rpvanderlinden

(2013-05-21 15:15:41)

It's a Jungle in Nazi Germany

"Valkyrie" is a gripping suspense film that had my stomach in knots formost of its running time - I must be a masochist to enjoy being souncomfortable for two solid hours. Director Bryan Singer brings an"incident" from the dying days of the Third Reich to the big screenwith thoughtfulness, craftsmanship and style.. We are plunged into thecentre of a coup d'etat and its suffocating paranoia. Who do you trust?Not since "Seven Days in May" (about an attempted military coup in theU.S.) have I seen a film that handles this type of subject matter soadroitly. "Valkyrie" is a thriller that actually thrills.The pleasures of this film are many, starting with the subtleties ofcamera-work and editing that I began to pick up on as the story flewby, and I became immersed in a pleasurable feeling that, for once, Iwas watching a real movie. And what a cast! Not only Tom Cruise (whodoes solid work here), but the likes of Bill Nighy, Kevin Branagh, TomWilkinson, Terence Stamp, all of whom bring real authority to theircharacters. Herr Hitler, as played by an actor named David Bamber,seemed not quite "all there", and not quite in charge either - more abrand name than a commander of millions. I started thinking about powerand my belief that you only have it with the consent of those aroundyou, people with a vested interest. When the film takes you insideHitler's inner sanctum, populated by smug, sycophantic generals, likelions between feeding frenzies, the atmosphere is stifling.There's considerable attention to detail and apparent authenticity inthe look of the film. This is the first film I've seen set in NaziGermany that gave me a broad view of what Imperial Berlin, in all itsmodern architectural glory, might have looked like. Julius Caesar wouldhave felt right at home. In fact, "Valkyrie" has a Roman Epic feel toit - "Quo Vadis" without the dancing girls, but fully loaded with troopmovements, renegade generals, power struggles and mad emperors.

Erwin Alois

(2013-05-21 04:40:47)

99.9% Historcially accurate

I think the movie decpits the events around July 20th 1944 with 99.9% accuracy. I am from Germany and studied the German Resistance movement and the plot of July 20th 1944 in detail. There are only minor tweaks to the story that are really irrelevant, such as the fact that General Beck was taken to a different room to shoot himself, he did not shoot himself in the same room that the other conspirators were lined up.I do not like Tom Cruise for various reasons, but I think he did an outstanding job of acting as Oberst i.G. Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg. I did not mind the American accent, in the first scene his German was outstanding without any accent.I higly recommedn anybody watching this movie, as the average American has no idea that there were over 10 attempts on Hitler's life.Also an important fact to note, some German Historians estimate the number of members of the German Resistance killed after July 20th 1944 in the thousands. Another fact, if the German heros that tried to eliminate Hitler that day would have succeeded they could have saved millions of lives by ending the war quickly. There were more people killed from July 20th 1944 to May 8th 1945 than in the previous 5 years of war.Erwin A. Raeth

(2013-05-20 21:34:28)

Not perfect, but a well done story.

For me nothing facinates me more than world history. Being able to see some of the greatest moments in time in a movie setting is nothing but remarkable. Still, there are so many chapters of history that were overshadowed by the 'main event' that they are lost. Film has really given these lost stories a chance to resurface and be shown to the movie going public. Valkyrie is one of those stories. World War II is one of the most talked about periods of history, but this film shows the story within. During the reign of Hitler in Nazi Germany no one would ever have guessed there were actually high Nazi officials with a heart who knew that what was happening was evil. Led by a decorated soldier who escaped death, these officers fearing their own demise carefully craft a plan to take out the furer and stop what they already knew would be a losing battle. I felt that the movie was good for what it was. Bryan Singer tried to tell a story of consipiracy and good will with a good cast backing it up. I am not the biggest fan of Tom Cruise, but I was pretty impressed by the origionallity of his performance. The story moves pretty slow in the begining, but normally stories such as these will. I wasn't expecting this to be an award winning film, but it was an entertaining one. I would recommend it to be seen at least once, just to see the truth that not all the Nazi officials were truly evil.

Philip French

(2013-05-20 08:28:36)

The subject demands to be made as a documentary or in a form more imaginative than a linear narrative.

