L'uomo dal cuore di ferro

Having read and loved Laurent Binet's superb HHhH, I've been eagerly awaiting this film. Alas, it was hardly worth the wait. The earlier released Anthropoid was a far superior adaptation (or was, at least, a better depiction of the events of Heydrich's assassination).

Other reviewers here have done a nice job detailing the problems this film has as a 'film' so I will only mention two more. Most importantly, Jason Clarke is simply not 'pretty' enough to play Heydrich. Indeed, part of history's fascination with Heydrich is because, physically, he was the perfect Aryan: blonde, tall, sculpted if not chiselled physiognomy, etc. Other than his blonde hair, Clarke's marked and jowled features are completely dissimilar to Heydrich's and served only to distract. Clarke's miscasting is only slightly more jarring than the use of Stephen Graham to play Himmler. Unable or unwilling to project Himmler's menace, Graham comes across more avuncular than sinister. No one would cower in the presence of Graham's pudgy Himmler.

I was also disappointed by the movie's many historical inaccuracies and omissions. Einsatzgruppen executions are shown repeatedly as being by a bullet to the torso, whereas a shot in the nape of the neck was their trademark. The boy being tortured is shown to be around 10-years-old when he fact the real 'boy' was actually a mature 17 years, already engaged to be married. Likewise what got him to talk was having his mother's head placed in his lap (others say it was placed in a fish bowel) but not by having to watch the torture of someone else as is depicted here. And, where was Hitler at Heydrich's funeral? For some reason the writer's chose to pretend he didn't attend, but of course he attended and delivered an inflammatory eulogy while he was there. There are many more such errors. Admittedly these are small details but their cumulative effect was to take me out of the film. They also made me wonder what other, perhaps more important facts the movie had botched.

The acting was quite good although I felt some of the actors were miscasted--Himmler is almost fat where as he was slim and taller in real life than the actor who looks really outcast in this role. Heydrich is so, so, portrayed but his collar rank insignia is not accurate all the time--he is shown as a Gruppenfuhrer sometimes and as an Obergruppenfuhrer other times. Heydrich did not carry a Luger as shown in the movie but carried a Walther PP. I don't think that Clarke gave the best portrayal of Heydrich, something about his looks. The chase and shootout scene with Heydrichs driver leaves you to believe he was killed where as he was not and only wounded. Heydrich did not die during Himmler's visit as shown, but later. I believe the assassins in the church were only armed with pistols, not multiple machine guns. Don't know why with a bit of research they can't get the history straight. There are other inaccuracies as well, inserting Heydrich into scenarios where he never actually was present. Anyways, not a bad movie but could have been better. If left alone to the actual facts it still would have been a good story instead of adding in ridiculous fiction.

Let me just start out by saying that this movie is literally two separate movies, that are merely tied together by a brief moment. The first half half was engrossing, rich in character development, and extremely well paced.

Without spoiling anything, I would just like to say that I would have given the first half of this movie an 8 or 9. Unfortunately for whatever reason they decided to tell a story that was a great injustice to the quality cinema that was setup. In the end you get the same story that Cillian Murphy trudged through almost scene for scene recently. If you are a fan of the pervious movie, and want another take on the situation, I do recommend at least watching this film for the first half. Otherwise it has been done before, and much better in all aspects.

This film tells the story of the man who was in charge of hideous war crimes, i.e. The Extermination program, in Nazi Germany. A group of Czechoslovakian people try to rebel and attempt to assassinate him.

The first hour of the film is all about Reinhard, as he climbs up to the top with the most terrible policy. The film shows that many people are brutally murdered for no reason, and Reinhard has no passion or compassion for the victims. In fact, he has no feelings at all, even towards his wife. The story is engaging up to this point, and Rosamund Pike is great a well. However, in the second part of the film, the story is derailed to tell the story of the resistance force. I may have missed why the resistance fighters decide to stand up and fight, and indeed their background story. I don't feel any connection to them at all, and the sudden shift in the spotlight to the resistance fighter appear to be a distraction to me. The final scene at the church crypt is touching though.

This story of the Reinhard Heydrich assassination is well known of all WW2 historians and people interested in this part of history. I am surprised that Cédric Gimenez did it. Unlike the other movies speaking of this scheme, such as Lewis Gilbert's OPERATION DAYBREAK with Anton Diffring as Heydrich, or Fritz Lang's film, or Douglas Sirk's one, this feature focuses mainly on the Prague Hangman in the first part and the partisans characters in the second part. It is very well done, with a good description of characters. But it is unfortunately not said that this action of killing Heydrich did not change anything at all to the war. Nothing, except that the Nazis were very affected by his death, including Hitler, and this lead to the Lidice's massacre, which is told, however. But besides this, the man who replaced Heydrich - Kaltenbrunner - was even more bloodthirsty as him.