December
12
Valkyrie: Not Bad
Valkyrie is a well-made, entertaining thriller that had me on the edge of my seat in its second half.
It's old-fashioned, in the sense that Hollywood used to make more movies like this: straight-ahead, engrossing World War II action dramas that pit an alliance of noble heroes against pitiless Nazi villains. The danger is real. The story is based on historical events. Clearly, this plot to assassinate Hitler did not succeed. But why not? And how close did they get?
Tom Cruise is fine. The movie is fun. In today's marketplace, though, it becomes clear that it's harder than ever to take the risk that an expensive period epic like this will work with audiences. Like Australia, there's no knowing. Maybe part of what's going on with the devaluing of movie stars is an increasing demand for authenticity. Does Cruise lend authority to Valkyrie? He's fine because he's a good actor, not because he's a movie star. Will audiences want to see him in this role?
Cruise had a good day yesterday, landing a surprise Golden Globe supporting actor nom for his role in Tropic Thunder as foul-mouthed producer Les Grossman. Don't expect a repeat on January 22.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
the German plotters are "noble heroes". Pleeese. that's what the filmmakers want you to believe. if the officers had been true anti-Nazis they would have attempted their coup before the war even began, not in 1944 when Germany had lost the war. the plotters were trying to make a separate peace with the western allies so that they might be spared Stalin's retribution.
Posted by: bob | December 12, 2008 at 05:18 PM
Yeah, it's pretty hard to be a nazi good guy!
I don't think that was the aim. Sticky situation.
Posted by: John | December 12, 2008 at 05:51 PM
Wait....did I read this right?
"Hollywood used to make more movies like this: straight-ahead, engrossing World War II action dramas that pit an alliance of noble heroes against pitiless Nazi villains."
First off, there ain't no action in this movie. One action sequence at the very start, and then nothing more than waving the cork over the action bottle.
But you are right that it is much better in the 2nd half, and that is good because the first half is the ultimate snore fest.
And "Nazi villains"??? Are you going for the subtle distinction between the noble German military personel sporting iron crosses who are the protagonists and the card carrying (but not Valkyry conspiracy card carrying mind you) German members of the Nazi party? I'm sure your readers will pick up on that distinction.
Don't know about you, but I hear Button comes out the same day.
Posted by: Richie | December 12, 2008 at 06:24 PM
Terrific film. Why complaint about "no action"? It's not a action film. It's a suspense thriller with even some Hitchockian touches in it. I went in hoping that all the rumors about it weren't true and came out very pleasantly surprised. The enthusiastic audience reaction I was with gives me hope this has a real chance of doing well at the box office.
I think Benjamin Button, (which I have to admit I didn't care for and found a pretentious bore) will have a much tougher time at the box office
Posted by: Sergio | December 12, 2008 at 08:07 PM
Why didn't they try their coup earlier? They did - multiple times - so read your history before blowing off about them just being Nazis wanting to jump off a sinking ship.
The movie appearas to be incredibly accurate telling of a very exciting actual event and that is probably a first for Hollywood in any field. Its an ensemble drama too so I wouldn't expect awards for Cruise anymore than I saw any for the very fine individual performances in the LOTR movies.
Posted by: Colin Fraser | December 13, 2008 at 08:09 AM
"Why complaint about "no action"? It's not a action film."
The comment there went to the reporting not the movie. It was described as an action movie in the blog.
And we(including the audience at my screening) will have to agree to disagree on the merits of this film, but I can guarantee that it won't be a hit at the box office. This is distinctly adult fare and will be crushed by Benajamin Button. The Pitt movie comes out the same day. No differing opinions on that one.
Posted by: Richie | December 13, 2008 at 08:13 AM
I'm psyched to see this. It's in line with the other movies I've liked this year: genre movies that could have been made very comfortably in the '70s (the others being APPALOOSA, THE BANK JOB and PUNISHER: WAR ZONE). Wasn't there a string of films in the 1970s with Nazi protagonists? (CROSS OF IRON, THE EAGLE HAS LANDED and a bunch I've forgotten.) Cruise was best when he played an utter sociopath in COLLATERAL. A German general in WWII isn't that far off.
Posted by: Brian | December 15, 2008 at 08:23 AM
The picture is fairly well made and more-or-less engrossing, but I couldn't help thinking that it would have been far better as a pure ensemble cast movie, with less emphasis on Cruise's character and more detail about the other conspirators. [After the film ended, I wanted to know more about the characters played by Tom Wilkinson and Bill Nighy.] If this had been made at Fox in the '50s and directed by someone like Henry Hathaway or Robert Wise, it could have been a small classic, the kind of picture one would always stay up to watch on the late show.
Also, without meaning to be unfair to Cruise's performance, it was distinctly strange to hear almost every other German character in the movie speak with a British accent while Cruise spoke in his American tones. I don't know what could have been done about this, but it felt really offputting. [In 1983, when the decision was made to cast British actors as Russians in the film version of GORKY PARK, William Hurt spoke with a British accent to match the other performers... and that didn't work at all.]
Posted by: Griff | December 20, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Just to correct "Bob", there were at least 19 different plots to assassinate Hitler, all but one of which originated within the German military. Moreover, two of the plots pre-dated the start of the Second World War, one of them being originated by Colonel General Ludwig Beck, the Chief of Staff of the German Army. Other plots were hatched during the Second World War when German was ascendant and looked as though it were a certainty to win the war -- so not every plot was about jumping from a sinking ship. Incidentally, another attempt -- nearly successful -- was by an ordinary German citizen named Georg Elser who planted a time bomb in November of 1939 at the Burgerbrau Keller beer hall where Hitler was to give a speech commerorating the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch. Instead of the usual one-hour stem-winder speech, Hitler left after 12 minutes. Only a few minutes later, the bomb exploded, burying the spot Hitler had been standing in 10 feet of concrete and brick rubble. So -- don't tar every German with the Nazi brush because it is simply untrue.
Posted by: .ewk | December 21, 2008 at 07:43 PM
re: accents, Generals, and noble heroes
I'd much rather watch Cruise speak in his normal voice than watch him utterly flop trying to do a German (or British) accent..."Far And Away" anyone?
Stauffenberg was a Colonel (an Oberst, in German military parlance), not a General.
it's worth noting that while the execution of "partisans and Communists" on or behind the Russian lines was an open secret among the officer corps, it is doubtful that in 1944 very many of them knew about the other crimes being committed by various agencies of the RSHA. Stauffenberg et. al. were certainly no more innocent than any other member of the Wehrmacht, but neither were they so guilty as those they intended to oust.
Posted by: UncleWalty | December 26, 2008 at 04:55 PM