User reviews

"Not only is Singer's film-making aesthetically frustrating (lacking coherent visual rhythm) but his juvenile regard of the July 20, 1944, plot to kill Hitler -- one of 15 documented attempts -- is intellectually insulting..." New York Press The above is the usual negative commentary you'll see regarding this film. Critics bashed it for being insulting, unoriginal, and unmoving. Let me make some corrections for them so that they can save a little face.

I'm no Tom Cruise fan. A buddy of mine, too, is so peeved at Cruise that he refuses to watch anything the man stars in. Mostly this has to do with Cruise's personal life and beliefs (just watch an episode of South Park to see how some people view him and you'll see what I mean). People have similar feelings toward Mel Gibson ...but I digress.

VALKYRIE, as most of you probably now know, is the final of 15 attempts on Hitler's life. Shortly after this (about nine months) he committed suicide in his bunker. But this is about the one time where it almost succeeded. I'd heard about this attempt and read bits of it in history classes, but never really gave it much thought. I mean, the mustachioed murderer offed himself, so that was that. But what gives this film much of its umpf! is how true to history the story sticks (that and how closely many of the actors resemble their true-life counterparts). It is also riveting coming from director Bryan Singer (who did one of my all-time favorite films, THE USUAL SUSPECTS).

Tom Cruise did a great job (probably one of his best since COLLATERAL and MINORITY REPORT). His Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg character was spot-on ...with one exception that seems to be a sticking point for many: his accent. It is true that none of the actors attempts a German cadence in their speech. Did this bother me? No. I think it would have bothered me if they'd TRIED to do one and made it sound forced or ridiculous. So there's that...

What makes the film a success was Cruise's rock solid performance and the amazing supporting cast: Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, Terrence Stamp, and Eddie Izzard just to sprinkle a few names.

It is also noteworthy to mention that they filmed nearly everything on-location and in the exact same spots where the original incidents took place, including the subsequent trials and executions of the conspirators. Phenomenal authenticity.

If the cadence of their speech bothered some, then I failed to see how the cadence of the film could. It was absolutely perfect. It gradually built up suspense (even though we knew how it would end for the conspirators), and never slowed, right up until the very end. I am forced to use a cliché here in that "I was on the edge of my seat" throughout the second half of the film.

So if you're looking to tear apart Tom Cruise, you might look at WAR OF THE WORLDS or LEGEND. But not here.

I'm appalled at the way the specialized and not so specialized media attacked Tom Cruise for this movie. Why? He's not just good but very good in his against type performance. I've heard critics calling him "distractingly bad", how ridiculous and nasty. The film by the great craftsman Bryan Singer is a suspenseful, beautifully made historical thriller with a remarkable attention to detail. In an effort to be accurate the Jews are never mention because in fact the attempt to assassinate Hitler had nothing to do with that. The real reason? The war had turned against the Germans, it was clear that they were entering a down spiral and Hitler's madness was at the center of that. Regardless of the fact we know how the story ends, the movie manages to be a gripping tale based on real events. Well done Mr.Cruise, you won! Your Valkyrie is performing stupendously at the almighty box office.

First, I want to say that some time ago I learned to distrust critics and instead read the reviews here on IMDb. I've never been misled, even when an equal number of viewers liked and disliked the same movie because that let me know there was a matter of taste in play, and that's fine. Sometimes a movie pleases everyone, but that's so rare I cant really think of one. People have different tastes and that's good. But the value of IMDb reviews is that they are based on a genuine response to the movie - not a bias, or some other agenda.

For example, the Fox critic Roger Friedman listed this movie as one of the worst of 2008 - without having seen the movie. That's right. He rated it without seeing it. It was a classic and reprehensible case of bias and perhaps even bigotry since he was engaging in Tom Cruise bashing which is usually practiced in conjunction with dissing Tom's religion.

So I don't trust critics to tell the truth or give an unbiased review.

