Valkyrie Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x1040 | 10985.12 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x688 | 6719.16 MiB | 720p | |
|
640x336 | 1395.93 MiB | divx | |
|
480x252 | 554.29 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Many saw evil. They dared to stop it.
In Nazi Germany during World War II, as the tide turned in favor of The Allies, a cadre of senior German officers and politicians desperately plot to topple the Nazi regime before the nation is crushed in a near-inevitable defeat. To this end, Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, an Army officer convinced he must save Germany from Hitler, is recruited to mastermind a real plan. To do so, he arranges for the internal emergency measure, Operation: Valkyrie, to be changed to enable his fellows to seize control of Berlin after the assassination of the Fuhrer. However, even as the plan is put into action, a combination of bad luck and human failings conspire on their own to create a tragedy that would prolong the greater one gripping Europe.
| Tom Cruise | Col. Claus von Stauffenberg |
| Manfred-Anton Algrang | Albert Speer |
| David Bamber | Adolf Hitler |
| Matthias Freihof | Heinrich Himmler |
| Andy Gatjen | Angry SS Officer |
| Christian Oliver | Sgt. Adams |
| Christopher Karl Hemeyer | Major Bunker |
| Carice van Houten | Nina Von Stauffenberg |
| Eddie Izzard | Erich Fellgiebel |
| Justus Kammerer | Heimeran |
| Thomas Kretschmann | Otto Ernst Remer |
| Bill Nighy | Friedrich Olbricht |
| Florian Panzner | Hans Wilhelm Hagen |
| Halina Reijn | Fraulein Van Oven |
| Terence Stamp | Ludwig Beck |
| Bryan Singer |
7.30 out of 10 (50120 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Quite Good
posted on 31 Aug 2009Col Stauffenberg (Cruise) has a plan to kill Adolph Hitler to save Germany in the 1940s during WW II. This is based upon a true story.I would call this a history lesson except we already know the outcome and really didn't need to know the details. This 15th attempt to kill Hitler failed. End of story. Nice try, but they didn't get him. The acting by the entire cast was terrific, but no Oscar performances. There were a couple good choreographed explosions and a plane strafing, good troop movements, and the details of the ambitious plan were kind of interesting.The biggest thing in here is this: No one even attempted to speak German or English with a German accent and that was appreciated greatly because we understood what was going on. There were none of those, "waddi say?" moments. Quite enjoyable if the details of the plan were true or not. Didn't matter. This was a serious moment in history and the presentation was excellent. What was missing? Suspense and tension. In real life, when this was actually going on, I am sure there were suspense and tension stretching to unbelievable lengths. But, not in here. Pity. That could have helped make this a little more than a history lesson and give us a real sense of dire consequences for the participants in the plan to kill Hitler. The pace of the movie was too fast to achieve suspense and tension as the scenes did move at a somewhat rapid pace. But, there was a lot to tell and because of that no room for suspense or tension. Pity. Suspense and tension could have given this movie more importance. Double pity. I wasn't going to watch this movie. The word was the acting wasn't any good and Tom Cruise spoke English in a German setting back in the day. HA! The acting all around was terrific and they all spoke English and because of that I understood and enjoyed everything. Oh, wait a minute, they did speak some German at times: Heil Hitler!Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Only one F-bomb was heard.
What could have been...
