This movie tells the true story of a nurse who was innocently accused of being a serial killer of helpless patients. We see the machinery that leads to her conviction, not only motivated by an honest search for truth, but also by vanity an opportunism. We see how the main character and her relatives suffer under her being imprisoned and being falsely accused. We see how even hard evidence of her innocence is put aside in something like a mass-hysteria. And we see how, after years of struggle, the accused is finally set free. This case got such great attention in Dutch media that everyone knows the outcome, yet the movie is exciting and engaging. Everything is filmed in a sober, modest fashion, the drama in the movie coming mainly from the chilling story itself and not from extra fancy plot lines or effects. And of course some intense acting, especially by the main character, who withstood the temptation to play a 'nice' woman, but instead portrays a woman that's not easily likable at first. That Lucia grows on you, and in the end has all the viewers sympathy (or at least all mine) is a beautiful achievement.
5 Reviews
Despite the unnecessary flashbacks, this is a strong
Neptune16524 August 2022
Warning: Spoilers
"Lucia De B(Accused)" is a sometimes gripping, sometimes run of the mill story that stands out more positively due to Ariane Schluter and Sallie Harmsen's performances. It's also based on a true story, so the film is engaging. Despite the unnecessary flashbacks, this is a strong, heartbreaking film that tells of the hell faced by an innocent real-life woman in Netherlands - a female version of Camus' Meursault for that matter -, condemned by public opinion mostly for her independent and reserved nature. The true story of a miscarriage of justice in the Netherlands made into a fictional thriller, the film has the recipe for a captivating watch: the titular character's agony of injustice and her spirit of perseverance; the court-room tension of observing a trial in progress; a character on a guilt trip and a mission to undo the wrongs; all strapped in with fictionalized accounts of what'd happened in reality. The film takes its liberties with history and smothers in, blatantly, sappy flashbacks to capture the audience's sympathy, but all the while creating a thrilling tale of redemption and the deliverance of true justice to the individual.
Too stylish and too restrained
avzwam11 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Of another Dutch film which I reviewed called De poel, I said that it was very much done in the style of American remakes of Japanese horror films. Lucia de B. seems more or less to be done in the style of English detectives.
The movie aims to show the injustice and to make you feel the emotions that Lucia went through but the movie is done in such a way that I ended up looking from a distance at a stylish movie. Sure it has colors which are sombre when she's in jail and colors which are vivid when she's freed in the end but that's really not enough. OK, there's (amongst a few other shots) a rotating shot which fades to black after she's vomited in the toilet but that too is done in such a stylish fashion... It's like a shot from a David Lynch movie. It's not what works for this story in my opinion.
The way it portrays police officers and some of the people who worked with Lucia in the hospital is really, really awful. These characters are like villains the way you see them in the movies.
I also think it needed a director who was angrier (or one who was more able to express or capture their anger on the screen) in order to make it more poignant as I feel it's still too clinical now.
The movie aims to show the injustice and to make you feel the emotions that Lucia went through but the movie is done in such a way that I ended up looking from a distance at a stylish movie. Sure it has colors which are sombre when she's in jail and colors which are vivid when she's freed in the end but that's really not enough. OK, there's (amongst a few other shots) a rotating shot which fades to black after she's vomited in the toilet but that too is done in such a stylish fashion... It's like a shot from a David Lynch movie. It's not what works for this story in my opinion.
The way it portrays police officers and some of the people who worked with Lucia in the hospital is really, really awful. These characters are like villains the way you see them in the movies.
I also think it needed a director who was angrier (or one who was more able to express or capture their anger on the screen) in order to make it more poignant as I feel it's still too clinical now.
Fictitious account of the real case
newjersian25 January 2022
I don't understand why this movie is getting such high ratings.
Most stories based on real facts include some fictitious characters and events. However, in this case, there's more fiction than facts.
The invented young prosecution assistant played by Sallie Harmsen is an absolute fiasco. Her supposed "heroism" is out of touch with reality. In addition, Sallie gives such a wooden performance that it is painful to watch.
It's hard to understand why the creators of this flop omitted the fact that Celia de Berk received solid monetary compensation from the Dutch government.
It's a great real story that resulted in a lost opportunity.
Most stories based on real facts include some fictitious characters and events. However, in this case, there's more fiction than facts.
The invented young prosecution assistant played by Sallie Harmsen is an absolute fiasco. Her supposed "heroism" is out of touch with reality. In addition, Sallie gives such a wooden performance that it is painful to watch.
It's hard to understand why the creators of this flop omitted the fact that Celia de Berk received solid monetary compensation from the Dutch government.
It's a great real story that resulted in a lost opportunity.
Actually this is two accounts on tunnel vision.
rob-broekhof-129 May 2022
The first account is about the story itself.
The second account is about the way the story is told.
In essence: the story itself had to be told, however, the way it is told is impure.
There are many different perspectives on how the tunnel vision in the story originated.
However, the emphasis in the way it was told in this movie is mainly based on Lucia de B's character and a fictional character.
The rest of the characters are pretty flat; either black or white / good or bad.
Where the movie totally failed is with the fictional character.
From a legal perspective, in Dutch law there is a doctrine that a judge or jury may or must destroy and ignore illegally obtained evidence. The party invoking this may therefore need evidence. Illegally obtained evidence is only allowed if it goes against what may be expected from a properly acting government. Illegally obtained evidence therefore always poses a high risk for a pure course of justice. The fictional character provides illegally obtained evidence that makes the story itself hard to believe. However, the role the fictational character was crucial to the outcome of this movie.
Such a shame. The actual story seems much more complex and should have been told from different perspectives on "the truth". Only in that way it could have been a genuine attempt to warn society about tunnel vision and harmfull opinions against people (and not just Lucia de B.).
As such, how the people behind this movie created this movie, is an example of tunnelvision too! On what? Laziness? Too much focus on whether or not the audience would be able to grasp reality? Too much focus on bashing "high society" that govern the medical and the legal society? Too much focus on the creation of a potential blockbuster movie ... ?
Anyway, I'm rooting for a documentary that at least makes a genuine attempt in grasping "the truth" from different perspectives since this story needs to be told "as is"!
The second account is about the way the story is told.
In essence: the story itself had to be told, however, the way it is told is impure.
There are many different perspectives on how the tunnel vision in the story originated.
However, the emphasis in the way it was told in this movie is mainly based on Lucia de B's character and a fictional character.
The rest of the characters are pretty flat; either black or white / good or bad.
Where the movie totally failed is with the fictional character.
From a legal perspective, in Dutch law there is a doctrine that a judge or jury may or must destroy and ignore illegally obtained evidence. The party invoking this may therefore need evidence. Illegally obtained evidence is only allowed if it goes against what may be expected from a properly acting government. Illegally obtained evidence therefore always poses a high risk for a pure course of justice. The fictional character provides illegally obtained evidence that makes the story itself hard to believe. However, the role the fictational character was crucial to the outcome of this movie.
Such a shame. The actual story seems much more complex and should have been told from different perspectives on "the truth". Only in that way it could have been a genuine attempt to warn society about tunnel vision and harmfull opinions against people (and not just Lucia de B.).
As such, how the people behind this movie created this movie, is an example of tunnelvision too! On what? Laziness? Too much focus on whether or not the audience would be able to grasp reality? Too much focus on bashing "high society" that govern the medical and the legal society? Too much focus on the creation of a potential blockbuster movie ... ?
Anyway, I'm rooting for a documentary that at least makes a genuine attempt in grasping "the truth" from different perspectives since this story needs to be told "as is"!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