I saw Valkyrie and enjoyed it immensely. I've studied the Hitler period and was familiar with most of the events but the movie educated me while it thrilled and entertained me. It is a movie I was happy to take my teen-aged children to see because it also educated and entertained them. I thought the cast did a great job. The script was outstanding and the direction excellent. Tom Cruise gave a dimension to Von Stauffenberg that deepened my understanding of the events. The supporting cast were brilliant.

I highly recommend it.

PS. It's some time since I wrote this review and I took thirty minutes tonight to read the other reviews on this movie, not surprisingly they are mostly very positive and unanimous in praising it. Interestingly, the critics, including the one named above, who trashed the movie without even seeing it, obviously did so in an effort to kill it at the box office. While many other reviewers noted this too, I'd like to point out that those critics and possibly some of the people who 'dont like Tom Cruise because of his weird religion' are actually following the same path that made it possible for Hitler to kill off millions of Jews who also had a 'weird religion'. Considering the historical background of Valkyrie I find that quite ironical.

I was curious about this movie since it had caused so much controversy with Tom Cruise in the main role. Personally I think he was after all not a bad choice for this part and all in all I am very happy that there is an American movie that shows the different side of Germany and Germans in the Third Reich (there was a time when in every Hollywood Movie the villain were always Germans). But Americans, who in general don't really have much understanding of history, fail to realize that Hitler wasn't voted into power by the people. As a matter of fact, he only received 36,8 % of the votes in the election. Though this made his party the leading one, he could only gain power because the politicians of the other parties thought they could control him. Once Hitler was able to turn Germany into a dictatorship, it was extremely difficult to form any resistance. So much as cracking a joke about the Fuehrer was reason enough to be imprisoned, investigated and executed. Organizing a conspiracy meant risking not only your life, but the life of everyone even remotely associated with you. And you could never be sure who you could trust or who might be a spy or simply rat you out for personal gain. This is where this movie falls a little short, because it shows Stauffenberg and others simply talking freely about their plans and their convictions. Yes, I get that it is very difficult to portrait this conflict and the tremendous danger in a two hour movie, but I can't help it, I just feel that it doesn't give the audience a real picture of how daring this operation was and how nerve wracking this must have been (remember, this was the third attempt of Stauffenberg. He had the explosives with him two times before and had to abort ... each time risking detection). If you really think this through, you can not have enough respect for their courage. And I can't help but to point out, that most people don't even have the civil courage to demonstrate and protest in a free country with a democratic government.

Bottom line: great movie and you should watch it. Just be reminded, that this is a very watered down version of history.

"Valkyrie" takes on an important event in the history of Nazi Germany: the failed assassination attempt of German officers of the Wehrmacht against Hitler in 1944. Most Germans like myself are quite familiar with the story of the "Stauffenberg-Attentat" since it was not only the topic of many German docudramas (e.g. one made by well-known director Pabst in 1955) but is also widely discussed in history class in school.

I was pleasantly surprised about the "American" interpretation in Valkyrie and think that Singer and Cruise came up with an excellent film. Although the outcome is known and the movie develops rather slowly in the beginning, it manages to create a highly suspenseful and darkish-intense atmosphere that keeps you captivated until the end. Complains regarding the American/English accents and the German actors not speaking with German accents, or criticizing that Stauffenberg was "in reality" more charming and not as stiff as Cruise' interpretation, are niggling and banal at best. The movie does not focus on the private, psychological side of Stauffenberg but on his leading role in the assassination plot planned and executed amidst the "heart of darkness", which -we can be sure- was more than nerve-wracking and left certainly little space for charm and jokes. BTW: I was glad to see Nina von Stauffenberg portrayed as the knowing and smart wife that she actually was. The performance of all actors is superb, and Cruise certainly deserves special praise since his commitment to the role is tangible and remarkably intense.

Highly recommended!

It was curious timing to release this film on Christmas Day. As David Letterman quipped on last night's monologue: "Nothing says Holidays like a good Nazi death plot".

