Valkyrie (Movie Review)
Dec. 30th, 2008 07:23 amValkyrie is a historical thriller about a well-known historical event. It's impossible to spoil any details about such a film, especially when it's made in such a straightforward and direct manner, but if you don't know anything about the July 20th plot to assassinate Adolph Hitler, I've LJ-cut the section with the ending.
In 1943, Hitler's disastrous war against Russia and the Allies had turned a significant portion of the German military establishment against him. That portion was not so big that it could operate openly; anyone caught actually conspiring against the established order was taken by the SS and shot.
Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg is an Africa Corps man disenchanted with how the war is being managed, is wounded in the course of action and returns to Germany, his wounds making him fit for office duty, where he rises quickly to become part of Hitler's inner circle. He also becomes part of the conspiracy to kill Hitler and free the Army from its individual oath to the living Fuhrer.
Tom Cruise plays Stauffenberg, and he does a pretty damn good job. A serious, overly Germanic figure, determined to do right and to save Germany from Adolph Hitler, and to save his family from the SS should he fail, he isn't nearly as Tom Cruise crazy as he has been is the Mission Impossible franchise. He and director Brian Singer (Apt Pupil, X-Men) tell the story in a very linear fashion, with a timeline scrawl as the days and even hours pass, giving us time and place.
Singer also hired some excellent character actors to depict the other major members of the conspiracy and their counters, like Kenneth Branagh and Eddie Izzard. Especially notable are Bill Nighy as Friederich Olbricht, a general at the heart of the conspiracy who would rather whine than actually do, but who ultimately rises to the challenge; Terenence Stamp as General Beck, who hopes to restore civilian rule to Germany; Christian Berkel as Colonel Quirnheim, who Stauffenberg demanded be part of the conspiracy as a level head among arguing factions. In some sense, Singer tried hard to give faces, names, and real personalities to all of the men working on the conspiracy, and succeeded with great casting decisions. To get a real sense of Beck's powermongering opportunism, or General Fromm's hedonistic greed, you'd have to read a book or sit through a ten-hour History Channel documentary (and even those are mostly failures these days). The one character that's hard to believe is Goebbels, but it's also the most accurate-- Goebbels was a slim, effete man given to bullying when in power and weakness when without.
( History has few spoilers )
Cruise is okay. He rises to the challenge, playing a heroic character in a heroic setting. When he has the camera to himself he doesn't make you itch nearly as much as you'd think. He can pull this off. On the other hand, when he's sharing the set with Branagh, Stamp, and Nighy, he's completely outclassed. You kinda wish the movie had them in it more than him. Hell, Eddie Izzard's one scene with Cruise shows that Izzard has given more thought to his character than Cruise.
I recommend the film without hesitation. I cried at the end. It does what it needs to do, in the time it has, without overt sentimentality or Hollywood-level heroics. The crux, as in real life, turns on the smallest of details, and you'll know it when you hear it.
In 1943, Hitler's disastrous war against Russia and the Allies had turned a significant portion of the German military establishment against him. That portion was not so big that it could operate openly; anyone caught actually conspiring against the established order was taken by the SS and shot.
Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg is an Africa Corps man disenchanted with how the war is being managed, is wounded in the course of action and returns to Germany, his wounds making him fit for office duty, where he rises quickly to become part of Hitler's inner circle. He also becomes part of the conspiracy to kill Hitler and free the Army from its individual oath to the living Fuhrer.
Tom Cruise plays Stauffenberg, and he does a pretty damn good job. A serious, overly Germanic figure, determined to do right and to save Germany from Adolph Hitler, and to save his family from the SS should he fail, he isn't nearly as Tom Cruise crazy as he has been is the Mission Impossible franchise. He and director Brian Singer (Apt Pupil, X-Men) tell the story in a very linear fashion, with a timeline scrawl as the days and even hours pass, giving us time and place.
Singer also hired some excellent character actors to depict the other major members of the conspiracy and their counters, like Kenneth Branagh and Eddie Izzard. Especially notable are Bill Nighy as Friederich Olbricht, a general at the heart of the conspiracy who would rather whine than actually do, but who ultimately rises to the challenge; Terenence Stamp as General Beck, who hopes to restore civilian rule to Germany; Christian Berkel as Colonel Quirnheim, who Stauffenberg demanded be part of the conspiracy as a level head among arguing factions. In some sense, Singer tried hard to give faces, names, and real personalities to all of the men working on the conspiracy, and succeeded with great casting decisions. To get a real sense of Beck's powermongering opportunism, or General Fromm's hedonistic greed, you'd have to read a book or sit through a ten-hour History Channel documentary (and even those are mostly failures these days). The one character that's hard to believe is Goebbels, but it's also the most accurate-- Goebbels was a slim, effete man given to bullying when in power and weakness when without.
( History has few spoilers )
Cruise is okay. He rises to the challenge, playing a heroic character in a heroic setting. When he has the camera to himself he doesn't make you itch nearly as much as you'd think. He can pull this off. On the other hand, when he's sharing the set with Branagh, Stamp, and Nighy, he's completely outclassed. You kinda wish the movie had them in it more than him. Hell, Eddie Izzard's one scene with Cruise shows that Izzard has given more thought to his character than Cruise.
I recommend the film without hesitation. I cried at the end. It does what it needs to do, in the time it has, without overt sentimentality or Hollywood-level heroics. The crux, as in real life, turns on the smallest of details, and you'll know it when you hear it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}