Not bad. Not great. I'd give it a B minus. The movie is pretty much pure exposition from beginning to end. It all feels rather cold and mechanical and director Bryan Singer relies on some familiar cinematic cliches to build a mood of dramatic tension which never quite coalesces. I'm not a Cruise-basher by habit but his performance here is pure heroic stoicism - very little shading to give you any real sense of the man he portrays. And boy, Kenneth Branagh has put on some weight!

Hard to build suspense when everybody knows exactly what happened.

Damn that table! :mad:

Hard to build suspense when everybody knows exactly what happened.

Damn that table! :mad:

Yeah. Point for point, I don't know how historically accurate this movie is, but that was definitely in there. Unfortunately, Singer also repeatedly attempts to amp the tension with the old "Oh no! I took my eyes off my briefcase for a split second and my briefcase looks like everybody else's briefcase! Did somebody switch briefcases!?" routine. I half expected Martin Landau to walk into the room at any minute.

I am a Cruise-basher by habit, and I just have a hard time buying him any role, let alone this one. He's like Chris O'Donnell and Ben Affleck: It's always the actor in different clothes that we're seeing, not the character. Even in Cruise's best role so far (Les Grossman in Tropic Thunder), he's still Tom Cruise.

^Agreed. Last Samurai would have been a terriffic movie with anyone else in his role. But all I could think throughout was "hey, there's Tom Cruise in a period costume!"

David Cronenberg revealed in an interview that Cruise has met with him casually, that they did not discuss any one thing specifically but that Cruise would like to be ion one of Croneberg's films. Naturally rumors are that he may get tapped for Cronenberg's adaptation of Ludlum's The Matarese Circel, which is set to star Denzel Washington.

Cronenberg is an actor's dirrector, he wrings from them their best performances. I'd be interested in seeing what he could get from Cruise.

David Cronenberg revealed in an interview that Cruise has met with him casually, that they did not discuss any one thing specifically but that Cruise would like to be ion one of Croneberg's films. Naturally rumors are that he may get tapped for Cronenberg's adaptation of Ludlum's The Matarese Circel, which is set to star Denzel Washington.

Cronenberg is an actor's dirrector, he wrings from them their best performances. I'd be interested in seeing what he could get from Cruise.

I know nothing about the Ludlum project, but Cruise has been pretty bad working with some pretty good "actor's" directors. Never worse than in Cameron Crowe's "Vanilla Sky". I think it really does get down to how close the "real" Cruise is to the character he is playing. He's damned near excellent in "Rain Man" and "Jerry Maguire". Not so much in "The Last Samurai" or "Born on the Fourth of July".

Will possibly see it this week. All I've heard agrees with your assessment that Cruise is the weak link. Any number of lesser stars (but superior actors) could have helped the film. Although I guess it comes down to $$$ and Cruise is a huge draw overseas, isn't he?

And yes, I know how it ends. Hitler hits an iceberg and ...

And yes, I know how it ends. Hitler hits an iceberg and ...And, believing the assassination plot to have been successful, Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg celebrates by playing air guitar in his underwear.

and Cruise is a huge draw overseas, isn't he?

He is? Oh...

Never really cared much for anything he's done - all his characters seem the same but with a different name. About the only role I've seen him in where he wasn't 'Tom Cruise as...' would've been Vincent in Collateral - simply because the character was so un-Tom. And the movie was better for it.

IMHO, YMMV :)

He is? Oh...

Never really cared much for anything he's done - all his characters seem the same but with a different name. About the only role I've seen him in where he wasn't 'Tom Cruise as...' would've been Vincent in Collateral - simply because the character was so un-Tom. And the movie was better for it.

IMHO, YMMV :)

I thought he was surprisingly good in "Collateral".

I thought he was surprisingly good in "Collateral".

I thought his best performance was in The Color of Money.

I saw it on Sunday evening. My friend and I thought it was exceptionally good with a special emphasis on the historical accuracy of most of the story. Even knowing the outcome didn't affect this. I was saddened by the ending.

I believe this movie was made for the audience in Germany particularly in mind. It has taken a long time for the German people to accept these conspirators as heroes.