Release timing not withstanding, this is a very powerful movie and by all accounts comports with the historical record. There was little embellishment for dramatic effect here. Hitler murder conspiracy dramas are abundant in Hollywood, but this one actually happened and was nearly successful. The story is riveting, and even though the outcome was already known (at least to anyone who had a rudimentary knowledge of WWII), the excitement level was sustained by not really knowing the precise timing of events or, more importantly, who would be spared in the end.

Tom Cruise was very good in the lead role as the chief conspirator (Col. von Stauffenberg). The rest of the cast was first rate, including Tom Wilkinson as Gen'l Fromm, a Nazi head honcho who was playing both sides of the fence, and many other notable actors, such as Kenneth Branagh and Terence Stamp, all excellent.

For fans of "Downfall", the German film documenting Hitler's final week in the bunker (one of the all time great WWII films and #75 on the IMDb top 250), there were two actors from that movie playing in this one. Thomas Kretschmann and Christian Berkel both were key figures in "Downfall" had supporting roles in this film.

For people with an interest in WWII or history in general, this is one film worth checking out.

Ignore 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.

If the plot to assassinate Hitler in the summer of 1944 had gone off as planned, you can be sure some enterprising studio mogul at the time would have made a film about the incident even before the ink on the ensuing peace treaty had had a chance to dry. But as the effort did, in fact, fail, we've had to wait more than sixty years for this particular piece of World War II history to find its way onto the silver screen. Well, better late than never, I always say.

In "Valkyrie," Tom Cruise plays Claus von Stauffenberg, a battle-scarred corporal in the German army, who helps to spearhead the conspiracy to bring Hitler's worldwide reign of terror to an abortive end. Writers Christopher McQuarrie and Nathan Alexander had really two basic options to choose from in approaching this material: either treat it as a thoughtful character study, probing deep into the psyches of the men involved, or handle it as a straight-ahead action picture, emphasizing the minutiae and the step-by-step process of the plan itself. In choosing the latter, the filmmakers have made a movie that is interesting on a superficial level (and certainly informative as a re-enactment of a fascinating event in history), but not nearly as memorable or compelling as it might have been had they chosen the former.

As director, Bryan Singer keeps things moving along at a fairly fast clip, even though the profusion of characters all dressed in similar uniforms sometimes makes it hard to tell who exactly everyone is and which side of the Fuhrer dividing-line each happens to fall out on. In fact, at times, the people who are involved in the conspiracy actually seem to outnumber those who know nothing about it. Moreover, Cruise's generally wooden performance prevents us from delving very deeply into the inner workings of the man he is portraying. In addition, Kenneth Branagh and Terrance Stamp are given too little screen time to register much of an impact in their roles as fellow conspirators.

Still, it's impossible not to be moved and inspired by the tremendous bravery and heroism demonstrated by these men or by the incredible personal sacrifices they were willing to make to do what they knew was right. Of course, "Valkyrie" comes with the same built-in limitation as "Titanic" - which is that we know even before we enter the theater how the story itself will turn out. It's a tribute, therefore, to Singer's skill as a director that he still manages to generate as much genuine suspense as he does with the material.

"Valkyrie" succeeds more, perhaps, as a history lesson than as a stark human drama, but what an eye-opening lesson it turns out to be.

Claus von Stauffenberg, a man famous for being a German Army Officer who came closest to a assassinating Adolf Hitler. Von Stauffenberg is the closest figure Germany has to a national hero during World War 2. It's surprising that it took so long for a film to be made, nor to be a German film.

Valkyrie is a test project for the newly reformed United Artists under Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner. It was also a smaller project for Bryan Singer after doing 3 superhero films and reunite Singer and Christoper McQuarrie for the first time after the Usual Suspects.