posted on 31 Aug 2009Nazis are a recurring motif in Bryan Singer's filmography: his third feature, Apt Pupil, dealt with the sick relationship between a teenager and a former SS officer, while the villain in the X-Men franchise, Magneto, is famously driven by his hatred for humanity after his family was wiped out at Auschwitz. Is it that strange, then, that when a project emerged concerning a failed attempt on Adolf Hitler's life in 1944 (all based on real events), Singer faced plenty of obstacles (problems with German authorities, re-shoots, constant changes of the release date) to get it done? The result is perhaps his least accomplished picture to this day, but when he gets it right, he gets it very right.One thing the movie makes very clear from the beginning is this: not all Germans were on Hitler's side, but usually those who didn't agree with his ideology kept it to themselves. When we first meet Colonel Von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise), he has already lost all faith in the Nazi dictatorship, and after losing his left eye, right hand and two fingers from the left during a military mission in Africa, he decides it's time to really do something. This leads him to joining forces with a group of disillusioned officers (Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy and Terence Stamp among them), who appoint him as the new leader of the conspiracy to kill Hitler (David Bamber). The plan they come up with is indeed very clever: using Hitler's own reserve army (the so-called Operation Valkyrie, hence the film's title), they will take over the control of Berlin and subsequently the rest of Germany once the Fuhrer has been blown to pieces. However, there's always a slight chance the operation might fail, and since not everyone at the Ministry of War (Tom Wilkinson's General Fromm, for example) shares their anti-Nazi mentality, they must be prepared to face the consequences, should anything go wrong.The main strength displayed by Singer and screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie (the Oscar-winning author of the director's breakthrough feature, The Usual Suspects) is their decision to make the movie a thriller, not a history lesson (apart from the accuracy of the production design and costumes): the narrative moves at a quick pace, the mood is the same as in classics like The Manchurian Candidate and the entire second half of the picture reeks of pure, unadulterated suspense. This is a strength, but also a weakness: the plot structure and Singer's direction have the surprising effect of making the story tremendously exciting despite the obvious outcome (although, as the director commented in an interview, everyone knew how Titanic was going to end, and that didn't stop it from earning an obscene amount of money), but this also leads to most of the characters being depicted as mere pawns in the game. In fact, apart from Stauffenberg, no one is given enough psychological back-story to explain why they're doing what they're doing.And yet the characters are great fun to watch, and that's all due to Singer's trademark excellent eye for casting: the British group of supporting players (Wilkinson, Nighy, Branagh, Stamp, Tom Hollander and Kenneth Cranham) lend the picture the dramatic gravitas few American actors are able to give a period piece (even comedian Eddie Izzard keeps a straight face throughout proceedings), and Cruise, ostensibly chosen because of the resemblance between him and Stauffenberg, proves to be as solid a lead as ever and confirms, once again , that he's a better actor than most people give him credit for. Part of the actors' success lies also in Singer's vital decision to let everyone speak with their normal accents instead of trying to make them sound German, since he didn't want "realistic" to become "ridiculous" (and after seeing Mel Brooks' The Producers, it's hard to disagree). In fact, the only non-German cast-member who speaks with the "correct" accent is Bamber, a choice that is easily explained: it's another effective way to distance Hitler from his adversaries, since the actor's speech pattern gives the dictator an additional aura of monstrosity.Valkyrie isn't a perfect film, that's a given, but it isn't as bad as the pre-release reports were keen to imply, either: it is in the hands of a very competent director, and what it lacks in detail it makes up for in pacing, tension and performances. Not bad for a picture a lot of people considered doomed while it was still in production.7,5/10
Not worth seeing
posted on 29 Aug 2009I always like Tom Cruise. I don't care about his personal politics or religious choices. If I did I would probable not watch 95% of the movies. Having said this I will comment on this movie which I saw the week that it came out. The movie itself stinks. It does not have much of a plot, could have been done in 30 minutes or less. Tom Cruise in my opinion was not at his best. Probably one of his worse.The movie itself I would say, rates as one of the worse movies that I have ever saw. A good movie, I would watch a second and more times, but not this one. In fact it was hard staying through the whole thing.Don't waste your time and money on this one, wait until it comes out on TV
Most revealing Cruise performance since "Cocktail"
posted on 27 Aug 2009Not a bad screenplay. Very authentic sets & costumes. Extremely-motivated supporting cast. Aura of authenticity back to the 1040's. Thought-provoking premise despite the historical realities that remind us that Hitler died in the bunker in a most-cowardly act of suicide just before the Russians would have captured his ass. However, who's idea was it to put Tommy in the lead role? He detracts from every scene he's in by his lack of presence. Tommy's insistent actor persona detracts from the importantly historical character he's portraying. Unique in hollywierd, Tommy is never happier when he's playing Tommy enjoying Tommy. A remarkable achievement.