It was impressive and well worth the trip (for us). However, five young ladies in their twenties behind me exclaimed... "well, that was pretty heavy. I didn't expect that" when the lights went up.
Then again, they thought Germany was in South America.

I thought he was surprisingly good in "Collateral".

Agreed. I'm not quite sure where all the cruise-bashing comes from, I think he's pretty good. He's full-blown batshit barking-at-the-moon crazy, but he works hard in every movie he does. Some are obviously less successful than others.

I wish they would add an alternate ending where Hitler gets blown to pieces
(in slow motion over and over again!!)

He is? Oh...

Never really cared much for anything he's done - all his characters seem the same but with a different name.
You mean like Humphrey Bogart? Or Cary Grant? Or John Wayne? Or practically every major star in the history of cinema?

The fact is that actors become stars by playing essentially the same, recognizable character over and over. And I'd argue that that is their value. Hitchcock said he liked to use movie stars because he didn't have to waste time explaining who the character is.

Yeah,but those guys were better actors.

The fact is that actors become stars by playing essentially the same, recognizable character over and over. And I'd argue that that is their value. In a sense, that's half true. No one ever complained that Cary Grant or Clark Gable or Bette Davis were basically the same in every movie they made. They had strong, identifiable screen personas and were able to bend the character to fit themselves, even when cast against type. For example, remember Cary Grant as a grubby, irresponsible, alcoholic beach bum in Father Goose? Under the unkempt clothes and beard stubble, that was still Cary Grant. We didn't want him to be anybody BUT Cary Grant.

On the other hand, there are actors who are chameleons, who can disappear behind a character. They may be extremely talented, but relatively few of them become major stars. Like Peter Sellers and Meryl Streep, or Paul Muni -- if anyone remembers him.

And I agree, Tom Cruise is pretty much always Tom Cruise. Some actors should just stay away from period roles altogether. Did anyone really buy Kevin Costner as a Civil War-era cavalry soldier in Dances With Wolves?

The thing I think is funny is all the marketing describing this as the "untold story" when this is a highly documented historical event. It's only untold for the ignorant.

Let me guess......Cruise gets hung at the end with all the rest of the conspirators instead of being executed right after the failure of the plot as it really happened.

The thing I think is funny is all the marketing describing this as the "untold story" when this is a highly documented historical event. It's only untold for the ignorant.Meaning about 90 percent of the moviegoing public.

Then again, they thought Germany was in South America.

It is. It's called Argentina.... :devil:

ducks

Did anyone really buy Kevin Costner as a Civil War-era cavalry soldier in Dances With Wolves?

Slightly more so than I did Cruise as an ex-Civil War soldier in The Last Samurai - but yeah, Costner is another actor who ended up taking on roles he wasn't up to because he was a big box-office "star".

The problem with saying Cruise always plays Cruise is that it isn't analogous to saying that Cary Grant was always Cary Grant or Bogart was always Bogart or Nicholson is always Nicholson. And the difference is talent. Grant was as brilliant at physical comedy as he was at heavy drama - sometimes all in the same movie (North by Northwest comes to mind). I can't think of a single Bogart performance that I didn't believe wholeheartedly - whether it was the sniveling shyster in Angels with Dirty Faces or the crusty alcoholic steamboat captain with a heart of gold in The African Queen. And even though Nicholson has been pretty much coasting for the last three decades - his performances from Easy Rider in 1969 through One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest in 1975 were unassailable - the man never hit one false note whether he was Bobby Dupea or Jonathan Fuerst or Jake Gittes or Billy "Badass" Buddusky. And you better believe each one of those characters was distinctly different than the other.

Cruise is good when he's playing a character who is driven, focused, good looking - and who was born around 1962. Take him outside of that and he's mediocre to awful.

Bad Costner-Robin Hood,Good Costner-Open Range.

I don't think Costner has ever been as good as when he was in Silverado. He was just wonderful in that role, but ever since he's just been... bleh.

Actor who gets lost in his roles...Johnny Depp, anyone? Its a marvel watching him.
Dustin Hoffman also comes to mind...
And I really liked Costner in Dancing with Wolves, carrying the beginning of the film solo.

And yes, I know how it ends. Hitler hits an iceberg and ...

