Truly Dreadful Film

A different way of telling a story

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Blistering performances.

Bryan Singer's Valkyrie is a great attempt at showcasing one of the most fascinating chapters of WW2- the assassination attempt on Hitler's life by a brave German named Claus von Stauffenberg, played rather impressively by Tom Cruise. The plot is historically accurate and the setting and production is so good you'd be astonished to know that the locations are all fake (apparently the German authorities refused to let the filming happen on actual locations). The pacing needs a mentioning as it is absolutely amazing- the film literally flows from one scene to the next, which is a given since it follows an event in real time. This is a great watch.

A rare modern true story of ww2 that captures the feeling of being there that many war films fall short. Tense, brave, heroic, unbelievable!

As informative as it is intriguing, Valkyrie is a finely carved, swiftly paced & well acted historical account that takes a leaflet out of the countless unforgettable events which occurred during the Second World War, and brings it to cinematic life in a tense & gripping fashion but what hinders it from making the desired impact is Tom Cruise's own star presence.Set in 1944 during World War II, Valkyrie chronicles the path to July 20 plot, a failed assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler, that was concocted by Claus von Stauffenberg & his associates in order to remove the Nazi Party from power. The plot briefly glimpses over Stauffenberg's early life before focusing on the plans & preparations to assassinate the Führer & end the war.Directed by Bryan Singer (best known for The Usual Suspects & X-Men series), Valkyrie unfolds at breakneck speed once the board is set but it tries to handle too many characters at once, which often results in confusions regarding who's supposed to be playing what role in the game plan. Singer's direction exhibits a kinetic flair, and he is able to keep the viewers invested in his story.The screenplay does take notes from historical records but it also takes artistic license with a few events to dramatise the narrative but it's restrained to a level that doesn't affect the main premise. The period-specific detailing is a welcome attribute, the glossy camera-work only adds more shine to its images, Editing is slick for the most part, and John Ottman chips in with a score that does its required job.Coming to the performances, the cast consists of Tom Cruise, Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, Thomas Kretschmann & others, and the supporting cast play their respective roles in a responsible manner. Cruise himself delivers a strong input as Stauffenberg but he's unable to get rid of his star status, and is never truly convincing as the given character. Lastly, whoever played Hitler was just awful.On an overall scale, Valkyrie is no masterpiece but it does bring to light the legacy of Claus von Stauffenberg & his noble cause to show the world that not everyone in Germany shared Hitler's ideals. The film works as a thriller, is thoroughly engaging, and continues getting better as plot progresses before finishing on a powerful note but it's not impressive enough to garner a spot amongst the finest examples of its genre. Definitely worth a shot.

As seems normal for American big-budget movies of a historical nature, this must be seen as 'based on fact' rather than factual. The conspirators didn't get anywhere near the control of Berlin and Germany as Is suggested here. Indeed, some of the factual errors are huge - For example, Himmler Is shown not In his all-black SS uniform, but In the field-grey of the Wehrmacht(regular army) which Is a mistake of the highest order. He had no connection with the Wehrmacht In any form. Indeed, despite his presence and plenty of talk regarding the SS, not a single SS man or black SS uniform Is ever seen, especially silly when one considers that Hitlers' personal Bodyguard of two thousand SS men were In close proximity to him at all times. Then we see men In the brown uniforms of the SA (Sturmabteilung), an organisation disbanded In 1934, a full 10 years before the date In which these events are set. Hitler and his confidantes (Keitel, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels)look like comical caricatures rather than representations of the real people. Perhaps this was Intentional, but that makes It all the more puerile. Despite all of this, If you're a war-movie buff or just a person who likes to root for the underdog, then you'll enjoy this movie, Historians and purists will hate It. It's otherwise very well made, although where exactly the $75 Million budget went (other than In the pocket of Mr. Cruise) one can only speculate. The cast - mainly English actors - are superb and Bill Nighy In particular Is excellent as General Olbricht. Why Tom Cruise was chosen for Stauffenberg I simply cannot fathom. He's good at action movies, but this was beyond him and he's put to shame by the excellence of the other cast members. Stauffenberg had aristocratic bearing which Cruise couldn't replicate. Apparently, the whole cast were ordered to refrain from putting on German accents because poor Mr.Cruise couldn't do one, so even the German actors had to speak without an accent! Okay so an accent Isn't really necessary but It adds to the realism. Why didn't they simply get a more suitable man for the part? Tom should stick to what he's best at - this was way beyond him.