Confusing and dissatisfying depiction
posted on 27 Aug 2009I suppose there's not much point in adding yet another voice to the hundreds that have come before, but I just wanted to get my opinion off my chest.I admit I was expecting the worst from this movie, yet a pleasant surprise would have been welcome. First of all, who is who here? How do you account for a load of British accents, practically the lone American accent (Tom's) and a smattering of German accents? Were those German accents supposed to depict ultra-German Germans? I found that phenomenon extremely confusing and distracting. Next, could not the drama of the events have spoken for itself? Did we have to have a constantly sinister soundtrack to remind us that something serious was afoot? I also found that extremely annoying. Third, I did not feel that Tom Cruise delivering his lines in a sonorous whisper substituted for real depth of feeling and acting ability. Fourth, did they HAVE to give Nina von Stauffenberg the Hollywood-glam treatment? Look at pictures of her. She was not drop-dead gorgeous, or impeccably costumed, nor did she have elegantly flowing locks.Fifth, I have to take issue with the premise of the movie. "Many saw evil. They dared to stop it." Yes, they dared to stop it, or try, more than 11 years after it began, with most of them as registered members of the Nazi Party. I don't deny that resistance was extremely difficult and dangerous in Nazi Germany, but we have to remember that the majority of Germans, including Claus von Stauffenberg, allowed it to become Nazi Germany in the first place. And by mid-1944, some were resisting so strongly in order to save face, as it was clear that Germany would lose the war. Where was the serious resistance when the Jews lost their civil rights? When Jewish businesses and synagogues across the country were destroyed, and Jews themselves terrorized, BEFORE the war, in November 1938? When Hitler invaded country after country, before and after the war's start? Thank God for people like Claus von Stauffenberg, Ulrich von Hassell and others. But it was far too little, far too late. And Valkyrie, including Tom Cruise's attempt at a noble portrayal of Von Stauffenberg, does absolutely nothing to acknowledge that. Von Stauffenberg's last words, "Long live sacred Germany!" ("Es lebe das heilige Deutschland," I assume), show part of the underlying problem. Too many Germans believed that Germany was somehow sacred, and therefore entitled to more, while subject to less moral judgment. How wrong they were, and what a price they paid. And what a price did pay all those murdered by the Nazi regime. A glamorized, would-be valiant "Valkyrie" can't change that.Rant over.
Does not meet expectations but still good
posted on 27 Aug 2009Being a huge fan of Bryan Singer and Christopher McQuarrie, I was eagerly awaiting for Valkyrie. It also helps that Tom Cruise has starred in few duds.Valkyrie ends up being a nice historical/thriller/war film but does not meet the expectations I had. Thanks to past experience, you would expect Singer to nail both the tensed, shadowy aspects of the conspiracy (Usual Suspects) and amaze us with the grand scope of World War II (X-Men). He doesn't impress with either. In fact, this looks like it could have been directed by any solid veteran filmmaker, and perhaps with added punch and flair. There are few memorable shots, few memorable scenes.Christopher McQuarrie does not elevate the story past an interesting chronicling of events. Perhaps this type of story does not suit him as well. It's still gripping but more by the fact it is loosely based on real events. McQuarrie has excelled with creating flawed, somewhat cynical and hopeless characters and making us sympathize with them. This would have been a golden opportunity to highlight the various motivations of those behind the coup, but we don't get much of that. Much of the movie centers around Cruise's characters. Some added scenes between various characters without Cruise would have added to the conspiracy aspect. Likewise, there are very few scenes dealing with his personal life. For instance, his family appear more like a background. Same with the injury, which is brushed over quickly.Tom Cruise is solid and dedicated and the rest of the cast I felt was very good. But there just isn't a script or strong lines here. Interestingly enough, after three Mission: Impossible movies that had very little to do with the TV series, this may be the closest thing Cruise has ever done to Espionnage/secret agent films. Closer in feel to a M:I than any of his movies.This is far from a bad movie. It is interesting. And the fact it is based on real events make it somewhat inspiring. But it is not the movie itself that inspires. More the thought that men were trying the overwhelming task of taking Germany in a new direction at such a critical time.Worth seeing once on rental.