Dan Lybarger

(2013-05-14 15:31:11)

No sincere recounting of the events of July 20, 1944 could be dull, but director Bryan Singer comes dangerously close to succeeding.

teacher_tom516

(2013-05-14 07:51:46)

Why the Nazis are NOT the bad guys... (SPOILERS)

... at least until the movie ends.I've seen a lot of complaints about how Hitler was a rather sad lookingold man who wasn't scary and would never hurt a fly, much less a Jew,and how the Nazis didn't seem like the bad guys - in fact they seemedalmost sympathetic - according to some reviewers.Well, after thinking about it a lot here's what I think is therationale behind it. The movie tries to take us into this world wherepeople are disappearing, arrested by the Gestapo, you hear wild rumorsof Jews being executed but you don't actually see it. All you see areyour brother officers and all you have is their word.Finally when we hear Hitler's voice speaking to Remer, the gloves areoff. We see the executions, we see the show trials, we hear Hitler'svoice on the radio and we see that yea, the Nazis really are the badguys.The movie, to its credit, doesn't make up characters but it DOESconflate characters or change roles slightly to allow for maximumeconomy of characterization. Off the cuff I remember: Goerdeler - conflated slightly with Gisevius and the part of the groupwhich was idealistic, civilian and kind of anti-Stauffenberg Pompous general - Supposed to be Wehrkreis III commander Joachim vonKortzfleisch but I guess they wanted to make him look more pompouslyover bearing and less sympathetic (and Ian McNeice is certainly one tomake it work!) rather than being 'a simple soldier who'd rather bepulling weeds in his garden'.Africa Korps general - probably supposed to be von Broich but he'sgiven a generic name and killed off. He probably represents the priorefforts of the resistance to recruit the likes of Manstein and laterRommel. I think this might have been problematic as a lot of peopleapparently thought he WAS Rommel! von Haeften - takes the roles of all the ADC's, Klausing, etc.Mertz von Quirnheim - takes the roles of Stieff/Gersdorff in procuringand explaining the explosives as well as the role of Thiele in takingFellgiebel's call.Major Freyend and General Tresckow take the roles that theirsubordinates (Sgt.Vogler and von Schlabrendorff respectively)historically had - again for the sake of both economy of characters andmaking sure the lead characters are the ones who are active, ratherthan having a lot of active minor characters.We hear references to Helmuth Stieff, Col.Linstow and General Bieler aswell in the dialogue. It's really nice to think that the writersweren't just pulling names out of their rear ends as is the case in alot of Hollywood historical epics.There is some measure of dramatic license in the scenes but this isalways done to concisely condense what would have taken at least 3 morecharacters an 1-2 more scenes to explain if the history was strictlyadhered to.The movie does suffer slightly from shallower characterization than alot hoped for but this isn't because the actors acted poorly - to thecontrary they did the best with what they got. Unfortunately, becauseof the demands of the genre, what they got sometimes wasn't enough toreally give us a good glimpse of their characters. As it was Witzleben seems virtually irrelevant, which is tragic as hehas the hands down BEST end speech during the Volksgericht trials, Beckis reduced to the 'father figure' who Cruise's Stauffenberg is tryingto please - a sort of conflation of Ludwig Beck and Stefan Georgeperhaps! - but his role as Stauffenberg's PRECURSOR, the one who wouldhave had his finger on the trigger or the one arming the bomb in 1938,is absent. Goerdeler is reduce to the role of hostile and idealisticopponent to the practical and decisive Stauffenberg and his role as oneof the key founders of the Resistance, his opposition to the Nazis overthe Mendelsohn statue and his complex nature and naivetГѓВ© is likewiseabsent.To its credit though, the movie does not pander. It uses its dialogueconcisely, smartly and effectively. They look and sound like theofficers we've read of in books. A lot of people in my experiencereally tend to respond on a purely emotional level to cinema. They needto have their pulse raising not because of what someone says orexplains but because of what they see. A lot in this film is explainedthrough dialogue, through exposition (though there are, fortunately,matching images particularly when discussing the bombing plans) and ifyou're not paying attention you won't make the connection.I can appreciate how well the filmmakers did and how they really triedhard to be true to history even if it went AGAINST THE GRAIN of what somany people think the Nazis/German were because of learnedstereotyping. But most people can't - they only see 'actors' behavinglike they're in a script which "wasn't researched" where Cruise wearsan eye-patch. To this younger generation raised on stereotypes andsweeping generalizations and MTV - where images carry so much power andare so ingrained into their consciousness that when they see the GermanWW2 uniform they immediately think "NAZI" (regardless of whether thatuniform was Waffen SS or POSTAL WORKER - those Reich mailmen had IIRC areally sinister looking black uniform so much so that some of thosepoor sods were shot by vengeful Allied troops and partisans becausethey thought they were SS!) - they're just not going to get it. Thatis, IMHO, a problem if not a major "weakness" of the movie - you'regonna have to actually THINK, READ, RESEARCH, DO YOUR HOMEWORK toappreciate this movie.Heaven forbid a movie forces us to actually use our heads.

