You had me at "HEIL, HITLER..."

And yet, you gave them both the same rating...

 

Originally posted by moviewizguy Do you see what I'm trying to spell out to you?

Yeah, that with the exception of "One Missed Call", you give every movie you see the same middleground rating of somewhere between 5 and 6.

Maybe now South Park can do another episode making fun of Tom Cruise since the've already done that.

I have seen the film. What a stinker.

My impression was that the director had the assassination attempt itself in mind. It's obvious that he definitely wanted to film that. These are the film's strongest sequences. But my impression was that he had no clear idea how to get the audience there skilfully. Thus ,the movie doesn't reach any momentum within probably the first half an hour - if not longer. It seems chaotic, disordered, hectic, seems just to "send off" images and (useless) plot in a row. No continuation, no flow in the narration, instead just choppy. It was so poorly edited. It took me a while until I figured out the beginning was a summary of other attempts against Hitler's life.

This sucker doesn't need Tommy Gurl to mess it up, it's a mess already. I think that SPIEGEL has been rather kind in its review. Not only that you learn nothing about the military officials' motives but at the same time  - and the beginning is very clear about this - it tries to establish a rather curious and actually nonexistent difference between Nazis and German army. It's a poor and - let's put it mildly and say - "strange" attempt to redeem the Wehrmacht, who was involved in war crimes, executed Hitler's orders hand in hand with the SS. It's a shame how these kind of "small details" are ignored and everything, even such important facts like these have to serve the story and the director and the writers have no care about that.  And this is where the film stinks and it's a terrible stench.

Other flaws lie in two major plot holes. One is actually the lacking scrutinisation of the motives of the officers (SPIEGEL) and the other is how these men actually found each other. I am sure that it was not as easy as the film suggested that Stauffenberg & Co. sat over a couple of drinks in a bar and went something along the lines of, "Oh, btw, I am involved in a conspiracy. Would you like to join? You don't? You are so mean and this is why I throw my glass eye in your drink now! Meh!" There was a lot of plot, depth and suspense lost there.

And then, my God, Tommy Gurl in the leading role: There are scenes where his onedimensionality is appropriate and in place. However when he faces and plays with his co-stars he turns completely laughable because they have a depth that he lacks. Tommy Gurl is nothing but a facade next to them. For instance the actor who played General Olbricht manages to personify the hesitance of the resistance members and their constant mental state of hiatus. Or the actor who played Fromm, the personified corruption and opportunism (and yet I am not even sure whether Fromm was really like that, one would have to check it out). And Tommy Gurl? Well, he is just Tommy Gurl.

It's not a complete embarrassment, but I hope for Bryan Singer that this wasn't the height of his career and of his directing. There is still a lot for him to learn.

D+

Saw this today. Actually a good film -- some suspense, and overall nice acting... 

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu I'm starting to lose count of how many times Queen of Toad's posted rants about this film.

Why did you keep count in the first place? Tommy Gurl sucks and the film sucks, too. Imagine the combination of both!

"Watched Valkyrie at a 1:30 pm showing yesterday ...; the theater was 1/3 to 1/2 full.

Poor plot and character development ruin the first hour; the film becomes the thriller Singer intends and engages the viewer only once the assassination attempt at the Wolf's Lair fails.

Kenneth Branagh as General Tresckow: owns the screen when he's on it, but disappears much too early.
Bill Nighy as General Olbricht: perfectly cast.
Terence Stamp as General Beck: barely present.
Tom Wilkinson as General Fromm: he captures Fromm's persona exactly!
Thomas Kretschmann as Major Remer: appropriately villainous at a pivotal moment.
David Bamber as Adolf Hitler: Eeew. He was so greasy and decrepit I felt like I needed a bath just watching him.

Now to Tom Cruise as Stauffenberg. I must disagree with ... who found him neither good nor awful. The AP reviewer who called the TC distractingly bad was generous. This performance represents the nadir of his career. If Cruise was "selected" for the role because he and Stauffenberg share charisma and magnetism, then why did he portray him as a humorless automaton with the facial expression -- unchanged for the entire two hours -- of someone straining to pass a five-pound impacted stool?

Vocal delivery: he borrows Katie Holmes'es deep, low, slightly breathy voice on display in her "serious actress" interviews. Physical presence: Stauffenberg is supposed to command a room, but when he is being set up as the lead conspirator and the camera zooms in on him in a room full of people, you notice him not as a commanding presence, but as a thoroughly unlikeable little weasel the rest of the class will beat the $hit out of as soon as the teacher leaves the room.

And Cruise continues to hamper every scene he's in by his inability to inhabit the realms of human emotion. * Spoiler * (If there's a soul left who doesn't know how Stauffenberg meets his maker). When Tom Thumb finally, finally passes that stool, when he attempts to appear human and not like some deus ex machina figure Singer has dropped into the midst of a WW2 saga, when he shouts "Long Live Sacred Germany," he sounds exactly, exactly like you would expect Tom Cruise, Rabid Scientologist to sound at a Co$ rally. That was the moment my blood curdled in my veins. I kid you not. "

That makes a lot of sense.  I can imagine you singing "Der Holle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen" and replacing "Sarastro" with "Tom Cruise".