Valkyrie

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. (2009-05-10)

I avoided the film for a long time, but in the end it is a solid suspenseful spy-war film about the overthrow of Hitler. Tom Cruise is excellent in the lead role and even though I couldn't get into the film for the first half hour, once Operation Valkyrie started I didn't even flinch. (2019-05-07)

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. (2009-04-30)

Valkyrie is a film that was made thanks to the desire, money, and determination of Tom Cruise, who played the main role. I must admit that I didn't believe in the project even after seeing the trailers, and I was afraid of the usual distortion of historical events by Hollywood. To my surprise, Valkyrie is a sober, perhaps too sober, film that simplifies (as was necessary) complex motivations and events, but remains faithful to historical events. Tom Cruise portrayed his character somewhat idealistically, 2-3 dialogues are weak, and a drop of pathos is evident in 2-3 scenes, but I was spared the heart-wrenching scenes of farewells with family and condemned prisoners that I expected. I didn't give it a fifth star because the events surrounding the coup are well-known to history enthusiasts, and the film has nothing surprising in that regard. Kenneth Branagh's performance as General Tresckow deserves mention. Singer's direction is professional, and we get to enjoy the tension in manipulating detonators or briefcases filled with explosives. Just a note: Hitler's death could indeed have shortened the war by several months, but the prospects for the coup plotters were minimal; they simply did not have enough support, and once the circumstances of Hitler's assassination became known, they would undoubtedly have been eliminated. The conspirators, after all, never formed a compact group; there were moderate nationalists as well as liberals, and they struggled to find common ground. Their ideas, even concerning the allies, were naive; they expected to negotiate a ceasefire and an honorable peace, which in their minds included a number of territorial gains from the ongoing war. However, after the successful invasion of Normandy and the crushing of the German army in Belarus, the Allies no longer considered anything other than unconditional surrender. Overall impression: 80%. By the way, not only I but also major American studios, did not believe in the film, expecting that the artistic reconstruction of events that did not directly affect American involvement in World War II would fail to resonate with audiences. (2009-12-28)

Bryan Singer goes back to being a genius. I don't even know why I was afraid of a lack of humanity or a cold approach. The tension comes from no more than a glance at the army or a fleeting shot of the back of Hitler's head. It is precisely the authenticity and documentary veracity that give the final catharsis the stamp of the purest emotions. (2009-02-26)