Christy Lemire

(2013-05-14 12:34:27)

[Cruise is] distractingly bad in this, the iconography of his celebrity so strongly overshadowing his performance. He's just too powerfully contemporary.

julian kennedy

(2013-05-13 18:17:45)

Valkyrie... Valkyrie... Valkyrie Profile (SPOILER ALERT)

Valkyrie: 6 out of 10: Roger Ebert pointed out a fundamental problemwith Valkerie in his 1975 review of The Hindenburg. “How can you thrillpeople with the saga of a dirigible floating across the Atlantic Ocean?We know it is going to blow up over Lakehurst, N.J.; but we also know,alas, that it's not going to blow up before then.” The story ofValkyrie makes for a kick ass documentary. It is a fascinating tale; agreat map of what ifs and almost happened(s). It is not however majormotion picture material. In fact, I recently read a review of that Jewsin the forest movie, Defiance, that Valkerie shared the theater withlast December. The Defiance article perceptively pointed out that thestory of people not being found by Nazis does not, by itself, naturallylend itself to a good film treatment. Needless to say, the story ofpeople (SPOILER ALERT) not blowing up Hitler also runs into this sameproblem.Now, not all films that have a forgone historical conclusion need tofall into this trap. Titanic, for example, hits the iceberg fairlyquickly and a successfully shoehorned a love triangle to give theaudience a reason to pay attention. (Lightning did not strike twice asPearl Harbor tried the exact same trick to much derision.) Titanic isbut one example, Apollo 13 made us care about the characters to thepoint that we forgot that everything would work out. More importantly,Apollo 13 was about more than just a retread of what happened. Toooften Valkerie comes across as a strange documentary where all theNazi’s are British. While the story is fascinating on its own right, wedo not go to the movies just to be shown what happened. We want to feelfor the characters as well.Tom Cruise took a lot of flak for making Valkerie. It overall wasundeserved. Though his performance failed to reach the audienceemotionally, one could hardly place the entire fault at Cruise’sdoorstep. The script really did not give him much to do. Valkyrie is astrange this happened then that happened story with little emotionalreflection. In fact, both Kenneth Branagh and Bill Nighly seem more outof place in the film than Cruise. (In addition, why exactly again,outside of Cruise, are all the Nazis British? Wouldn’t that be like aJapanese cast playing Chinese peasants in a Rape of Nanking drama.)Speaking of British Nazis, Britain’s 2007 Equality legislation may havebeen in the filmmaker’s mind as they shoehorned poor Carice van Houtenin as Cruise’s wife and basically the only woman in the cast. Shesticks out. For one thing, she does not even look British and speakswith a weird continental accent. Oh and the script drops her as acharacter just when it would be useful to give us a reason to careabout the (SPOILER ALERT) Germans failure to kill Hitler.Speaking of (SPOILER ALERT) not killing Hitler; one thing the movieneglects to mention is where were tall these Good German officers whenGermany was winning the war. After all, it was only after thesuccessful Normandy invasion and the collapse of the eastern front thatHitler all of a sudden needed to be killed. Where were these folks whenthe German army was marching through Paris and at the gates of Moscow?Yeah that is what I thought. It is somewhat hard to make a movie whenthe “good guys” come across as opportunistic scum.Overall Valkerie is a well-made movie with a predictable andemotionless story. It is hard to root for traitors (no matter hownoble) and the movie gives one little emotional reason to do so outsideof the obvious fact that they are trying to (SPOILER ALERT) killHitler.

