.

**1/2 out of *****

Found this movie in the library, had never heard of it, although i had read of Van Gogh's murder. Interesting to see the casting of Americans as the money-men behind the plot to assassinate Pim. this would probably not have appeared in such a routine, "everybody knows" manner if this were an American film. But if it were an American film, it wouldn't have been made at all. we in the US are pretty protected from news about what our weapons manufacturers are really doing. It helps us to not understand things like Iraq, prepares us to believe whatever Bush tells us. funny to run across this detail in a European movie. I believe it explains so much. But about the movie, see it. What do idealists do, when the money is all against them? What do lovers do when they're blackmailed by the cops? Is every woman in Holland that beautiful? Is it possible to love someone for their posture?

Theo Van Gogh's movie about the murder of Pim Fortuyn is an absolute masterpiece. It shows the real 'sinister' interests behind this dramatic coup d'état. Pim Fortuyn would have won the next elections in the Netherlands and would probably have been the next Dutch Prime Minister in 2005. With his more or less liberal, pro-market agenda, Pim Fortuyn was acceptable for the rightist political and economic powers and their media, until … it appeared that he would not respect the Dutch NATO obligations (e.g., the purchase of brand new fighter planes), and would instead spend the huge sums available on more social programs. From that moment on, he became an outcast, an outlaw, free to be killed by any person who could be manipulated by the forces Pim Fortuyn had unleashed against him. He was shot dead under the eyes of the secret services.

One of his main media opponents was the socialist (?) TV commentator MVD. This man is the perfect example of the adage 'do as I say, not as I do'. He defended passionately with his mouth the underdogs and the poor immigrants, while building a mansion of more than 2 million euro in his backyard. If anyone in the Netherlands had done the same, only one tenth of the actual Dutch population would have found a place to live there.

This movie is a must see for all those who want to understand the world we live in.

A shocking assassination of a controversial public figure, muddy, insufficient explanation, hence a logical ground for a conspiracy theories. If you add that the director of the movie gets murdered himself, soon after finishing this film,it all gets even more convoluted. Pim Fortuyn was labeled with the extremist labels, racism, intolerance, but he was much more complex person. An open homosexual, asking hard but not unfair questions. Without any answers or useful suggestions, he was smeared and easily dismissed. And shortly after killed. The movie is powerful, but little disjointed , as if the director wasn't sure himself of his intentions.

You've got to hand it to him, the movie has succeeded in it's attempt. The movie was made as a monument to the embodiment of the Anti-Moslemism: Pim Fortuyn. Don't be distracted by the goal on the surface, which is to suggest that Dutch secret service knew about the murder and let it happen. The ulterior motive of this movie was to create a more anti-Moslem, anti-foreigner, anti-immigration sentiment in the Netherlands.

The effect of this movie (we can't call it 'film', it's too bad a plot for that) can still be felt today. Nowadays it's very popular to take the p|ss on foreigners in the Netherlands. Not just the man in the street does it, politicians do it even more so. The ultimate success of this work is evidenced by the fact that the country's most popular politician is extremely harsh towards foreigners, pounding on them relentlessly every chance she gets (She wants to extradite Iranian homosexual men to "gay-friendly" Iran with the advise to pretend they're heterosexual! Being homosexual is a capital offense in Iran).

I have to agree with others that technically and plot-wise the film is below par. The acting is not that bad, but the significance of this work lies in the political message. It's often said that Fortuyn, despite all his shortcomings, woke up the silent minority, and that he lead the masses to the ballot box. If all he did was wake up the racists, the xenophobes, the anti-immigration crowd, please let these people go back to sleep again.

Another flaw of this movie is the part about the Demonizing: the movie suggests that Fortuyn was Demonized, and thus, left-wing politicians are morally responsible for his murder. This is also known as the 'He Started The Fight When He Hit Me Back'-defense, or put more succinctly, Hypocrisy. The movie supports Fortuyns double standard: it's okay to say the most heinous and harsh things about Moslems, but when Fortuyn is criticized for that by left-wing politicians and even those from the center, all of a sudden they're accused of Demonizing??!

