El hombre del corazón de hierro

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.

This movie feels like someone shot two separate movies - one being Heydrich's biography, second being action thriller about his assassination - cut the run time of each one to half and merged them together. The first half follows Reinhard Heydrich on his rise to power, orchestrated by his wife Lina. It's not exactly a thrilling spectacle, but both Jason Clarke and Rosamunde Pike deliver solid performances (although Clarke is far from the brilliance of Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's list). The problem is that the story line seems absurdly rushed, many important events are left out or shown through short collages with voice-over and music playing and it just feels incomplete. I would love to see a full 2 hours long Heydrich's biography that would dig deeper into Heydrich's relationship with his wife, his rise to power and his work and status in the Nazi regime.

Unfortunately, after one hour of this rushed biography, the movie almost completely abandons Heydrich and his wife (both have literally minutes of screen time in the second half, most of it together) and shifts focus to Czechoslovak paratroopers in Prague. Since then, it feels like Jimenez just took the movie Anthropoid (2016), cast new actors, re-shot the movie shot by shot and cut out half of the scenes. If you have seen Anthropoid, you can skip the second half in its entirety and you won't miss anything. The fact that Jack O'Connel and Jack Reynor look alike to the point it's easy to confuse their actions doesn't help either. The only upside of the second half is Mia Wasikovska who does much better job than Ana Geislerova in Anthropoid. HHhH (or The Man with the Iron Heart) is not a bad movie per se, it's just oddly structured, rushed and given the existence of Anthropoid, feels a bit redundant.

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 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.

This film may not be perfect but its a solid effort and certainly of interest to those who have studied this period in history and the major players that shaped events as it were. Reinhard Heydrich was just such an individual and what this film does, where 'ANTHROPOID' among others failed, was to show Heydrich beyond just the heroism of the Czech resistance fighters who plotted to kill him for justifiable reasons. Heydrich was never really a political animal nor did he have any interest in the Nazis until his wife came along and convinced him to join. Had he not been cashiered from the Navy its quite likely history would've been written very differently and this movie shows us how these minor events led to the creation of a monster. My only complaint would be that it didn't tell us much about Heydrich's views towards Jews and his role in crafting the Final Solution, but other films like HBOs 'CONSPIRACY' will go along way towards shedding light on that question for interested viewers. The film's inherent weakness is trying to condense over 20 years of Heydrich's life into two hours while also explaining the plot that led to his assassination. That may have been a tall order for any director but at the same time this isn't a film meant for mass consumption. It's not a date movie nor a family affair but is only of interest to those who enjoy history. If you find the topic boring you'll undoubtedly give the movie a low rating but I think as far as this genre is concerned 'THE MAN WITH THE IRON HEART' is certainly a respectable entry in telling the story of one of history's greatest villains.