Pratik Jasani

(2013-05-13 03:58:50)

An Excellent, Historical, Factually, Intense, Correct, Drama - Just Excellent.

Having studied the History of the Second World War in college as wellas for a media project in depth details and having known that therewere several plans to remove Adolf Hitler, the Fuehrer, I was very keento see this one on the screen from the moment I had heard about itColonel Von Stauffenberg, whose real name is Claus Philipp Maria GrafVon Stauffenberg, a officer in the German army during the Second WorldWar and a Roman Catholic by religion, is a member of the GermanResistance Movement, gets injured and loses an eye and two fingers in aAllied attack in North Africa as he is a member of the Afrika Corp, whoare on the retreat as the Allied army moves forward. But when he getsbetter he goes to a clandestine meeting and meets three figures, one ofwho wants to become the German leader by getting rid of the Fuehrer.Starring Tom Cruise, Carice Van Houten, Kenneth Brannagh, David Bamber.Thomas Kretscmann and Tom Wilkinson, the movie is directed by BryanSinger and written by Christopher McQuarrie and Nathan Alexander.Tom Cruise is natural in his role as Von Stauffenberg and he has shownthe intensity in his acting in such role as has Kenneth Brannagh. Themovie itself recreates the atmosphere of the time and goes on to givethe audience the feeling that they are witnessing an event in history.But what makes it lean more towards to make this is that it shows thebombardment of the German capital, Berlin. Factually correct, thismovie depicts the last plot that was hatched to remove Hitler, theReich Fuehrer Heinrich Himmler, the propaganda minister Josef Goebbelsand also Herman Goering, commander in chief of the Luftwaffe.This is a very intense drama that is really worth while watching andmore so for those who are interested in the Second World War events.

Dustin Putman

(2013-05-12 09:14:30)

Thriller and action elements are low-scale and unsuccessful. Valkyrie is little more than a sketchy and narrow history lesson with less impact than it should have.

brendanbct

(2013-05-12 00:50:44)

classic movie

When I sat down and watched this movie I found that it was anelectrifying salute to Stauffenberg ,The German resistance and Germany. Stauffenberg was a phenomenal man one of my heroes , For his standfor Freedom standing up to Hitler and his evil Third Reich . This moviewas also a great see for Lovers of Suspense and action you might evenlearn something . This movie had you following our heroes ,theResistance for the whole thing and it had you on the edge of your seat. And when it was over at the heart-breaking end where they wereexecuted I almost cried . This movie crafted great things movies couldrelate to History ,Action ,Suspense and a twist of drama and it's atrue story . So that's it definitely a instant - classic May Germanygrow and prosper and freedom thrive .(P.S Tom Cruise was great)

johnnyboyz

(2013-05-11 14:20:18)

Respectable and rather tense Second World War thriller which manifests suspense and danger around a group of men looking to make a grandeur change.