I can not agree with the last comment. I gave this movie a 1, simply because I think that as a movie it was completely nothing. The acting is lousy, but even worse: the plot is so ridiculous that I could hardly set myself to actually keep watching the movie. And not only was it ridiculous, it was extremely boring as well. The only interesting things in the movie were the music in the beginning and the few pieces of news broadcasts and the 'famous' Marcel van Dam piece from 'Het Lagerhuis'. But if Van Gogh would have cut & paste those pieces right behind each other (about 5 minutes I guess, at max?) it still would have been more interesting then the entire movie altogether. Kind of a bad result I'd say... the fact that keeping only 5 minutes of the movie intact would make it almost a better movie than it is now with over 1,5 hours. I really, really didn't like it at all. That's why I gave it a 1.

This movie doesn't even come close to JFK. That wasn't only an interesting story (like this could have been), it was a good movie as well. And eventually that's what counts: it's brought as a movie, but it sure doesn't act as a good one...

Never really had any interest in watching this movie, since it got mixed reviews at the time of its release and it just never seemed like a very appealing movie to watch, also due to the fact that it got directed by Theo van Gogh, who I wasn't a particularly big fan of. But I think I should give his movies a second chance, since I actually really ended up liking this movie!

Think that one of the problems at the time was that this movie felt far too modern at the time, for normal Dutch cinema standards. This movie is more slick and stylish looking, like am expensive Hollywood production. It also was a movie that came too soon and used a questionable premise. It got made and released just 2 years after the murder of Pim Fortuyn and at the time the movie always got advertised and presented as the story behind the murder, while in fact this movie is truly a work of fiction. People were perhaps a bit offended by all of the conspiracy theories presented in this movie, as if it was being the Dutch "JFK".

And it was no big secret that director Theo van Gogh truly admired Pim Fortuyn and some of his ideologies. I think that therefore also some people had a problem with the movie its objectivity but in all truth, this all hardly seems an issue nowadays. I had absolutely no problem with this movie and simple watched it as a fictional thriller, based on some true events.

It's still a bit ridicules to see how everybody seemed to be against Pim Fortuyn in this movie. The police, politicians and plenty of other groups and ethnicities all wanted to get rid of Fortuyn and were more than happy to conspire in his murder and cooperate with each other. I was however able to step over this fairly easily, simple because the story itself was some good thriller material. Again, as a work of fiction this movie is truly great and even somewhat tense, so please, also just simply look at it that way and as nothing more and nothing less as simply just that.

It's a fast paced movie with some great direction and style to it, that takes the story too many different places. There are plenty of great thriller developments and characters in this movie, that help to keep the movie and its story interesting, no matter how far fetched the movie gets at times.

The professional approach and style to its story are the foremost reason why this movie works out so well. It doesn't even feel like Dutch movie at all and is more like a well written and well put together American production, in which everything feels right and comes together. Story, cinematography, acting, directing, all of it combined makes "06/05" a more than just good or average thriller. It's simply a great genre movie, that works out surprisingly well as such!

8/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Theo van Gogh and Tomas Ross have directed and written a conspiracy theory based upon sentiments. After the assassination of politician Pim Fortuyn, (some of) the Dutch were looking for a scapegoat and weren't satisfied with the arrest of Volkert van der G. Since the killer wasn't a foreigner/Muslim, something bigger had to be behind it. The director and writer of this movie have given us a work of fiction which knows a bad casting, worse acting and awful storyline. The conspiracy in this movie lacks any kind of plausibility or evidence. The suggested involvement of the Dutch government in the murder of Fortuyn is briefly mentioned, but only as a cheap way to make something of the story. Which is... two-and-a-half hours of horrible acting (due to a lousy casting) and it can't even be held against the actors. I can't imagine anyone being able to foresee such a travesty. A storyline as thin as rice paper, scenes that have nothing to add to the story and if they do, they're far to devious. However, and pardon the sarcasm, this movie does have a plus side: it involves some typical Dutch, non-essential, nudity. Breasts. Because we can.