Valkyrie starts with a prelogue sequence in North Africa. Von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) is a disaffected officer who is questioning Hitler's regime and that he was leading Germany to the path of destruction. During a British air raid he is injured badly, loosing an eye, his right hand and two fingers on his left hand. He can no longer serve on the front line. In 1943 General Henning von Tresckow (Kenneth Branagh) fails in his attempt to assassin Hitler and the German Resistance loss an army officer to help with operations. Von Stauffenberg is recruited in the resistance and the General Staff. He comes up with the Valkyrie plan which was to make the assassination of Hitler look like an SS plot, and get the army to launch a coup to 'protect' the Nazi regime. Von Stauffenberg is the only man who could get close to Hitler because he was the Chief-of-Staff for the Reserve Army General. The film is split into three major parts, the planning, the assassination attempt and the attempted coup.

Singer was able to bring in a very stylist approach of direction. I enjoy Singer's films and he was able to show his skills again. He is able to get an excellent cast, including Bill Nighy, Kenneth Branagh, Terrence Stamp and Tom Wilkingson to name a few. However, he shot the film in the style of a thriller, which was interesting, but being a historical film with most people knowing the outcome already takes away the suspense. But Singer did make an enjoyable film. The film has a strong script

Valkyrie is a strong, enjoyable film. It is not Singer's best but he can still pull it of.

I'm not really a fan of Tom Cruise so I let this film go past me until it came to TV because I just thought it screamed "star vehicle" too loudly. In reality I was probably a bit too hasty with that call because Valkyrie is a solid little film that delivers an interesting story with the predictable Hollywood liberty but does so in a rather satisfying manner. Having decided to put my personal feelings on Cruise to one side, I did still think that the film would struggle because ultimately I already knew the ending (spoiler: the plot to assassinate Hitler isn't successful) and it would therefore not be able to hook me in. I think in a way this was correct but not really in the way that I thought.

In terms of just straight up narrative flow the film does engage; OK it maybe takes a while to establish the main players and get things moving forward but ultimately, while I knew they would fail, I was interested to see what happens, how it happens and what they did. On this level I enjoyed the film and although it was a full two hours long I wasn't bored by it and it felt like it was as long as it should have been. Where I thought it didn't quite pull it off is in the portrayal of why the conspirators felt they had to act. In this regard I didn't feel their desperation and I didn't get a tangible sense of how bad things were at this point in the war for Germany; I know from other films etc how bad things were but this film didn't really do that so much as simply say that things were bad. Likewise I didn't get a feel for the emotions behind the plot and instead I got the impression that the film was taking it as read that everyone dislikes Hitler and therefore that would be all the understanding we would need – this is perhaps partly true but the film needed this as part of it, not an external thing brought by modern audiences.

Singer does a really good job in terms of direction. There isn't a huge amount of action here but the tension is good and it is very well delivered to be a lot more effective than I thought it would be (again, the issue over knowing the ending). The cast is deep in quality but, like me, many will get stuck at Cruise. He does an OK job by which I mean he doesn't overplay or make it all about him the personality. The downside of this is that he doesn't bring much character out either and I didn't see much of a person in his character – he does have presence though, which helps a lot. The supporting cast is rich and their presence also helps the film since you cannot turn left or right without bumping into a quality British actor. Branagh, Nighy, Wilkinson, Stamp, Izzard, Hollander and so on – they all do solid work and are a boon to the film.

Valkyrie isn't a classic by any means but nor is it the ego-driven Cruise film I expected. Instead it is a solidly entertaining thriller based on fact that manages to engage even though you know the outcome. Cruise doesn't get in the way and the support cast make it stronger by their quality and their number.

Bryan Singer's latest film, Valkyrie, is a step-up from what was a long 'slog' of a movie-going experience like Superman Returns. His direction here is more in line with the X-Men franchise, oddly enough for a movie about Nazi's scheming to kill Hitler. He has what amounts to a well-oiled machine via Christopher MacQuarrie's script, and his cast assembled is a gallery of who's who in British film (yes, British people playing Nazis, without German accents, as well as Tom Cruise with his Tom Cruise accent). If only one felt a stronger bond with some of these characters like Cruise and Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branaugh play, there might really be something special about what amounts to a great idea carried out to the extent of great failure.

