Learn Hardcore Dutch: Vorige week was de recensent de verfilming aan het bekijken in een bijna lege bioscoopzaal. - Last week the reviewer was watching the adaptation in an almost empty cinema hall.

Dutch has no separate grammatical tense for the English continuous (was watching), so it often uses zijn + aan het + infinitive to express an ongoing action:

De recensent bekeek de verfilming. → simple past (watched)
De recensent was de verfilming aan het bekijken. → past continuous (was watching)

In your sentence, was … aan het bekijken highlights that the watching was in progress at that time (during last week, in that almost empty cinema hall), not just a completed event.

Could we also say Vorige week bekeek de recensent de verfilming in een bijna lege bioscoopzaal? What would be the difference?

Yes, that sentence is perfectly correct.

Vorige week bekeek de recensent de verfilming…
→ Neutral past: a finished action, simply stating what happened.
Vorige week was de recensent de verfilming aan het bekijken…
→ Stresses the ongoing nature of the action at that time, like English was watching.

In many contexts, both are possible. The aan het form is often used when you want to paint a scene or give background to another event.

Why does the sentence use aan het bekijken and not aan het kijken?

This is about the difference between kijken and bekijken:

kijken = to look / to watch, often intransitive or with a preposition:
- kijken (in general)
- naar de verfilming kijken (to look at / watch the adaptation)
bekijken = to look at / examine something (transitive verb, takes a direct object):
- de verfilming bekijken (to watch the adaptation)

Because there is a direct object de verfilming, it is very natural to use bekijken:

was de verfilming aan het bekijken (literally: was the adaptation at-the-watching)

You could also say:

was naar de verfilming aan het kijken

That is also grammatical, but de verfilming bekijken sounds a bit more focused and “intentional” than naar de verfilming kijken.

Why is the word order was de recensent de verfilming aan het bekijken and not something like was de recensent aan het bekijken de verfilming?

In Dutch main clauses, the finite verb (here was) normally comes in second position, and non‑finite verbs (infinitives, participles) go towards the end of the clause.

was = finite verb (zijn, past)
aan het bekijken = verbal group (non‑finite)
de recensent = subject
de verfilming = direct object

The typical order in the “middle field” is:
[finite verb] + [subject] + [objects/adverbs] + [verb cluster at the end]

So:

Vorige week was de recensent de verfilming aan het bekijken…

Here:

was (2nd position),
then subject de recensent,
then object de verfilming,
then verb group aan het bekijken at the end.

Putting de verfilming after aan het bekijken would sound wrong in standard Dutch:
✗ was de recensent aan het bekijken de verfilming (ungrammatical).

Why does the sentence start with Vorige week and what does that do to the word order?

In Dutch, you can put a time expression at the beginning of the sentence to set the scene or give emphasis:

Vorige week was de recensent…
De recensent was vorige week…

Both are correct. The rule in main clauses is that the finite verb must be in second position. If you move Vorige week to the front, it occupies the first position, so the verb was must follow immediately:

De recensent (subject) first → verb second:
- De recensent was vorige week…
Vorige week (time) first → verb still second:
- Vorige week was de recensent…

So fronting Vorige week causes inversion: the verb comes before the subject.

Where exactly does in een bijna lege bioscoopzaal belong in the sentence? Could it go somewhere else?

The given order is:

Vorige week was de recensent de verfilming aan het bekijken in een bijna lege bioscoopzaal.

Here in een bijna lege bioscoopzaal is a place phrase and can move around somewhat, as long as it stays within the “middle field” (before the verb cluster is usually safest). For example:

Vorige week was de recensent in een bijna lege bioscoopzaal de verfilming aan het bekijken.
Vorige week was de recensent de verfilming in een bijna lege bioscoopzaal aan het bekijken.

All are grammatical; the differences are subtle and mostly about rhythm and emphasis. Many speakers like the original version because aan het bekijken stays directly after its object de verfilming.

What exactly does recensent mean, and is it different from criticus?

Recensent means reviewer, typically someone who writes reviews (recensies) of books, films, plays, etc.

de recensent = the reviewer
de filmrecensent = the film reviewer

Criticus means critic. In practice:

recensent tends to suggest someone who writes regular, often journalistic reviews (for newspapers, magazines, websites).
criticus is a bit broader or more formal; it can also suggest a professional critic with an established voice or reputation.

In many everyday contexts, you could use either, but recensent fits very naturally in a sentence about watching a film adaptation for review.

Why is it de verfilming and not just de film?

Verfilming literally means filming‑into, i.e. a film adaptation of an existing work (usually a book, sometimes a play, comic, etc.).

de film = the film (any movie)
de verfilming = the film version of something else:
- de verfilming van de roman (the film adaptation of the novel)

So de verfilming tells you that this movie is based on some earlier source, not just any random film. If that nuance doesn’t matter, you could use de film instead, but you’d lose the “adaptation” idea.

What is the difference between bioscoop and bioscoopzaal?

bioscoop = cinema / movie theater (the whole establishment)
bioscoopzaal = cinema auditorium / screening room (one individual hall within the cinema)

Examples:

Ik ga naar de bioscoop.
I’m going to the cinema. (the building / venue)
We zaten in een kleine bioscoopzaal.
We were sitting in a small cinema auditorium.

In your sentence, bioscoopzaal focuses on the specific room that was almost empty, not the entire cinema complex.

Does bijna lege bioscoopzaal mean “almost empty cinema” or “almost a cinema that is empty”? What does bijna modify?

Here bijna modifies the adjective lege, not the noun bioscoopzaal. So the structure is:

bijna (almost) + lege (empty) → bijna lege (almost empty)

So it means:

een bijna lege bioscoopzaal = a cinema auditorium that is almost empty.

It does not mean “almost a cinema auditorium which is empty” or “nearly a cinema auditorium”. The bijna clearly goes with the degree of emptiness.

Why is the preposition in used with bioscoopzaal here, and how does that compare with naar de bioscoop?

Prepositions with bioscoop / bioscoopzaal:

naar de bioscoop gaan = to go to the cinema (direction → naar)
in de bioscoop zitten = to sit in the cinema (location inside → in)
in een bijna lege bioscoopzaal = in an almost empty auditorium (again, location inside → in)

So in your sentence, the action is taking place inside the room, so in is the natural choice:

… aan het bekijken in een bijna lege bioscoopzaal.

If you were talking about going there, you’d say:

Hij ging naar de bioscoop. (He went to the cinema.)