Valkyrie

[The Dreaming]

I think it's fairly fashionable to like Paul Thomas Anderson these days. (I've adored all of his movies.) That bastard is married to Tina Fey though, so he deserves death!

[danlo]

(gots the hots for Sarah Palin, eh?)

[Lord Mhoram]

It might be fashionable, but Paul Thomas Anderson just happens to be really awesome. Also I think Valkyie looks pretty bad. I wish I didn't know that Tom Cruise was a Scientologist because it makes me think he's a complete turd. I actually like a fair amount of his acting.

[Montresor]

Hated A Few Good Men. Over-acted Oscar pandering.

You can handle the truth!

[Cail]

Not the film I expected, and Cruise didn't grate on me. The short version is that I liked it.

It presents a problematic (though accurate) premise; that all Germans weren't Nazis. That's a tough thing, because by doing so, it opens itself up to criticism that it's an apologist film. It isn't, inasmuch that Hitler is portrayed as a frail bumbler and Cruise's von Stauffenberg is the Valiant Hero ®. It is a well-executed telling of a fascinating story, made all the more frustrating due to the fact that we know the ending.

The big beef I have with is is the accents. Cruise makes no attempt to affect anything other than his normal voice, everyone else sounds British (because they are). This probably won't matter to the vast majority of the viewing public, however it was the one thing that really took me out of the film.

Bill Nighy, Terence Stamp, and Eddie Izzard all give fantastic supporting performances.

[Zarathustra]

How were these people not Nazis? I read that it is an apologist film, because there is almost no mention of the millions of murdered Jews, and the main characters are portrayed as heroes, even though they had been participating in the genocide for years. The swastika arm bands weren't used, and the Nazi symbols (like flags) were kept to a minimum, almost as if to hide the fact that our "heroes" weren't Nazis themselves. Basically, it's a movie about the in-fighting between our enemies, but we're supposed to be cheering them on?

Anyway, I haven't seen it. Glad you liked it.

[Montresor]

How were these people not Nazis? I read that it is an apologist film, because there is almost no mention of the millions of murdered Jews, and the main characters are portrayed as heroes, even though they had been participating in the genocide for years. The swastika arm bands weren't used, and the Nazi symbols (like flags) were kept to a minimum, almost as if to hide the fact that our "heroes" weren't Nazis themselves. Basically, it's a movie about the in-fighting between our enemies, but we're supposed to be cheering them on?

Being a Nazi means being part of a political affiliation, i.e. a member of the National Socialist Workers Party (NSDAP, or NAZI in English). Being a German soldier or bureaucrat during the 1930s and '40s did not automatically entitle you to membership. Even some Nazi party members (Oscar Schindler leaps to mind) can hardly be thought of as goose-stepping murderers. Germany is the home of the first resistance movements against Nazism.

Anyway, it's a politically and morally complex time and setting, one which I doubt this film will do full justice to. The plot lends itself well to cinema, of course.

[dlbpharmd]

We saw this earlier today. I agree that Cruise isn't as bad as the reviews have indicated, and overall the movie is pretty good. I was disappointed that Kenneth Branagh wasn't on screen very long. I'm not sure why he would take this tiny role.

[Zarathustra]

Being a Nazi means being part of a political affiliation, i.e. a member of the National Socialist Workers Party (NSDAP, or NAZI in English). Being a German soldier or bureaucrat during the 1930s and '40s did not automatically entitle you to membership. Even some Nazi party members (Oscar Schindler leaps to mind) can hardly be thought of as goose-stepping murderers. Germany is the home of the first resistance movements against Nazism.

Anyway, it's a politically and morally complex time and setting, one which I doubt this film will do full justice to. The plot lends itself well to cinema, of course.

I didn't mean to suggest that all Germans were Nazis . . . but we're talking about an officer in his army who was ranked high enough to get access to Hitler himself. I admit that I don't know enough about this complex time period, but did Hitler really allow his highest officers to not be Nazis? I forgot where I saw it, but I read that this plot against Hitler had nothing to do with stopping the slaughter, but because they felt Hitler was losing the war through his ineptitude. So in other words, they would have continued the war, just with new leadership (themselves).

But I'm willing to be educated on the issue. In fact, this movie probably should be treated as a chance to acquaint ourselves better with history . . . rather than the easy cheap shots at Cruise.

[Montresor]

Von Stauffenberg never became a formal member of the Nazi party. Many of the German aristocracy, in particular, tended to avoid party membership. Some of the biggest names in the German army were never party members, though they had close ties or dealings with Hitler.

What seems vaguely anti-climactical about the film, for me, isn't the fact that we know the plot to kill Hitler failed, but that things probably would have gotten worse had it succeeded. The British had a detailed assassination plot themselves, which they eventually decided to cancel on the grounds that Hitler was a serious liability to the German war effort. Remove Hitler, and there would have been a very real chance that someone who actually knew how to run a war might take over.