If you haven't seen Tom Cruise's character, Col. Stauffenberg, explain it in one sentence in countless commercials and trailers, here's what the plot amounts to: a small group of completely fed-up Nazis plot to kill Hitler and implement operation Valkyrie which, in effect, will put the "right" Nazis back in power and end the war by negotiating an end to battle with the allies. This is the premise, and it is executed in a not so strange way much like the plot of a heist movie. We see the masterminds (Branaugh, Stamp, etc), bring in Stauffenberg to use his expertize and hatred of what's become with Germany as a means to pull off their plot. They also bring in some other possible 'friendlies' to their cause who will have various odd-job type tasks (i.e. Eddie Izzard's officer will make sure the phone lines are down from Hitler's operation station after the bomb goes off), and everything has to be planned and operated to the last T.

But, of course, as in a heist movie, we know that things wont turn out very well, or as well as anyone might like. Matter of fact, considering that instead of robbing a bank or jewels that it's taking out Hitler and his regime and implementing emergency procedures throughout Europe, it is what we expect it to be: a glorious try at something unattainable. What does make the movie fascinating is the execution of suspense as in any good conspiracy thriller (watching the tension during the first war-room meeting Hitler has with his men and as Stauffenberg awaits confirmation to set off the bomb is intense), and the striking quality of the performances. The actors all do good work- even Cruise who has the double burden of acting with one eye (or a crazy lazy/fake eye) most of the time- this in spite of or despite the fact that they're not given much in way of motivation aside from the obvious. I liked seeing the character of Stauffenberg go through the motions of executing the complex plot, but there's not much there for me to care about the human being.

This may not be the case for some, and if so all the better. This really is, to Singer's credit, one of those real WW2 movies with strong men played by terrific actors that... is not really great. In the right frame of mind it could, however, hit just the right spot. Valkyrie is slick, efficient storytelling.

Forget all the negative hype surrounding Valkyrie, because I assure you it is false. Bryan Singer has made a well-crafted thriller that kept me and my family on the edge of our seats until the end – even though we all know what the story's unfortunate outcome. Also, many tabloids were making this out to be the movie that would permanently cripple the career of Tom Cruise. This is entirely false. Cruise delivers a fine performance, and this hatred I can only assume is related to his rather odd personal life. Tom Cruise is as strong of an actor as he ever was, and I won't let something like turning Oprah's couch into a playground deny the fact that the man has talent, and is a truly passionate actor (and seriously, he does have a slight resemblance to Stauffenberg).

The movie is based on the last of fifteen known attempts on the life of German dictator Adolf Hitler (I'm sure everyone will have him in a nice "Five Most Evil People" list), and has Tom Cruise playing Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, who of course was the key player in the assassination attempt. Ultimately this attempt failed (as we all know Hitler would die by suicide nine months later), but that doesn't keep Valkyrie from being an addictively engaging film.

Every member of the cast does their part well, not jockeying for superiority in any way. More importantly Cruise does not grandstand in this movie, fading in with the rest of the cast, rather than trying to stand above them like you'd expect, given his past films. Cruise gives a performance similar to 2005's War of the Worlds, where he does a good performance, but he never tries to overpower the other members of the cast. In Valkyrie Tom Cruise is a being a good team player, not trying to steal any glory, and never once does he overact the part.

Using very little CGI Valkyrie is also a wonderful film to look at. The vintage automobiles and aircrafts make this film have a distinct authentic flair that few other war films have (CGI looks like it was only used for the climatic assassination attempt). You can look at this and tell that this is the real deal, with the production team putting careful care into how they want this film to look, unlike most Blockbuster films that try and inflate every aspect of the film rather than aim for reality. Like the performance by Tom Cruise they don't try and overpower the audience with special effects, they simply let the characters slip into the realistic settings.