The camera slowly, tantalisingly zooms in on a spinning record whilstbombs are falling all around the building the contraption is in; ourlead and his family helplessly cowering in a basement as the loud andproud emoting of Wagner's 'The Ride of the Valkyries' booms out of thegramophone when the rumble from another explosion pushes the needleback onto the track. It's an important sequence, the scene in whichwhilst down there in that basement taking cover from the very bombsdesigned to injury him as he figures out a way to aid those they belongto, our lead hits upon the idea of enforcing an operation; a plan thatmight bring about the ending of World War Two, thus saving hundreds ofthousands of lives, but at the risk of his own. It's a powerful moment,one that gives our lead an idea, impetus and strength within anindividual happening designed to maim and destroy. Such is the natureof the lead, showing strength through adversity; like all of those thatwere members of whichever resistance movement in whatever nation atthat time.And from whence the thriller Valkyrie gets its name is revealed, a 2009Bryan Singer film about the true story revolving around a certain mannamed Claus von Stauffenberg, a German colonel in the upper throngs ofthe Nazi party during World War Two, who took it upon himself to wipeout Adolf Hitler in a bid to have the German political hierarchy thrustinto chaos as The War chugged into a fifth year. The film sees Singerreturn to material of a Nazi orientated nature for the first time since1998's Apt Pupil, another rather terrifying drama, that time about ayoung boy becoming gradually more and more obsessed with a specifictext in The Holocaust as themes of blackmail and the exploiting ofpower one supposedly possesses over another person, the likes of whichthe young boy had been reading of, became more frighteningly apparent.In Valkyrie, another look at the dangers or misuse of power isobserved; the determination of Tom Cruise's von Stauffenberg inachieving what it is he wants so dear by way of knowing he can be insuch close proximity to an individual of such infamous nature is playedout, an advantage he utilises so as to put a plan of action intomotion. Others are connected, a flurry of British actors curiously bothhovering and revolving around American Cruise's whim, all of whomplaying true to life German officials that want an end to the madnessand murder as Hitler prolongs the deaths of the innocent and thoseserving on the various fronts of The War. They know the risks; theyknow their mission and they're aware of what it'll take of them whenthe scene in a church sees von Stauffenberg talk to Bill Nighy'sgeneral, a certain Friedrich Olbricht, for the first time about theidea of trying to initiate operation Valkyrie plus ideas about howsetting out in eliminating a man is still a mere act of murder. Indeed,later on Olbricht observes that while they're doing their best to savelives and end suffering: "only God can judge us"; the theologicalelements of following through with this mission made aware.Cruise's von Stauffenberg is a battle scarred man, weary of the war andan individual with experience of the front line when an attack on hisdesert troops in Tunisia by an American Flying Tiger fighter planeleaves him without a right hand and a left eye. His wife is Nina (vanHouten), her and their children those whose lives we feel are ingreatest danger when he is away and indulging in his plans; here Singerusing the innocent lives of von Stauffenberg's family to act asrepresentatives for those of the greater nature of who'll be saved ifthe plan succeeds. One scene sees von Stauffenberg attempt to call homeby way of the telephone, but recent bombing has made communicationdifficult as von Stauffenberg's situation becomes increasinglyprecarious. He places the phone down and it hangs ominously on thereceiver, teetering as if on a cliff edge; rocking back and forth as aphotograph of his family stare back at us with the phone in theforeground: the outcome of their situation remains unanswered andcertain fates of the von Stauffenberg family remain in the balance asthe phone continues to rock as if to dramatically become unhooked atany moment.The film covers his gradual infiltration of Hitler's Nazi party highermembers, and his consequent invitation to the heavily fortified Wolf'sLair, located deep in rural Germany, in which the strike willeventually occur; an idea met with some disdain from certain peopleearly on, particularly Tom Wilkinson's Friedrich Fromm, when Singerapplies a number of profile shots of men facing each other in a showingof anger, disagreement and confrontation. His direction is taut andpunchy, taking a true story of which few will have heard of but mostlyall will know the result of within seconds of it being detailed, thefilm's expositional tidbits from fully grown men explaining plans andcomplicated political procedures and agendas to one another harmlesslyinter-cutting with the pot-boiling and execution of this plan to leavean awry suitcase in a dangerous place. The key to the drama is notknowing the outcome of von Stauffenberg and several of his cohorts, norhow it was they went about dealing with the situations they created.Singer's treatment of the material in that punchy, rapid fashionrenders it accessible for more mainstream audiences without ever reallydegrading it or exploiting it for cheap entertainment's worth. The filmis a tight and focused effort, involving in its own right and efficientin retelling a story of failure that needs not be forgotten.

(2013-05-08 12:36:51)

5-star thriller - EXCELLENT

Don't want to repeat what dozens of other reviewers already said but still want to chip in my rating...I rarely give 5 stars but this one deserves it.

Eric Melin

(2013-05-07 14:30:37)

Director Bryan Singer approaches this sensitive material as a strict procedural. It's almost as if we are joining part two of a miniseries already in progress.