On mai 6 2002 the nationalist Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was liquidated by the pro-environment and animal rights activist Volkert van der Graaf. (--- Some political background information for foreigners: Fortuyns'politics was basically a national one. Among the Dutch people it found a wide recognition. But at the time (2002) the elite still associated his nationalism with the German fascism, so that Fortuyns' rhetoric (restriction of immigration of Muslims etc.) caused shock waves within the cosmopolitical elite. ---). It was a crime, that defies any notion of common sense. Later the writer Tomas Ross transformed the event into a fictional story, that tried to search for some logic, and construct a possible explanation. In his representation van der Graaf is a dangerous psychopath. This helps us to understand. Of course such a person has to be closely observed by the Dutch Intelligence Agency (let us say DIA). Is it not amazing that the DIA did not act (somehow I love the word amazing. It reminds me of Amazon)? According to Ross the DIA was informed about the forthcoming attempt on Fortuyns life, but decided not to intervene. For the military-industrial complex wanted to further the purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter, and the political position of Fortuyn on this subject was unpredictable. By the way, Ross tells his story through the eyes of a press photographer. Subsequently Theo van Gogh transformed the book of Ross into a film. As a person van Gogh always tried to be original, albeit often in a coarse and sometimes abusive way. However with Fortuyn he failed in his attempt. For the film 0605 is rather ordinary (common?). Its characters are credible but not impressive. The shots are pleasant to watch but not exceptional. And I must add, that the text is plain and superficial (or do I miss something?). Not at all amazing! Do not expect an unforgettable experience. On the other hand, he deserves his place on IMDb. For essentially the thing is an agreeable way to kill time. Just make your choice ... and if you feel cheated afterwards, don't say that I did not warn you! Get what I mean? Just look at the screen, and read my lips! Its main charm is perhaps the inclusion of real news shots about Fortuyn and his political adversaries. Here are some amazing examples of news shots. Referring to Fortuyn the democrat Thom de Graaf compared with German fascism: "Nearby, at a walking distance, we have the back premises where Anne Frank ..." etc. The left-wing liberal Paul Rosenmöller said: "I think that Fortuyn has cut in his fingers. I hope that the wound will be so deep, that the bleeding will last until the election day". The social-democrat Ad Melkert said: "Here he crosses a line, that one must not pass. Netherlands, wake up!" And the socialist Marcel van Dam said: "You are a liar, an instigator. ... You are an extremely inferior person". It is indeed unbelievable. So why did van Gogh decide to produce a mediocre detective film? Certainly his fascination with the person Fortuyn was a motivation. He was himself a controversial Bohemian, and most likely saw an equal in Fortuyn. Someone to whom he should respond. Immediately he recognized a shared destiny. Van Gogh was not only a producer, but also hosted several talk shows. More than once he invited Fortuyn in his heavenly shows, and interviewed him in a relatively friendly manner. He liked his company. However, if a producer is so much emotionally involved in his story, you would expect a more exciting result. The film is too much down-to-earth. It seems like a missed opportunity. So yes, I am somewhat disappointed.

This movie recently aired on a Turkish pay channel reminded me the big shock Fortuyn's assassination created in the country when I lived there. Pim Fortuyn had struck a political goldmine with his anti-migrant "the Netherlands is full" rhetoric and was a riding a wave of popularity which would probably soon give his LPF party a significant representation in legislation, if not in execution. The burning question was, could the Dutch who love seeing themselves as the beacon of tolerance accept the same dishonorable EU treatment Austria suffered for Jörg Haider's rise to power in 2000? Fortuyn's death eliminated that possibility conveniently. With the benefit of hind side, in 2002 Fortuyn was a moderate compared to Geert Wilders of 2010s who has made dexterous use of the Pandora's box already wide open for him. Wilders is less of an outcast in today's European political landscape.

Given the backdrop of many suspicious elements surrounding the incident, Theo van Gogh's imagination had preferred to point the finger at the "international military industrial complex". Well, Dutch people are still tolerant and generous, but a bit too naive. Lockheed scandal battered Prince Bernard and his Bilderberg buddies are running the show.

Technically 06/05 is an average film. Acting and casting are problematic. Not betraying Theo van Gogh's stance and reflecting popular mood, the film involves plenty of ethnic stereotyping such as the scene with Moroccan youths next to a stack of stolen car radios and the Dutch neighbor woman telling her husband, "a Turk is (voluntarily) returning to Turkey, call the press!".