The Cruiser vs The Fuhrer
posted on 25 Aug 2009Well, its finally here. For ages now much of the press has rubbed their hands with glee as they looked forward to trashing this pet-project from the Cruiser. Cruise V Hitler after all had TURKEY written all over it. Even I had a laugh as I waited to see the wee man's attempt at appealing to the greater German public after they slammed Scientology and branded it a cult. That of course is another debate all together. On to the film. Its not nearly as bad as many people had hoped or expected, some of it is rather good in fact. From what I can tell it is historically accurate in its depiction of the failed Von Stauffenberg plot to assassinate the Fuhrer in July 1944. The recreation of Hitler's Wolf's Lair and the Berghof is picture-perfect and adds much realism to the film and the direction from X-Men's Bryan Singer keeps things nicely bubbling along. The film's biggest problem though is Tom Cruise as the aristocratic Claus Von Stauffenberg. He simply fails to pull it off and comes across as a cheesed off - dare I say it, "Little Hitler." The role needed to reflect the Bavarian Count should've gone to someone like Liam Neeson or perhaps Christian Bale. Strange and uncomfortable casting permeates this film: the presence of Eddie Izzard as a communications officer at the Wolf's Lair is totally out of place and much of the cast also fails to convince. The best performances come from the European actors ,Thomas Kretschmann, Christian Berkel and the gorgeous Carice Van Houten who was last seen dodging more Nazis in Black Book. Sadly not enough is seen from them as the British with Cruise in-tow take centre stage. If this film had been made by the people behind Downfall it could have been so much better and as is, it remains something of a missed opportunity (no pun intended).
Loved the movie, but the editing bloopers abound!
posted on 23 Aug 2009Just saw the movie tonight, and actually liked it. I'm not a big Cruise fan, but he made the character likable and you empathized with him and the other officers. My husband and I like history, so this movie was a big attraction for us. But what takes away from the movie, is the fact that you can plainly see the boom mic in many of the scenes. I think someone else on this site refers to it as Operation Boom Mic? I also wonder how this escaped the editing room? Is it because they had to reshoot some of the scenes and were in a time crunch? After a while, it was like a game to me and my husband; whenever one of us spotted the mic, we'd say "there's another one!" We counted at least 6. For some, this may be a big distraction and you won't get what you're supposed to get out of this movie, but I would definitely recommend it to anyone.
Poop
posted on 23 Aug 2009This movie was a huge disappointment.The fact that hardly any of the actors bothered to have German accents made the film really half-assed. I had to lean over and explain to a friend at the movie to ignore all the British and American accents, the characters are supposed to be all German and just couldn't be bothered to get into character properly. She was lost.It was not just the crappy accents (although I found them terribly distracting and ruined the movie for me from the start), the movie itself wasn't all that great. A story worth telling should be nurtured and I am not sure if it was an editing issue or what but...even already knowing the story I walked out of there feeling like I had been ripped off.
The Cruise-ual Suspects
posted on 23 Aug 2009Most thrillers rely on a sense of mystery, that is the point of them - to thrill the audience to the edge of their seats wondering "what is going to happen next?" So how do you build a thriller around a story of which the audience knows the outcome right from the start? This is the case with Valkyrie, based on the conspiracy to kill Hitler by a group of his own Nazi generals, and I don't think any journalistic codes of ethics are being broken when I tell you that the plot fails. Not only that, but the film has been plagued by pre-release rumours and speculation about everything from test audiences panning it to critics writing it off before they had even seen it simply because Tom Cruise doesn't attempt a German accent. However, from this has been crafted a tense, engrossing war thriller.Director Bryan Singer is back in the territory of his breakthrough film, The Usual Suspects: a group of plotters involved in a plan in which everything goes horrifyingly wrong. Throughout his career, from Suspects to first two X-Men movies (i.e. the good ones) and Superman Returns, Singer has never made a dud, so why pundits thought it would end up being so is probably the biggest mystery of the entire film. Along with the likes of Robert Altman and Paul Thomas Anderson, Singer is one of the best in the business at shepherding an ensemble cast, and the way he does so here is one of the film's major strengths. He works masterfully in introducing us to the major figures in the plot, allowing us to tell them apart, explaining their roles and suggesting their differences and, to his credit, never allows proceedings to simply deteriorate into a star vehicle for Cruise, who provides a perfectly fine anchor for the story to centre around (say what you will about Tom, no one does defiant heroism like him).The taut and crisply paced direction is aided in no small way by the skilfully efficient screenplay (from Nathan Alexander and Usual Suspects writer Christopher McQuarrie). The film is built around the idea that the biggest plans revolve around the tiny details, and it spares none of them yet still manages to make such a complex story coherent and seem almost straightforward. However, this almost complete submission to the plot does sacrifice attention to the characters.Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, the man who engineered the entire plan, is clearly an interesting and complex character – a career military man and a Nazi who is willing to risk everything, even the safety of his own family, to kill Hitler, yet Tom Cruise never has the opportunity to play him as anything but intense and determined. We see the group discuss the morality of murdering Hitler rather than simply overthrowing him and whether the risk of the plot is worth it with the Allied forces looming over Belin, but we never find out why Stauffenberg, or any of the other members of the conspiracy, have gone from Nazi generals to deciding to rid themselves of their Führer. Although maybe the audience's own knowledge of history is supposed to fill in those plot points for us. Who needs a "reason" for wanting to murder Adolf Hitler?With this knowledge of history in mind, it is perhaps surprising that the greatest success of Valkyrie is that there are still genuine twists. The makers of the film have been blessed with the fact that the details of the plot are still relatively obscure, so although we know that the bomb intended to kill Hitler did not succeed, it is the aftermath of this sequence which is the most intriguing. The plot fails at about the halfway point of the story, and I guarantee that everything that takes place afterwards will be news to you, and that despite yourself, you will end up on the edge of your seat wondering how it is going to end.For more of this review or reviews like it, visit:jacksfilmblog at blogspot.com
Powerful Accurate Morality Lesson
posted on 17 Aug 2009Evil will exist in the world we live in. It is our plight since the fall in the Garden Of Eden. When men allow darkness to gain ground it will do so. If good men stand by too long and do nothing evil will be even more sinister and difficult to contain. This is the story of a few men who could no longer watch a madman create a Hell on earth. They risked everything because they knew, in defeat, the wrongs were far too evil to excusePerhaps they were not even truly "good" men, but they were aware that unchecked criminal actions beget even greater darkness. Thus, these men found it in themselves to risk everything to attempt an end to the greatest personification of evil in modern time. For all their flaws they had in their core a sense of right. They paid the ultimate price...Yet, they did act...And, in their failed coup they did not stand by idol. I would like to think that, like the thief on the cross, they too found redemption and forgiveness.At this late date it's a minor miracle that this story has been given the mainstream big-screen treatment. I applaud those responsible and give Tom Cruise a big "thumbs-up" for his performance in making this story breathe. Everyone should see this movie because we can all learn from history. Evil can only exist when good men stand by and do nothing.
What a stupid hero...
posted on 15 Aug 2009The problem with this movie is that, Tom Cruise tried too hard to make Stauffenberg a Hollywood hero.All credits of the July 20th plot went to this guy. According to the movie, he is the one who get the reserve army idea, he is the one who persuaded all the other members, and he even became the commander of the whole thing at the end...First of all,I don't believe a colonel can maneuver a bunch of generals in 40s' Germany.Secondly,if Stauffenberg was the key man of the plot, then I must say it's the stupidest plot ever: what if something went wrong and Stauffenberg dead at the Wolf Lair? The Queen never go to some pacific island to hunt evil scientist, she let Bond do it.I'm not a WWII specialist, if all these things really happened in real history, then I will give Mr. Hitler some credits for kicking all these generals into reserve army. These guys answers to a colonel and unable to set up a reasonable assassin plan, how could them be useful on the Eastern front?
The Great German vs American Accent Swindle
posted on 15 Aug 2009This could have been epic. We know the story. We know the outcome. We know the directors pedigree (Singer - Usual Suspects, X-Men fame).Great character actors with Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, Kenneth Branagh and even Eddie Izzard. Stylish direction guaranteed. And I even like the title. So what's not to like.Two words - TOM CRUISE.What were they thinking? Yes Tom Cruise has major box office pulling power but he's not exactly RADA is he? Do you think if Gary Oldman had been given the part he would have played Stauffenberg in a British accent? In reality, Tom Cruise did not play this in a German accent because quite frankly, he couldn't. Does it matter? Yep it certainly does because credibility is lost as soon as he opens his mouth. And its such a monumental shame. Remember Ralph Fiennes in Schindlers List? Surely you can see the point? No matter how well Tom acts you always feel as if you've been left a bit short.There are so many actors out there that could have offered so much more to the part. Putting on an eye patch and delivering lines in ones own Syracuse accent is hardly an acting masterclass is it? Sorry Tom - you've made some decent flics but you should have given this one a miss.
