very strong movie - disappointing box office numbers - Anthropoid (2016) Discussion

[–] Valcoran 8 years ago

To be fair, this is only getting a limited theatrical release in the States. I'm not sure how widely released it is in other countries, though. But that would explain the lack of box office numbers in the U.S.

reply

[–] prettyh 8 years ago

Likewise here in Canada, and I'm in Toronto so I usually have access to most any movie that comes out; this one was pretty limited by any metric, and as of last night it's not playing in any of the suburban theatres here at all. I'm glad I caught it while I could. It's a shame that every chain theatre either skips movies like this or only has it playing for two weeks. :-\

reply

[–] Jake1976 8 years ago

According to Deadline Anthropoid is doing very good so far http://deadline.com/2016/08/hell-or-high-water-dont-think-twice-anthropoid-specialty-box-office-1201803339/

reply

[–] winy68 8 years ago

Glad to hear about the limited release
I hope it takes off

--//

I haven't heard of deadline, I was looking at box office mojo

reply

[–] jtodd3916 8 years ago

In Jacksonville, Florida it was only available in 3 theaters. I'm disabled, can't drive, so it so it was difficult, but well with the trouble and expense.

reply

[–] suky 8 years ago

Oh, great, another movie I have to see within the first week it's out or it will be gone. Every movie I want to see is only out for a week before it's replaced with a "blockbuster" superhero movie that has to show on all nine screens of the multiplex theatre. I'm sick of corporate Hollywood not giving enough time for intelligent films to be seen before they're pulled from theatres! This is why I never go to the movies anymore. 

reply

[–] loco_73 8 years ago

Well what do you expect when you go to your local movieplex and "Suicide Squad" is playing on five screens and the rest are taken up by the leftover garbage from throughout the rest of the summer...I had to look for this movie and found it in one damn movie theatre on one damn screen...

"Today is the tomorrow I was so worried about yesterday"--Anthony Hopkins

reply

[–] happilybaker 8 years ago

I looked everywhere to see this in the Theater. I found only one theater in the state that played it and that was over 100 miles away (Utah). So frustrating. We have 5 theaters in the community I live in, and all were playing the same 7 movies, and none of them near as good as Anthropoid.

I'm totally willing to support this kind of film...now we just need to get mass movie corps to offer them!

reply

[–] peter-501 8 years ago

I would disagree with you. I found this to be a weak movie that could actually keep other period productions from being made.

The 1977 film Operation Daybreak is far superior to this one in so many ways. It tells the same story but does so much better.

I know the history as well, and I've been to the actual locations including the church (which is now a museum), and I have to say this version really glosses over so many details. It felt like a low budget TV movie.

reply

[–] Jake1976 8 years ago

Well thats your opinion. I believe this movie is far better in acting department then pervious one. Of course this going to be a same movie/story because you can't change the history.

reply

[–] peter-501 8 years ago

It is just an opinion, and I didn't try to start an argument. So don't take my disliking this movie so seriously.

I disagree for the following reasons:

1) The passage of time isn't shown very well. The men clearly land in winter (late December) - as shown by the snow on the ground. He was assassinated in late May. There had been two other plans to try to kill him and these are barely mentioned. If you don't know these details the film doesn't really show it.

2) Documents recovered after the war suggested Heydrich was going to be transferred to France but every source I've read said the resistance in Prague would not have known this. They only knew that he was going to be meeting with Hitler, something he had done twice since December. The film makes the assassination much more urgent than it really was.

3) The film doesn't show that Heydrich was actually helped by Czechs after the attempt, which is a minor point but it did show that he wasn't universally hated/feared. Prague had an ethnic German population that welcomed the Germans and the movie fails to explain this part.

4) If you don't know the name Heydrich he is just another Nazi, and the movie tries to describe him at the beginning as "Third in Command," and that's really not accurate at all. Maybe I'm nitpicking the point but this is basically misinformation to the viewer.

Himmler wasn't technically second in command in 1942. Herman Goering was really second, Himmler was third, and maybe Heydrich.

The thing the movie doesn't say is that Heydrich was really positioning himself to be successor to Hitler and there have been theories that Himmler may have allowed Heydrich to die, as a way to rid himself of a potential rival. Now this isn't necessary to the film, but to describe him as "third in command" is wrong.

Moreover, why didn't the film open with the explanation that Heydrich had just held the Wannsee Conference in January 1942, or that even Hitler called Heydrich "the man with the iron heart." These things might better explain to the audience that never heard the name why this guy had to go.

5) The acting was reasonable, the equipment was good, the locations looked good too. But all in all the pacing was bad and the film really - in my opinion - rushed to get to the assassination and then went down hill from there.

