Internist

Grammatically speaking, they come from the same 'voice. Most of the reviews seem to make identical errors in grammar, repeatedly, and share a similar overall structure. Even their lengths seem unnaturally uniform.

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.

I know I'm late to the party but I simply can't resist writing a review even at this late date. I have to get if off my chest and, maybe, I can push some other latecomer off the tracks and out of the way of this runaway train of a movie (must be my "protective instincts" <- in joke for those who've seen the flick).

I honestly don't think I've ever been more mystified about why a movie received so much praise; and a 'Best Picture' nomination, to boot! "Mystified" isn't even right the word. More like 'astounded', 'flabbergasted', 'dumbfounded', or whatever the right synonym is for the combination of puzzlement and outrage I have after watching it. I mean this movie is BAD! ROTTEN to the core! LOUSY in every way! What absolute and utter dreck! WHO could have possibly thought this travesty of a movie was one of the ten best of the year? Did they think they were nominating for the Razzies?

What's that you say? What about Sandra Bullock? Exactly! WHAT about Sandra Bullock!? That she can take on a role requiring the most meagre of ranges and stay with it for two hours of screen time? Heck, if this had been a play and not a movie, then instead of an Oscar she could have gotten a Tony - a one schtick Tony!

If Sandra Bullock's performance is the apex of one-dimensional acting (I guess that would give her at least one 'point' in her favor - ha ha!), the script must be the highest (and never before climbed) peak in the range of movies that have used back to back to back and back again clichés. As I watched it, I found myself repeatedly saying, "Oh no, there not going really use that trope, are they?" But, oh yes, they sure did! And then another. And another . . . Still, I suppose the screenwriters did show some restraint in this respect. I mean they did, after all, manage to resist using the old trick of showing newspaper headlines to announce Michael's initial successes to the audience. Yup, I didn't see one spinning 50-point font headline screaming, "Big MIke does it again!!". Not even an "Oher leads to team to championship!". But, please note that I said I "didn't SEE" anything like that. Full disclosure - it may have happened while I had my eyes closed in an effort to stem another wave of nausea.

And don't even let me get me started on its race, prejudice, and sensitivity 'aspects'. Like I said, this is a movie where each scene is a cliché about to unfold, dissolving into a cliché, and fading out to, guess what. Oh yeah.

Looking for the bottom line? Okay. Remember Battlefield Earth? (I hope not). Well, Battlefield Earth is to The Blind SIde as Citizen Kane is to Manos: The Hands of Fate (and Torgo was no Orson Welles!)