[Zarathustra]

What seems vaguely anti-climactical about the film, for me, isn't the fact that we know the plot to kill Hitler failed, but that things probably would have gotten worse had it succeeded. The British had a detailed assassination plot themselves, which they eventually decided to cancel on the grounds that Hitler was a serious liability to the German war effort. Remove Hitler, and there would have been a very real chance that someone who actually knew how to run a war might take over.

So based on this, it sounds like "apologist" is an apt charge against the movie, if the "heroes" would have continued the war even better than Hitler. If I understand correctly, the movie presented Cruise's character as sympathetic, admirable, and someone whom the audience was supposed to be cheering.

[Montresor]

What seems vaguely anti-climactical about the film, for me, isn't the fact that we know the plot to kill Hitler failed, but that things probably would have gotten worse had it succeeded. The British had a detailed assassination plot themselves, which they eventually decided to cancel on the grounds that Hitler was a serious liability to the German war effort. Remove Hitler, and there would have been a very real chance that someone who actually knew how to run a war might take over.

So based on this, it sounds like "apologist" is an apt charge against the movie, if the "heroes" would have continued the war even better than Hitler. If I understand correctly, the movie presented Cruise's character as sympathetic, admirable, and someone whom the audience was supposed to be cheering.

Stauffenberg definitely belonged to the camp that thought that the war was irrevocably lost. He, and many of the conspirators aimed to kill Hitler because they felt they would be able to negotiate an armistice with the allies (following a military coup, and liquidation of certain key nazis). In that sense, Stauffenberg comes across as an 'heroic' figure.

Had the war been going differently for the Germans since 1943, however, I'm sure that men like von Stauffenberg would never have dreamed up the idea of killing the Fuhrer. So, whether they were 'heroes' for their attempt at ending the war is quite open to interpretation.

All this talk actually makes me want to see the film now . . .

[Cail]

There was actually quite a bit of talk about negotiating peace after the assassination. It was also made clear about the need to eliminate Himmler, and cut off the rest of Hitler's inner circle.

I'm not pretending that the movie was a documentary, but it is an interesting film that I don't believe tipped too far to one side or the other.

[lurch]

..I will not waste any more words, time or energy on any movie starring Tom Cruise , than this: The central concept of a flawed human being ,still of some sanity, finding itself completely surrounded by insanity, devoid of hope, and how that human being deals with those conditions, is beyond Mr Tom Cruise's ability to convincingly convey. The depth and spread of the emotional struggles are not of Mr Cruise to give. The apparent belittling of the genocide, invasions, and years of Thug rule are a testament of the shallowness of this 100 plus minute movie. He stunk up The Last Samurai and from what I've read and heard from the critics,, he has over reached again, in Valkyrie. He can't act his way out of a wet Action Thriller. And that is as cheap as I can get.

[Worm of Despite]

Hindsight's 20/20. Might the war have carried on? Are we sure the assassins would've pursued peace or a new agenda? At least the major destruction of Germany's inner workings, as Hitler ordered, would have never happened as it did at the war's denouement.

[wayfriend]

So based on this, it sounds like "apologist" is an apt charge against the movie, if the "heroes" would have continued the war even better than Hitler. If I understand correctly, the movie presented Cruise's character as sympathetic, admirable, and someone whom the audience was supposed to be cheering.

Seems to me that a movie presented from the point of view of an enemy doesn't make it "apologist". Does the movie portray the Nazi's as misunderstood people really trying to do good, or their atrocities as something necessary or okay? If not, I don't think the label applies. It's just a movie that presented an alternate point of view, and which addresses only the plot against Hitler and not everything about the Nazi's.

[Zahir]

I'm intrigued, because I do believe the cast is first-rate--including the smartass, insufferable Mr. Cruise.

The plot, from what I remember of history, involved many of the German elite who always despised Hitler and the Nazis. Certainly, Hitler himself was deeply distrustful of the aristocracy and the General Staff. It was no coincidence that he left Admiral Doenitz as his political heir. Meanwhile, many officers and others disliked the Nazis from the get-go, but discipline made them obey what was the government of their country. Yet after a time it became increasingly obvious that the war was lost, but that Hitler would never, ever surrender. Germany would be conquered. Unless there was a new regime.

In the wake of the Assassination Plot (which failed for a variety of reasons), Hitler purged the officer corps with a savagery he'd never before displayed to anyone who wasn't a racial minority. More than one witness described him giggling as he watched "home movies" of the conspirators' executions--hanging by piano wire.

[SoulBiter]

I saw this a few days ago and I have to say that I really liked it. It wasnt a typical cruise role and the only real critique was the accents or lack thereof. But they did do a good job preparing you for no accents because they start off with cruise speaking german and then it fades to english and the rest of the movie is in english.

I have no clue why the critics hated it unless it was just a hate for Tom Cruise.

[Dromond]

Over acted, yes... still enjoyed it.

[dlbpharmd]

I don't see the overacting in A Few Good Men. I can't stand Cruise or Nicholson, but I think it's one of their best performances.