HHhH: O Homem do Coração de 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.

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.

Saw 'The Man with the Iron Heart' as somebody fascinated by the subject it covers, and by the man who really did have an iron heart and earned the ire of even Hitler himself. Also really like a lot of biopics and there are a few talented names.

'The Man with the Iron Heart' is a brave attempt at telling this story, but it is also agreed frustratingly uneven and disjointed. The general consensus is that the first half is better than the second half, personally found that the case too after viewing it. It is far from a terrible film, there are a number of strengths here, but it could have been so much more. And is what is meant by that it is frustrating that 'The Man with the Iron Heart' is uneven is that the flaws of the second half could easily have been avoided.

Starting with the strengths, much of the film looks great visually. There is a real feeling of evocative authenticity, with attractive costumes that captured the era well, elegant interiors and very atmospherically grim landscapes. The music is suitably haunting and the direction fares strongest in the first half and the harrowing scenes that are uncompromisingly powerful.

First half is very interesting and compelling, with some very thought-provoking writing. When the film focuses on Heydrich, his motives and his family life, it is where it most excels, being very engrossing, emotional and intense, actually also taking time to show what happens and being structured in a way that makes sense. Even if there could have been even more meat to what was told.

Although 'The Man with the Iron Heart' is a problematic film, the blame does not lie with the cast which is actually the main saving grace. Rosamund Pike especially is excellent as Lina (am really liking where her career is going), while Jason Clarke portrays Heydrich's iron heart, lack of compassion and coldness adeptly. Mia Wasikowska gives one of her better performances to date here and is one of the main reasons to stick with the second half.

It is really unfortunate that the second half is nowhere near as good. The inferior quality and the shift in focus gives a really disjointed feel and like the two halves were two films in one. The focus on those who tried to assassinate Heydrich is nowhere near as illuminating or compelling, just didn't find myself involved or engaged by it. The characters are sketchily written, the opposite to Heydrich and Lina who did have intriguing character development if still not quite enough.

Furthermore there is no tension and what is covered is rushed through with no attention to depth or sense, the odd almost incomplete-feeling structure and some strangely amateurish filming (which wasn't as apparent in the first half) also confusing it. The flashforward was not needed at all, further diluting any suspense by explicitly revealing what happened.

Although Heydrich is still interesting, the film did miss an opportunity in properly fleshing him out due to not focusing on him enough.

Overall, interesting, well acted and (mostly) made and brave but disjointed, uneven and rushed. 6/10 Bethany Cox

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.

Solid performances all round (Jason Clarke is excellent!) However, movie should have fleshed out the Heydrich / Butcher of Prague story more rather than re-telling the post death aftermath - an angle already covered by the Cillian Murphy/Jamie Doran movie (Antripoid). Their (brilliant) movie told from the perspective of the Czech Assasins.

If you really want to see a movie about Heydrich (and the lead up to the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question"), watch "Conspiracy", the Kenneth Brannagh/Stanley Tucci TV movie. SHOCKING!