Monday, December 29, 2008

VALKYRIE

“VALKYRIE” (Tom Cruise, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson & Kenneth Branagh)

I haven’t decided yet if this is my new #1 film of 08, or if ‘Australia’ should retain the title. When it ended I told my wife – It’s good. It’s really good, but something kept it from being ‘great’... I couldn’t put my finger on it right away, but I’ve concluded that it’s Tom Cruise. The funny thing is – he wasn’t THAT bad. He was the weakest actor of a fantastic ensemble cast, but what bothered me about him - & director Bryan Singer gets the blame for this – is that he is the ONLY member of the cast NOT speaking with a British accent. A whole cast full of English actors playing Nazi’s & one American inserted into the lead role? It became a distraction, even though I was engulfed by the story & the way it played out – even though I knew most of the time what was going to happen next. It COULD have been great – Damn it, it SHOULD have been great & that one unforgivable flaw keeps it from being the unquestionable Best Film of 2008... Pity.
Knowing the story, or even knowing how the story ends, doesn’t necessarily mean I can’t enjoy the ride (I knew the ‘secret’ of ‘The Sixth Sense’ prior to viewing but I loved it anyway) Sean Penn was so outstanding in ‘The Assassination Of Richard Nixon’ that it didn’t matter a lick that I knew he wasn’t going to succeed. I recently watched a History Channel special on the actual Valkyrie conspiracy, so it was easy for me to follow the plot & keep track of all of the Nazi’s speaking with British accents, but my wife, who hadn’t seen the special said she was able to follow the story & characters without much difficulty (Except when she asked which character did Liam Neeson play?)
‘Valkyrie’ as I’m sure you know is how the conspirators of the plot to assassinate Hitler referred to their operation, as the Valkyrie plan was created to tell the Nazi army what to do in case Adolph Hitler was killed. The leaders of the plot were all high ranking Nazi leaders – seeing how close they actually came to pulling it off was fascinating to watch. Realizing that if not for one ‘chicken’ (Tom Wilkinson’s General Fromm) they may have succeeded in taking over Hitler’s army even without disposing of him should have everyone in the world giving Tom a dirty look everywhere he goes for a few years...
The only complaint I have with the screenplay is that they didn’t include more of the previous attempts to show just how determined these conspirators were.
Still, it didn’t matter – even knowing the operation was doomed to fail, I was intrigued by the story from beginning to end. The cast is superb; Bill Nighy as General Olbricht, Kenneth Branagh as Major-General von Tresckow & Terrence Stamp as Ludwig Beck are all to be commended for their work in this film. Even the ‘bit’ part players shined – there wasn’t a bad performance by anyone. It just baffled me that Tom Cruise was told to ‘go ahead & speak in your normal voice’ . . . Would it have worked if he had adopted an English accent? From my past viewing of Cruise’s acting abilities – No (Bleep)ing Way!
Even though Cruise wasn’t bad – he had a couple of memorable scenes (Like when he saluted General Fromm by raising his ‘hand that wasn’t there’ & loudly spouting ‘Heil, Hitler’!) I feel the movie was hampered by allowing him to be the only American Nazi in the party. I thought of other actors that would have worked in the role & came up with Russell Crowe or Viggo Mortenson (We know he can do a Russian accent, English should be a piece of cake)
Although I was surprised to see cross-dressing comedian Eddie Izzard in a supporting role - & he did an okay job - but it would have been an improvement with, say, a Brenden Gleeson in that role.
So what we have is a truly great story, mesmerizing at times, & a poor choice by the director that ruins it & just makes it VERY good... I’ll be interested to hear other opinions on this film – I know Cruise has been lambasted by several critics, but I’d blame Singer, the director as much as the actor for his semi-weak performance.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

You really thought that much of the biggest flop of the year ? If I was the studio I'd be digging into Lurhmann's pockets, for that humongous financial loss.

Anyway, I'm not getting the Cruise bashing by some. It isn't universal at least. I have read a lot of opinions online and a lot of people don't have a problem with his performance. If you really want to get technical about it, it's kind of preposterous it isn't a German made film with German actors in the first place. But since this is a big hollywood type of movie with a good size budget, you have British and American actors. So being bugged or having any complaint is kind of useless really.

I mean a few years back there was a German film that was quite good about Hitler called Downfall.

I too read some poor reviews, but honestly, I just let the movie take me for a ride and I was highly entertained by it in the end. I didn't feel distracted by Tom. I just didn't. I don't want to spoil it too much but lets just say I wish they were successful.

On my movie blog I will be putting up some year end honors, please visit the site when you can.

oscartracker.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

So we judge films by how much money they rake in? Does that mean Beverly Hills Chihuahua & Kung Fu Panda are 'great films'?
I, unlike most, am not swayed by what critics think. I am able to form my own opinions without the aid of being told what I should think is a good film. I can even tell that some readers of my reviews change their minds slightly after I've either bashed something they liked or raved about something they loathed (Except Alan Smithee, he's an unbudgable curmudgeon) But I don't do that. I've had people take offense to my criticism of a film they liked & when I asked them to explain why I was wrong, they couldn't tell me. It is easier to explain why I hated a film than it is to explain why I enjoyed one. Usually it has to do with relating to the characters, or simply enjoying the story. As with 'Australia' - I can only wonder why no one else seemed to be able to follow the plot - I had
no difficulty doing so. Of course, my eyes aren't wandering all around the screen looking at the background scenary like most of those who found fault with the film did. It had holes in the plot that could have been expanded upon or explained more thoroughly, but what film ties up all the loose ends? My one complaint about last year's Oscar winner, "No Country For Old Men" was the fact that there were several holes in the plot & several unanswered questions - Did it stop it from being a great film? Well, yeah, almost (If it wasn't for Javier, it would have blown!) I found the holes in 'No Country' much more annoying than the ones in 'Australia'. & my biggest complaint about the movie was the kid actor - & now I've seen several 'lists' of 'best newcomers' with his name as a potential victor - the kid was awful! The so-called 'over-priced' movie survived his horrible acting, & yet some critics want to applaud his efforts while slamming the film?
Anyway, this is Valkyrie's spot, Kurt, so here's my take on your comments; I have yet to hear anyone say anything positive about Cruise in this - & as I said, he wasn't THAT bad, with the exception of being the only Nazi speaking like an American. It WAS a distraction. 'Valkyrie' was made in Germany back in the 50's(I believe) So this IS the updated English version of the story.
I don't think you're letting any cats out of the bag by telling readers that they didn't succeed in killing Hitler - anyone that didn't know that previously I doubt would have any interest in seeing the film (I'm sure they're having a blast watching 'Bedtime Stories' instead)
So yes, my top 2 films of the year are the critically despised 'Valkyrie' & 'Australia'. I'm hoping to see several of the contenders this coming weekend & hopefully my top 5 will change dramatically - because as it stands right now, this is a VERY weak year for both films & acting performances.