Competent Story Telling, but Problem with the Star
posted on 15 Aug 2009In a film like this, there is really nothing to spoil because everyone knows how it would end. I watched the video of "Valkyrie" in several installments, but the flow of the story was no problem. The story being told was very interesting -- the plot to kill Adolf Hitler by German patriots led by Claus von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) and its aftermath. The direction by Bryan Singer was very exciting and suspenseful, holding my interest successfully.There were so many competent character actors there, not everyone was convincingly German though. My main problem with the whole movie is the lead actor himself, Tom Cruise. He is too much of a star to make his portrayal of von Stauffenberg convincing. Even with the eye-patch, he is still Tom Cruise. He did not disappear into the role, as would have been ideal for a movie like this.
Good movie, strange accents
posted on 15 Aug 2009Valkryie, a movie that takes on the closest assassination to Adolf Hitler, being such a huge history buff, sadly I knew how this was going to end. I love walking out of the theater hearing the teenagers go "What the heck?! I thought Hitler was going to die!", I bow my head in shame. I know that there were a lot of people who had a thing about Tom Cruise being the leading man, which I have to admit I had a few questions, but you cannot deny despite his madness, he is a good actor over all. I admit he can be cocky, but he got the film done with pretty decent taste. I just have to laugh though because in this film we have every kind of accent there is: American, English, German, EVEN POLISH! A Polish Nazi? LOL, I'm sure that history must be proud of this movie. But over all it's a decent representation of the attempted assassination of Adolf Hitler.During World War II, Wehrmacht Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg is severely wounded in Tunisia, and is evacuated home to Nazi Germany. Meanwhile, Major General Henning von Tresckow attempts to assassinate Adolf Hitler by smuggling a bomb aboard the Führer's private airplane. The bomb, however, fails to detonate and Tresckow safely retrieves it to conceal his intentions. After learning that the Gestapo has arrested General Hans Oster, he orders General Olbricht to find a replacement. After recruiting von Stauffenberg into the German Resistance, Olbricht delivers von Stauffenberg to a meeting of the secret committee which has coordinated previous attempts on Hitler's life. The members include General Ludwig Beck, Dr. Carl Goerdeler , and Erwin von Witzleben. The Colonel is stunned to learn that no plans exist for after Hitler's assassination. After a bombing raid on Berlin, he lights upon using the plan Operation Valkyrie, which involves the deployment of the Reserve Army to maintain order in the event of a national emergency. The plotters carefully redraft the plan so that they can dismantle the Nazi regime after assassinating Hitler, by overthrowing the SS and imprisoning Hitler's closest advisors. Realizing that only General Fromm, the head of the Reserve Army, can initiate Valkyrie, they offer him a position as head of the Wehrmacht in a Post-Nazi Germany and recruit him into the fold: however, Fromm initially refuses. With the rewritten plan needing to be signed off by Hitler himself, von Stauffenberg visits the Führer at his Berghof estate in Bavaria. In the presence of his inner circle, Hitler praises von Stauffenberg's heroism in North Africa not realizing the Colonel's true intentions.Besides the accents and the A-list actors, honestly this could've been a made for TV film. It's not exactly the hit I think the studio was hoping for. Normally most WWII films are a big hit, but the problem was the advertising, the trailer I felt was a bit inappropriate, and the actors, I felt that this if not made in German should have just been with English actors or all American because all the accents were throwing me off. But the film is definitely worth the watch, I just suggest if you are ignorant when it comes to history, please for the love of God, do some research before watching a film like this, not just because Tom Cruise is in it.7/10
A Total Disappointment and Poor Way to Portray Historic Figures