It was disappointing for what it could have been.

reply

[–] Jake1976 8 years ago

I completely agree with you about Reinhatd Heydrich was not "Third in Command" but he was a high-ranking Nazi offical during World War 2 & one of the main architects of the Holocaust. They also didn't mention his other nick names "The Blond Beast" The Hangman" " Himmler's Evil Genius" & "Young Evil God Of Death".Yes there are loops in story as director said he worked on the script and he mainly focus on the book "HHHH" which not quite accurate. What I believe as much we dig in the history we will found more & more stuff which was never disclose to us but one of the most undeniable truth is his assassination cause more destruction in Czech. Moreover I like the movie as the acting was on point especially by Cillian Murphy. We never will get accurate movie about world war because everyone have their own perspective.

reply

[–] peter-501 8 years ago

I'll be curious how "HHhH" stacks up to this one.

My final thought is that what is missing in "Antropid" is any scene showing the human side of Heydrich. Don't get me wrong he deserved EVERYTHING he got and worse. He was a monster and honestly I have no idea how he slept at night, but probably when you're a psychopath and a sociopath you do OK.

But he had four children, and was apparently a loving father. Nothing about him was shown except that he was a "target."

As Jason Clarke is playing him in "HHhH" maybe we'll get to see that side of Heydrich.

reply

[–] Jake1976 8 years ago

I believe Anthropoid is only about the heroism. I am curious about "HHHH" as well. I really want to see a movie in which Heyrich or Hitler's private life have been discovered. We don't know anything about it. It would be interesting to see how they going to do that because we know very little about their private life. I am anxiously waiting for "HHHH" & of course "Dunkirk".

reply

[–] Miles-10 8 years ago

I envy those of you who have seen this movie at all. I live 70 miles from the nearest theater I can find showing it.

I believe Heydrich was also a skilled musician. A violinist maybe. I can understand someone saying "So what if he played an instrument or was a doting father?" He was a major architect of the Final Solution. They should have said that in the course of this movie. At least twice.

More and more has been found out/realized about the private lives of Nazis. Some think that Hitler murdered his niece, or else drove her to suicide. Two women who did not know each other independently claimed that Hitler liked them to beat him with a whip.

A German historian named Lothar Machtan ("The Hidden Hitler") has spun a surprising theory that Hitler was gay. He also argues that a number of highly placed Nazis were gay. There was a double standard. Homosexuality was illegal, but if you were a Nazi, you could do whatever you wanted. If you were not a Nazi, you could end up in a death camp with a pink star pinned to your shirt. One thing does seem clear: Hitler had a lot of what we used to refer to in the 1960s as sexual "hang ups".

Both Machtan and fellow historian Thomas Weber (who doesn't necessarily buy the gay assertion) argue that Hitler's image as a brave, honorable soldier during World War I is a myth created by the Nazis and believed in by three or four generations of historians and Hitler biographers. He really got out of the front line trenches after the First Battle of Ypres, and stayed behind the lines. The only reason he ever got hurt (wounded by a blast once and gassed once) was because the British did try to lob artillery shells at regimental HQ once in a while, and the nature of gas is that it does drift wherever, so that staying behind the lines is no guarantee of safety.

Weber's book, "Hitler's First War", has apparently been made into a TV miniseries that has been shown in Germany. I would like to see it in the USA.

reply

[–] ibleedcrimson17 8 years ago

I was on the fence about seeing this, but Im glad I did despite not the most glorious reviews. Very tense watch. Personally dont know a lot about this part of history. Not a perfect movie but well worth the time spent. Also thought the acting was superb.

reply

[–] lulu-erhs 8 years ago

I saw it yesterday at a specialty theater in a medium-sized city in the Southwestern US, and there were about 10 people in the audience. I guess everyone else was either home watching football or watching some comic book crap at the multiplex. In any event, I took my 16 year old son, and we both loved it. The acting was phenomenal--not only the two leads (Cillian Murphy was superb, as usual, and Jamie Dornan was back to The Fall standards) but the supporting characters as well. I especially liked Harry Lloyd. (He was great in Manhattan, the CW series about Los Alamos and the development of the atomic bomb).

I thought the pacing was a little off while watching it, but in retrospect, I'm glad the filmmaker took time to develop the characters. In so many movies assassins are shown as inhuman killing machines. They shoot and kill without any remorse or acknowledgement of their actions. In Anthropoid, I enjoyed the discussions about why, in addition to the how.

The final third of the film was spellbinding. It reminded me of the final third of Saving Private Ryan, when they were in the village waiting for the Germans to show up. We gripped our seats throughout, and on the way home, my son was even doing internet searches on his phone to find out more about the operation. The film was much stronger than the Brad Pitt vehicle Fury and more realistic than Valkyrie.

reply

[–] TomRosicky17 8 years ago

agreed, such a shame.

Doublethink. To deliberately believe in lies, while knowing they're false. Henry Barthes

reply