And, believing the assassination plot to have been successful, Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg celebrates by playing air guitar in his underwear.
Oh, great! I don't need to go see the movie now that you guys have ruined the ending for me! :rolleyes: :mad:


:p

I just need to know if the assassination attempt comes before or after von Stauffenberg becomes a U-Boat Commander.... :roll:

I half expected Martin Landau to walk into the room at any minute.

Brilliant!

So this is Mission (lookatmeI'mtomcruise) Impossible Part4?
Doesn't matter. He's on my permanent ignore list.

Bad Costner-Robin Hood,Good Costner-Open Range.
Good-but-creepy Costner- Mr Brooks. Put in a great performance, although William Hurt stole the show.

Then again, they thought Germany was in South America.
Ah, but do you know where New Zealand is (hint, it isn't part of Australia :) )

Seriously though, just what are they teaching these days? Or are kids either not paying any attention or not interested in the world around them? I'll go with the latter - ask any kid where Paris is and instead of getting either France or Texas as the answer they'll prolly say "She's in Beverly Hills"...

Can't speak to what the average "kid" these days knows about WW II but keep in mind that many of us grew up in a time when that war was still pretty "fresh" in the American memory - and therefore was quite prevelant in American pop culture. I grew up in the 60s, watched Combat, The Gallant Men, and 12 O' Clock High every week on the "Big Three", read Sgt. Rock and Sgt. Fury and His Howling Commandos comic books, and fought battles against the Japs and Krauts with my G.I. Joe on a daily basis. Heck! If you walked into the average American toy store in 1964 - it looked like an Allied Forces supply depot!

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/marveldatabase/images/thumb/d/dd/Sgt_Fury_9.jpg/300px-Sgt_Fury_9.jpg

So ... many of us of a certain age probably learned more about WW II outside of school than we did in the classroom.


To be perfectly honest, I didn't know a lot of the details about the Valkyrie plot until I saw the movie. I've since done some research on it and the movie does indeed seem to be pretty accurate from a historical perspective.

Ah, but do you know where New Zealand is (hint, it isn't part of Australia :) )
Only because I was in the military (or was it Peter Jackson) :)



Seriously though, just what are they teaching these days? Or are kids either not paying any attention or not interested in the world around them? I'll go with the latter - ask any kid where Paris is and instead of getting either France or Texas as the answer they'll prolly say "She's in Beverly Hills"...
I think you're right. It's probably a combination of the latter, generations not having a care in the world and too much time passing for most to be connected (like Zorro's previous post mentioned). I'm no historian but while growing up, I had two 'great' grandmothers still alive. One still had memories of life as the (American) civil war had just ended. My best friend (who went to this movie with me) had his father die 5 years ago. The father had fought at the Battle of the Bulge. Still have an uncle (in his 90's) that fought Germany in WWII. I listen to everything they've had to say. It is/has been such a privilege.
If movies like this one help pass the message along, I'm all for it. No one expected 'Where Eagles Dare' or MI-IV (I hope). Just a telling of a story (like many) that never need to be forgotten.

I look forward to the Jan 16 release of Defiance.

Only because I was in the military (or was it Peter Jackson) :)
Yeah, he prolly raised our profile more than a few notches.

Another film that should be well worth seeing is his rumored remake of The Dambusters. IIRC Jackson is producing but not directing. Haven't heard anything about it lately though, so I don't know if it's stalled or they're just being secretive.

Yeah, he prolly raised our profile more than a few notches.

Another film that should be well worth seeing is his rumored remake of The Dambusters. IIRC Jackson is producing but not directing. Haven't heard anything about it lately though, so I don't know if it's stalled or they're just being secretive.

Jim, That's a great story and the old one(s) are pretty good.

It's pretty hard to beat George Lucas's version...:devil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMfBKrdErY

Well, I can say we never touched the subject of either world war during my school years.
And I graduated in 1985.
Every history class I had would spend huge amounts of time covering the pilgrims, the indians, the revolutionary war and the civil war. But we never seemed to make it into the 1900's before the school year was up.

Let me guess . . . Cruise gets hung at the end with all the rest of the conspirators . . .