Also, the complaints about the accents I truly feel are desperate attempts to bash Cruise's performance. It was director Bryan Singer's concept to not use false German accents, and not that of Cruise, or the primarily British cast. I agree with Singer's concept that if feels false, and inaccurate to have people speak in English, but with foreign accents. I know several Germans in real life, and they do not sound very "German" when they speak in English, because the accent is not intended for the English language. I personally feel the desire for English being spoken in German accents comes from decades of WWII films where we've categorized every-single member of the German army, and by them speaking in that accent only is to cliché them and separate them from American audiences. They can speak in German accents, but only if they're speaking in German, because if they aren't it seems to be a tool to keep your common American moviegoer from relating to the characters.

Don't go into Valkyrie expecting to be greeted with a horrifically bad film that you will be able to poke fun at with friends. The movie has been released, and I feel the rumors, and negative hype of been proved decisively false. This isn't a movie to kill Cruise's career, but it won't help him regain love in the American community either (as previously mentioned he doesn't shine so much as mix in with the rest of the cast). It is a very enjoyable dramatization of a true event, and I don't think the material could have been handled much better, even with a full German cast, because Singer's style and method of conveying this story are all very well-done.

Go out and enjoy this dramatization of one of the darkest periods of human history. It is worth every second of your time, and all though it isn't Oscar-worthy it is certainly worth two-hours of your time.

One of the best movies I've seen in years. In the world where special effects and cheesy plots make 99% of all films, "Valkyrie" delivers psychological thriller with a lesson in history. I saw this movie with my 9 year old son who is a big Military Fan. In the eyes of a 9 year old boy - the World consists of "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys". I hope that this movie will allow him to recognize that the World is little more complex than "Black & White" or "Good & Bad". This movie is the first film I have ever seen that presents German People as human beings trapped in the wheels of a spinning war machine, and not merely monsters responsible for all WWII atrocities. The movie illustrates political ties and relationships between Army and SS which were at the heart of Hitler's grip on the Reich.

Tom Cruise in a Nazi uniform with a eye patch and no German accent? sounds like a average war movie but it was the best war movie i have seen this year. Valkyrie was mildly intense and plays well on the action and thrills but it was so hard to take this movie serious.

The story should interest many people. A group of Nazi's plot to kill Hitler and call the plot Valkyrie. I was mildly interested while watching the first half while all this unfolded but when it hit the second half i sat straight up and paid attention.

Valkyrie started off as a average war movie but was saved in the second half by its intense storyline and its good ending. The acting was OK and pace was great. I recommend it. Not a must see but it was worth watching even if you know how it ends. I give Valkyrie......

7/10

I have so much fun reading some "critics". Some want historical accuracy. Well this isn't a documentary. There's plenty of those around on this historical period. Some want German accents. The splendid ensemble cast are creating characters not demonstrating a sociolinguistics class. And others, the most unethical lot of all, criticise Cruise because of his personal identity rather than his acting chops.

Well, this extraordinary movie exacts sweet revenge on such misguided critics. It is a master class of the Kurosawa "doctrine" that because film is such a multimodal medium one needs to be careful to balance all the competing elements harmoniously.

The editing is so tight here that narrative, dramatic and characterisation elements cohere brilliantly into an organic and most satisfying whole.

I could talk about the ensemble cast a lot. Suffice it to say that that too is another most cohesive and targeted aspect of the film.

But this is Cruise's moment. He absolutely fills the screen with charisma. His acting is impeccable. ( He single handedly saved Eyes Wide Shut, such a great faux pas from such a great master as Kubrick). He is stellar, he shines, he smoulders, he is just scintillating.

Damn those who put him down because they don't approve of Scientology or his lifestyle. Those issues are completely irrelevant as criteria for judging a cinematic performance. His acting chops are so off the scale virtually in every single movie he's made, the whole Academy and related awards caper comes across as a village fair for amateurs.

