HHhH (2017) Reviews

• Disjointed telling of the Butcher of Prague story

  Phil0062018-01-03

  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!

  More

• Incoherent WWII drama - if you watched Anthropoid, you can skip this one.

  petr-varak2017-06-08

  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.

  More

• Didn't really work for me

  jonmainwaring2018-01-22

  I was looking forward to this movie, having already seen both Anthropoid and (a long time ago) Operation Daybreak and with the knowledge that a contemporary of mine from my old university college had co-written the script. However, this movie didn't really know what it wanted to be: a study of the motivations that made Reinhard Heydrich the monster he was?; an account of the plotting and execution of his assassination?; or his role in masterminding the Final Solution? It's a shame because the latter two things have already been well covered in movies and TV plays. Operation Daybreak and Anthropoid are essentially the same movie, although Anthropoid's casting of Cillian Murphy was a mistake because he is so distractingly good looking (I'd shag him and I'm not even gay!) that you are sitting there thinking "This really hot guy is supposed to be on an undercover mission? Maybe in a Bond movie!" So we already know enough about the daring mission and the reprisals. And then there was a very good account of the process of the Wannsee Conference that was done for the telly (with Kenneth Branagh playing Heydrich this time); this show prompted me to visit Haus am Wannsee on my last visit to Berlin, which was a very moving experience for me. But the real opportunity here was to really get under Heydrich's skin and find out what made him tick. Some of what made him tick was alluded to in the first part of the movie but because of the restrictions of the two-hour length and the decision to, effectively, make this two movies in one we don't really get many answers. OK, we kind of get his wife sort of got him involved in the Nazi thing, but how did he get to be so powerful? I'm not buying that it was just because he could see how to run a chicken farm better than Himmler. More important, how did he become so brutal and unfeeling? These questions aren't really answered. So, it's a missed opportunity because it tries to cover too much in too little time. Maybe the director and writers ought to have taken a look at the TV miniseries about Albert Speer from the early 1980s that starred Rutger Hauer. There was another opportunist (although, rather strangely, one whom history seems to have been kinder to even though he was responsible for working people to death in munitions factories) and you get some idea why he became so attracted to Hitler, how he was able to turn a blind eye given his ambition and how he was clever enough to avoid getting the hanging after the war he so obviously deserved. For me, the most interesting thing about the Nazi era isn't the crazy mofos like Hitler, Himmler and the rest, but the enablers: the opportunists who are more concerned with personal ambition and who see their chances and take them, even if it means a lot of suffering for others. I find them interesting because there are more of these types around than perhaps we'd like to admit! And my view is that Heydrich was really one of these: in it for himself rather than some grand purpose!

  More

• The tale of two movies.

  noahtaylorvt2017-10-11

  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.

  More

• Don't listen to the bad reviews here...

  kriskennedy-794842017-10-23

  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.

  More