Valkyrie

A historical thriller executed with precision, which, even despite the handicap of having a known ending, manages to generate tension better than most of today’s competition. Cruise is not quite up to the task, which results in several uneven scenes (the ones with his wife), but the perfect performances of the rest of the cast more than make up for it. It’s not a perfect film by any means, but I still liked Valkyrie more than three fifths of this year’s Oscar contenders. (17/02/2009)

A fairy tale that is simplified beyond bearable limits, about the struggle between good Germans and ultra-evil ones, where all the motivations of the coup d’etat are summed up in the phrase "Hitler is simply evil. Excuse me, but what's that supposed to be? At least they could have touched on the real reasons. I felt as if I were on the verge of adulthood, and my parents were explaining to me that babies were created by mom and dad kissing, and then a few months later a stork delivers the baby. But despite the general knowledge of the event, despite Cruise being just Cruise and not Stauffenberg, despite the Germans scheming in English, despite the transformation of ranks and terminology to what they are called in the West, despite the inaccuracies, despite the unintended ridiculousness of the eureka scene (including the light bulb turning on!), Singer made the almost impossible possible. After a weak opening half hour, my respiratory system stopped working for tension in many scenes. So I left the movie theater pretty damn happy, but I'd still rather someone did a better job, faithfully, and in detail. Ideally under HBO's supervision. (06/02/2009)

Singer did a good deal of work on this and everything is in the right place. He literally delights in the authenticity of the setting and the event. Cruise’s acting is good and his performance as Colonel von Stauffenberg will win you over. Simply because of what a good guy he was. It was excruciating knowing how his assassination attempt worked out. (30/04/2009)

It couldn't have been filmed better (probably). This thought popped into my head during the closing credits. Singer has turned a theoretical weakness (the viewer knows how it will turn out) into a major strength and subordinated everything to a perfectly refined style. Complaining about a certain coldness in a film that takes place in a setting of perfectly cut uniforms and precise military hierarchy is like accusing romantic films of moving you. Cruise is whipped to the max in the company of the (mostly British) acting elite, with Singer taming his ego enough to make his character serve the story as well, not the other way around. I’m tempted to give it full stars for the tense quarter of an hour that immediately follows the explosion. But I'll save the last star for when the DVD version is at least 20-30 minutes longer, which will fix the minor mistakes (I’d like to see stronger motivations for some of the characters). 4 ½, knowing that this is one of the strongest cinema experiences of the year. Edit: After seeing it a second time, I send all the criticisms to hell and give the film the full thumbs up it deserves. (10/02/2009)

As a reconstruction of historical events, it's captivating. From a purely cinematic perspective, it's slightly austere, but still very skillfully executed craftsmanship – Singer pulled off a feat that was somewhat expected of him. The English language might be distracting, but you eventually get used to it. Many scenes are breathtaking, with Hitler's character being particularly interesting. It's worth noting that it's not the actor himself who portrays the demonic aspect, but rather the camera, the chosen music, and the brilliant editing. The rest of the actors are also excellently chosen, there are plenty of stars and a large number of quality performances. It's not exactly entertainment, but with every frame, it showcases intelligent, raw, realistic filmmaking. It's a professional affair and a hundred percent clean work. (10/05/2009)