Cruise is a pretty good actor for most of the films he's in but I'm definitely NOT interested in how he is hung!:freak:

Ah, but do you know where New Zealand is (hint, it isn't part of Australia :) ) Only because I was in the military (or was it Peter Jackson) :) Yeah, he prolly raised our profile more than a few notches.
[IMG-LEFT]http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/Lucy%20Lawless%20Xena%20samurai.jpg[/IMG-LEFT]



Lucy Lawless did a lot more than Peter Jackson to raise "New Zealand awareness." For me, anyway!

Amen, brudder!!!
I made sure I knew where Kiwiland was as soon as that series started!

I got around to viewing Valkyrie over the weekend, and was surprised how close to historically accurate it came. I validate this by my having studied this event many times from many different sources over the past 3 decades, since first becoming aware of it watching a CBS docudrama in 1971, "Appointment With Destiney: The Plot To Kill Hitler".
If anything positive comes out of the making and widespread viewing of this film, it is the possiblity that it will awaken historical curiosity for the new generation now coming of age, who as was pointed out earlier in this thread, haven't the faintest interest in history. :cool:

I like the fact that such movies bring up the necessity for violent action by the citizens (that care) that is needed at times. Germany didn't have enough of them at the time unfortunately.

I don't like Tom Cruise (he always plays Tom Cruise, not the character in his movie) althouhgh he was good in Interview with the Vampire. I was surprised there! Valkyrie... lame. Bad mock up tanks in the N. Africa scene don't help.

Downfall is still one of the better Hitler themed movies of recent years.

Downfall is still one of the better Hitler themed movies of recent years.

A German co-worker recommended Downfall to me just yesterday. It's at the top of my Netflix queue.

A German co-worker recommended Downfall to me just yesterday. It's at the top of my Netflix queue.


Downfall is outstanding; I don't think that you'll be disappointed.

Then there's the "Valkyrie" episode of Highlaner: the Series, which had the added decoration of Musetta Vander.

[IMG-LEFT]http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/Lucy%20Lawless%20Xena%20samurai.jpg[/IMG-LEFT]



Lucy Lawless did a lot more than Peter Jackson to raise "New Zealand awareness." For me, anyway!

Ye gads!!! How could I have forgotten her? My bad...

i liked the movie but agree on the tank mock ups
the worst part was the running gear and treads. way too shallow

I don't think Costner has ever been as good as when he was in Silverado. He was just wonderful in that role, but ever since he's just been... bleh.

Bull Durham. I haven't been a big fan of his work since, but I literally can't imagine anybody else who would have been near as good in that particular role.

One of my faves, if I'm flipping thru the channels and catch it playing, I gotta watch it all the way thru.

I saw it too.
Not too bad.

I loved the P-40s doing the strafing attack at the beginning. Although I heard it was Spitfires that injured him in reality. OK by me. I love P-40s.

As armor modellers, you noticed that the running gears on the panzer was too shallow.
As a (former) figure modeller, I noticed that the shoulder boards on Colonel von Stauffenburgs' "ornamented" (piped) dress tunic, which he wore in his first meeting with a certain non-smoking/non-drinking/vegetarian/ up from the common masses guarrantor of "change" emotional politician, were for a General Staff Major, because they were each lacking 2 gold metal pips. Each of his other uniforms sported the correct rank boards, but not his "garden tea party" full dress uniform. :o
However, I didn't let those very minor errors detract too much from being engrossed in the film.
I've also read the complaint that all of the actors were "too wooden". Well, as these characters were career military men (officers and Generals), I'd expect the performers to be "wooden", otherwise I seriously doubt that their portrayals would be at all convincing. ;)

I've also read the complaint that all of the actors were "too wooden". Well, as these characters were career military men (officers and Generals), I'd expect the performers to be "wooden", otherwise I seriously doubt that their portrayals would be at all convincing. ;)

I didn't find any of the actors, other than Cruise, to be "wooden". There's a great difference between a wooden performance by the actor playing the character, and the personality of the character himself. Kenneth Branagh, Tom Wilkinson, Terence Stamp, and Bill Nighy all delivered fully convincing performances in my opinion. Nothing "wooden" about them.