posted on 13 Aug 2009This is a movie which shows what happens when writers and directors do not trust their audience. Ultimately, Tom Cruise will get either praise or blame for what happens to it.I can't blame Tom Cruise too much for this one. Both the writers and director went in to this with the mistaken notion that the audience has little knowledge of the subject matter. In fact, there are many books and documentaries about July 20 and Col. Claus von Stauffenberg. They decided to minimize character development and motivations in favor of trying to make it into a thriller. They failed because they didn't develop any of the characters to the point where an audience could understand the motivations for what they where seeing. Why didn't Stauffenberg trust the older members of the conspiracy other than the stereotypical lack of trust a younger, more driven career military man has for his elders? The audience may know Stauffenberg, but Goerdeler, von Treskow, and Beck not so much.The other production error is to make everyone speak with either a British or American accent. The actor who played Mertz von Quirnheim, Christian Berkel, a German actor who turned in a marvelous performance as Dr. Schenk in "Downfall," is made to speak with an American accent that sounds like a bad dubbing job from a 1960s era Japanese monster flick or a spaghetti western. If everyone else can speak with their natural voices, why can't he? If Tom Cruise is to bear any responsibility for the many production problems this movie has, it is that he gave the writers and director too much leeway. I wrote on several message boards that he exhibits a range of emotion from Z to Z. Ultimately, that is a director's choice. Tom Cruise has given many powerful performances and is a far better actor than this performance. Stauffenberg, by all the accounts I have read going back to Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich," was a dynamic personality with a great deal of both charm and charisma. Normally, that would be right in Cruise's wheelhouse. Here, even when he is in a confrontational scene, the power is simply not there. Rather, it is almost robotic. I was hoping the makers of "Valkyrie" had seen "Downfall," fleshed out the characters and through that let the suspense flow. Instead, they went with old Hollywood stereotypes of how Germans behave.As someone who has studied 20th Century Germany, I thought this movie gives the audience neither heat nor light. Therefore, it is simply a poor effort.
Most entertaining.
posted on 11 Aug 2009Ignore the silly comments of some critics who want this movie to fail.
Schickel, Ebert and the L.A. Times got it right. If you're a World War
II history buff like me, you'll appreciate the fine effort that is
Valkyrie. It shows that American filmmakers as unlikely as Tom Cruise
and Bryan Singer can compete with the likes of the Downfall creators in
handling such subject matter. Like World War II itself, the full story
of the July 20 plot is long and intricate and cannot be fully told in
the confines of a two hour feature film. There are certainly many
peripherals to the story - its tentacles ran deep into the Nazi
diaspora; thousands were executed or "disappeared" (including Irwin
Rommel who was not portrayed in the film) - to say nothing of the mixed
motives in those Germans wishing to see Hitler dead. These are all
subjects that have already been explored and no doubt will be again in
the future. Suffice to say, Singer and editor/composer John Ottman
focused on the heart of this story: Hitler was destroying
Germany/Europe and the July 20 plotters bucked the odds to stop him.
The performances from this exceptional cast are first rate. Think what
you want about Tom Cruise and Scientology - I'm no big fan of either -
but judge the work on its merits. Cruise may not win an Oscar for his
portrayal of von Stauffenberg, but he more than gets the job done. In
terms of scope, the locations, battle scenes, costumes/uniforms,
staging/settings, you can't ask for more in a WWII movie. There's
nothing fake, nothing phony to spoil the period experience and vfx are
seamless as they should be. If you're expecting a formula Hollywood
thriller a la Bourne or M.I., you may be disappointed, but as a serious
adult drama Valkyrie delivers the goods. It took some balls to make
this movie and UA has earned its kudos.
a surprising Cruise snoozer, despite the big decibels...