(2013-05-05 20:16:03)

On doing the right thing

This review is from: Valkyrie (Single-Disc Edition) (DVD) I won't go into details about this fine film. That has already been done at length.I wanted to see this in the theater, and it never worked out, and I never bothered to get it until after I watched a documentary about the attempts to assassinate Hitler.What struck me about the film was the nobility shown by the men who tried to save the honor of their country before it was too late. If the war had gone better, would they still have had the same compulsion? In any case it is a very well made movie, very well acted, that was not as entertaining as it was educational, but one I liked quite a bit.3 Вѕ *

3xHCCH

(2013-05-05 08:12:14)

Competent Story Telling, but Problem with the Star

In a film like this, there is really nothing to spoil because everyoneknows how it would end. I watched the video of "Valkyrie" in severalinstallments, but the flow of the story was no problem. The story beingtold was very interesting -- the plot to kill Adolf Hitler by Germanpatriots 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 wasconvincingly German though. My main problem with the whole movie is thelead actor himself, Tom Cruise. He is too much of a star to make hisportrayal of von Stauffenberg convincing. Even with the eye-patch, heis still Tom Cruise. He did not disappear into the role, as would havebeen ideal for a movie like this.

(2013-05-04 17:09:41)

Pretty Good Film

I was surprised. This movie turned out the be well-acted and well-portrayed despite the negative press. I'll admit it. I do think that Tom Cruise had gone into a weird stage for a while, and he always manages to outshine his cast in every movie he's done.However, this is by far his best role to date, and it suits him. Cruise is most comfortable playing a strong, decisive character. He doesn't do the wishy-washy thing...at all. And in this role, he was a team player. A key player, but he played the role with stone cold accuracy. Disciplined. It works for him. These are the characters he should play. None of those yappety, yappety characters. He likes the military thing. Suits him well. I only saw a clip of Magnolia, but I hated the role he played as some cult guru...no matter how true to reality that is. It made him seem squeamish and greasy. These solid, hard roles suit him.Well done, Mr. Cruise.

jjbagley-1

(2013-05-04 08:57:15)

How disappointing can it be

The movie itself was not that bad even considering Brian Singer wasattached to it. The main problem is that every actor has his nativeaccent. I mean, what happened? These are fine actors yet no one has aGerman accent? How can this be acceptable? No matter how good the moviewas this tainted the entire production and is an embarrassment to thefilm industry. How does this major problem get past Brian Singer, TomCruise, the entire production staff and the studio heads? I will have to say the production values were excellent yet that justmakes the acting problems that just more sad. This was the movie thatcould have been.

Wuchak

(2013-05-02 05:29:13)

Not all Germans supported that monster

Based on the true story of the last German plot to assassinate Hitler,2008's "Valkyrie" is an effective World War II crime thriller, althoughit wasn't actually a crime, of course; it was an act of heroism.Tom Cruise resembles the protagonist -- Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg-- but he lacks his height. Despite this, Cruise is solid in the roleand the story works up some good suspense. Even though we know the plotwill fail you can't help but root for the dissenters' success. Almost5000 Germans were subsequently executed on grounds of treason for thefailed attempt, although not all of them were connected to thisspecific conspiracy.The film is both entertaining and educational. It shows that there werethousands of Germans who were willing to risk all to get that monsterout of office. And they almost succeeded."Valkyrie" is reminiscent of 1976's "The Eagle has Landed" in some waysso, if you liked that one, you'll probably appreciate "Valkyrie." Ilike the '76 film a little better.GRADE: B+

wilhale4

(2013-05-01 20:13:24)

Excellent movie

This is a very good movie; important too to tell this story. It is goodto see that there were Nazis even inside that tried to stop the evilwithin their ranks. This movie is interesting and involving and wellacted and directed as well. It is too bad that the timing prevented itfrom reaching a lot of people. We are still too close to the horrorthat Hitler did to accept that human beings even originally committedto something can change. But it is this change that can save us. Ithought Bryan Singer did a great job. Tom Cruise is believable andexcellent in the movie. If anything, it seemed to me his years inScientology prepared him to play this part. I'm glad I watched it.