Spectacular movie overall, the sort you come back to watch time and again.

I really enjoyed this movie and I maybe one of the few that was not annoyed by Tom Cruise. Well as I'm sure most people know this movie is about the failed assassination attempt of Adolf Hitler.

The acting was very good throughout. I actually enjoyed Tom Cruise's performance but he did not take the lead as strongly as he should have. He did what had to be done but he could have elevated this movie like he has done to others in the past. His role needed that maverick type attitude like he provided in Born On the Fourth of July. His non-German accent was not an issue it was the strength that he displayed in his performance that was disappointing to many. This movie was certainly a chance for him to build his career back up to a more serious level but he clearly did not impress too many people with his role as Stauffenburg to do that. Still, he was enjoyable to watch for me.

The supporting cast though was great. Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy and Tom Wilkinson were all pivotal in the success of this movie and they certainly filled in perfectly. All around they were great performances but who I especially liked was Christian Berkel who I haven't heard of before as well as Jamie Parker.

The directing of Bryan Singer was superb. He provided an amazing amount of suspense to a movie that everyone knew the ending to. For a good half hour I was totally frozen watching as the plot unfold. I also thought the movie was paced very well and he brought the best out of the supporting cast. Of course it was shot very well with a great production throughout. The movie was written very nicely but as many people have said, it would have been great if there was more emotional depth added to the characters to make the audience feel more attached them.

This movie certainly had a lot of potential but it stayed within the realm of mostly a suspense action movie. Valkryie reminded me of a WW2 movie from the 50s and 60s with its style and pacing. It's very interesting to think about what ifs' and its kind of funny to think they almost pulled off the impossible without killing Hitler. Valkryie perfectly illustrates how the smallest of things can have the biggest impact.

Certainly the most miscast, and probably the most misconceived, War film I have ever seen. Director Bryan Singer made a modern classic with "The Usual Suspects" ,but his milieu is television. This comes across as a big budget / low brain effort which pulverises an essentially good story into pulp. At the heart of everything is the casting and accents. A predominantly British cast play the Germans in strong British accents, Cruise plays Stauffenberg with an American accent that veers into British from time to time. Consequently the whole film feels like a giant fancy dress party.

The sets, and costumes are convincing. The dialogue is not. I wanted to suspend disbelief, but when the English speaking accents are compounded by situations, speech and phrasing which are wholly un-Germanic that is nigh on impossible. In "The Usual Suspects", Singer started at the end and then worked back to it, a device used in "Carlitos Way" by Brian De Palma, and therein lies another challenge. We know what happens, the assassination plot fails, so how do you deal with that to retain dramatic tension? The answer is that Singer doesn't. De Palma created a Shakespearean tragedy, but Singer is no De Palma, and the script and story does not allow Cruise to replicate Pacino as the man condemned to an inevitable fate. So the film constantly struggles to find it's artistic raison d'etre.

Historically, the film is flawed. Inevitably Cruise plays Stauffenberg as the "good guy", the truth was far more complex, and interesting than that, but the screenplay has no time to flesh that out. There is an ongoing intrinsic conflict between what and who is right and wrong in the story. Perversely the denouement shows loyal soldiers making the right practical decisions in crushing the coup which is an odd moral to emerge as a defining theme.

The rise of Hitler. His mass popular support. His ability to turn proud Nationalism into ghastly genocide, and the lack of resistance to him are all big, film worthy topics. The mechanics of a coup in a powerful country, with a strong regime at War is also intriguing stuff. The conflicting demands that soldiers and citizens have to their country, their leader, and right and wrong are timeless matters. All this is squandered by a treatment that would barely get off a cartoon storyboard.

Frustratingly the story of the plot is a worthy theme, and the events bear critical and dramatic examination, but this offering misses the target so spectacularly that if offers nothing to the debate. For those with no interest in history, looking for straight forwards entertainment this is passable, but no more.