posted on 11 Aug 2009After phonetically memorizing a handful of lines of opening dialog in Deutsch, Tom Cruise gets to Vulcan mind-meld with the audience in California English for the rest of the film. (To be fair, the whole ensemble's accented English was all over the map, literally, according to each actor's native tongue. This soon comes to have a net numbing effect on the audience.) It seems they really permed Cruise's hair, too. (Somewhat vain that Cruise initially took such a strong interest in von Stauffenberg primarily because Cruise thought their faces, in profile, are similar. A victory of form over content or just one "method" borrowed from the Color of Money?) The film fails to make it sufficiently clear that previous *suicide-assassination* attempts against Hitler had failed, and that von Stauffenberg was not only required (by sheer necessity) to be The One to bomb Hitler, von Stauffenberg was also the one main charismatic personality who had any chance of convincing/*conning* non-conspirator Wehrmacht commanders (who outranked him) to go along with the coup, *after* the bomb had gone off. This is presented with a few too many touches of Mission Impossible and Jerry McGuire rolled into one lump. (I overheard someone asking why a *truck bomb* wasn't used. I suppose there wasn't enough Mission Impossible for that one.) The film raises plausible questions about how the attempted coup might have succeeded, if *all* of the conspirators had von Stauffenberg's relentless and steely resolve (and/or just a little more luck). Some artistic license is taken, but it mostly boils down to one too many chicken poops ruining von Stauffenberg's intricate broth. (Not everyone, who would be necessary for success, was sufficiently determined to stop Hitler at all costs.) The film argues that despite Hitler's surviving the assassination attempt, swift and decisive conspirator action, according to timetable, might have neutralized the Gestapo, SS, SD and Hitler's inner circle for the coup to have succeeded anyway. This is both plausible and debatable. This film is not a complete disappointment (it strives to cleave closely to known historical fact, given that most of the principals were executed or committed suicide and hence could not write confessions, let alone memoirs), but it is not nearly as good as some others make it out to be. The supporting cast does a commendable job, but cannot fill the gaping holes at the core of the film. The director and producers are entirely at fault. My 6.4 out of 10 is rounded down to 6. How entertaining would any *procedural* "caper" flick (like MI1-2-3) be, if everyone on the team nailed their marks and the gambit *fails* anyway? Well, in real life, this clockwork gets botched and all winds up for naught. There was some hint of political intrigue in the film, but zero "psychological" drama. More of either or both would have helped. Where The Curious Case of Benjamin Button didn't seem nearly as long as *three hours*, Valkyrie felt like it was much, much longer than its actual two. It's always a very bad sign that a film has lost its audience, when several people are snoring more loudly than the surround-sound, shake-you-in-your-seat crescendos that are liberally sprinkled along the course of the story. Some of the sleepers didn't awaken even for these rumblesome moments. My bet is that, this season, Defiance will be the more revealing and more moving WWII story "based on true events." (Far fewer people already know about the amazingly heroic, yet internally conflicted, Bielski otriad.) Defiance's success will not be a matter of accents.
Surprisingly a great movie
posted on 11 Aug 2009I don't know where to begin. When I first heard the movie was coming out, I had a lot of interest in it, but as soon as I heard Tom Cruise was going to be headlining, I was less than enthralled. After seeing a trailer for it during one of the earlier movies this year, I was impressed with what I saw for the sneak peeks, and Tom Cruise seemed okay so far. I took my children (15, 18) to see it last night and we were pleasantly surprised at how good the movies really is. I was very impressed with the star studded ensemble, but especially with Bill Nighy..wonderful. Thomas Kretschmann was awesome too, as the Germany Army Major who is confused at whether or not all of the alerts are real or drills. The script is wonderful, the direction is great and the cinematography is superb. Any fan of WW2 history will surely love this movie.
Don't believe the so-called "professional" critics who bad-mouthed it.
posted on 31 Aug 2009I just got back from seeing this at an out-of-town movie theater. And, it was fantastic! I knew from high school that there had been a failed attempt, by members of his own High Command, to kill Hitler with a time bomb. But, that it was the last of FIFTEEN attempts?Incredible!Tom Cruise does a surprisingly good job at portraying at Colonel Von Stauffenberg, a veteran of the German Army's North African campaign, whose battlefield injuries clinch his determination to end Hitler's life. Hence, his recruitment by a cadre of like-minded German generals and civilian politicians.The behind-the-scenes intrigue at arranging a coup d'etat, that mustn't look like a coup d'etat, literally kept me on the edge of my seat. And, the scenes dramatizing the private lives of the Von Stauffenberg family, as a whole, were suitably poignant.What really kept me emotionally involved, however, was the way some of the characters (like Gen. Albrecht) kept making me feel disgusted at their inaction, following the near-miss at Hitler's emergency headquarters, code-named "the Wolf's Lair." All this ranting and raving about the old sociopath having to go. And, yet, at the last minute, they're still afraid to fully commit themselves because they're worried about how to save their _own_ butts if something goes wrong???Psychiatrists call that "self-fulfilling prophecy." I call it cowardly hypocrisy. And, that I had this feeling, at all, is a sign of extra-good acting on the part of the people portraying these real-life figures.I don't know if "Valkyrie" will win the Best Picture Oscar, this spring. But, I will be very disappointed if it's not one of the five nominees for it!