Valkyrie - Review

Tom Cruise is back! But did he ever really go away? He's spent the last few years as more of a tabloid figure than a box office draw, but the magnetism and and intensity that made him a gigantic movie star have never left him. In Valkyrie he takes a role that could have turned ludicrous-- an American in an eyepatch playing a German hero-- and makes it riveting. That goes double for the movie itself, which once again proves Bryan Singer's unassailable skill as a director, crafting a suspenseful and exciting story out of an ignored bit of history.

The whole thing is made with a no-nonsense, stripped-down attitude you imagine John Wayne would appreciate. It starts with the accents-- everyone keeps their natural inflections, including Cruise, which makes for an interesting mix of Brits, Americans and Germans who still fit in together nicely. And except for a brief prologue set in Tunisia, where protagonist Claus von Stauffenberg (Cruise) loses his eye and most of his fingers in a air raid, the story sticks within the close confines of Berlin's military headquarters, where Stauffenberg and a cohort of conspirators use their insider status to plot Hitler's demise. Tresckow (Kenneth Branagh) has already made a failed attempt on the Fuhrer's life with a bomb hidden inside a gift, and introduces Stauffenberg into his secret circle of conscientious objectors, including Olbricht (Bill Nighy) and retired general Beck (Terence Stamp). On the eve of D-Day in 1944, the group devises a scheme to defeat Hitler through use of the top-secret plan Operation Valkyrie.

The plan is a bit too complicated for proper explanation within the film, and involves a few too many characters to keep track of, but the basic details are pretty simple. If these guys can kill Hitler, Operation Valkyrie allows the military to take over the country due to a "national emergency." After getting Hitler to approve an edited version of Operation Valkyrie (in a particularly spine-tingling scene), Stauffenberg plans to set off a bomb at the Wolf's Lair, an enclosed bunker where Hitler held high-security briefings. Stauffenberg and the other conspirators enlist the help of telecommunications chief General Eric Fellgiebel (Eddie Izzard) and a more reluctant General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkinson), who turns a blind eye more so than he provides any help.

There's one aborted assassination attempt before the real one takes place on July 20, and both are tightly scripted, expertly staged bits of action. Singer and screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie waste little time reminding us of the Serious Moral Implications of what Stauffenberg and company are about to do; the Hitler assassination angle is just a bonus element of what, in some sections, feels like a really good heist story. When the assassination appears to have succeeded, and Stauffenberg returns to Berlin to begin restructuring the government, the story expands without ever losing its sharp, pared-down efficiency.

Carice van Houten pops up in a fairly thankless role as Stauffenberg's wife, as the movie wisely moves most of the focus to the conspirators and the relationships among them. The performances are all strong if unexceptional, and Cruise fits right in, never letting an overacting tendency get the best of him. The script moves a little too swiftly sometimes when introducing these characters, and it's a good thing so many of them are famous, so that we can tell them apart. Except for a brief voiceover from Stauffenberg in the beginning, none of the men really express their precise oppositions to Hitler, and it's never clear how so many of them have served the German army for so long, and been so opposed to Hitler, without being found out.

But what keeps Valkyrie so light on its feet is an appreciation for history, not slavish devotion, so that timelines can be condensed and characters excised with the basic, thrilling story intact at its center. It doesn't have anything grand or new to say about World War II, other than revealing the existence of Germans who actively fought against Hitler during the war. But it's refreshing in its lack of pomp and circumstance, a movie that exists to be a movie and nothing bigger. Amid a flood of World War II movies this December, Valkyrie is by far the most entertaining and satisfying.

Lions for Lambs - Review

Already cornering the award for “least hyped Tom Cruise movie ever,” Lions for Lambs has all the makings of an Oscar nominee; the ensemble cast du jour, three interlocking stories that don’t quite come together, and a very loaded subject matter. Yet, despite very strong performances (even from Mr. Scientology Cruise), a moving plot about the war in Afghanistan, and probing dialogue by The Kingdom writer Matthew Michael Carnahan, something is missing from this movie… oh right, the movie part.

Originally conceived as a play, and probably better off as such, Lions for Lambs is more of an elegy on the importance of standing for something than a film, relying on probing conversations rather than action to propel the story forward. The first and most engaging conversation takes place between Republican Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) and veteran TV reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep). Irving invites the skeptical Roth to his office for a one-on-one interview to discuss a new stratagem in Afghanistan that he is positive will decisively win the war on terror.

The stratagem, which began “ten minutes ago,” involves dispatching small teams of highly trained men to head off the Taliban at high points along the Afghani border. Irving insists that the military’s superior “intelligence” will reduce risk and increase reward, but the intelligence isn’t so accurate when the first copter sent to the mountains is shot down by a supposedly inactive machine gun. The scuffle renders the copter useless and strands two idealistic young soldiers, Arian Finch (Derek Luke) and Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena).

Meanwhile on the campus of an elite California University, Finch and Rodriguez’s former professor, Dr. Stephen Malley (Robert Redford), tries to incite slacker Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) to follow their example and apply his incredible potential towards making a difference. The film unfolds in relative real-time as one member in each duo attempts to inspire the other to action, whether it’s to feed America “a win” without question, to go to class more, or simply to stay alive.

Because the film is inherently static, the majority of it taking place in someone’s office, the script relies on powerful performances to keep the audience engaged. Streep and Cruise are the most successful, with a realistic back and forth that probes deep into the flaws of the government and media without vilifying either side. Luke and Pena drive the emotional center of the film and do a good job establishing a friendship built on similar struggles and goals, but they serve more as catalysts for the other two conversations than as developing characters themselves. Redford and Garfield have the most difficult job, stuck discussing what it means to get involved on a philosophical level. Though both play their roles with conviction, at the end of the day, two guys drinking coffee debating questions with no answers just isn’t visually exciting.

Still, the overall strong performances help momentarily distract the audience from the fact that the film never really went anywhere. Sure it brought up (not entirely new) issues, it challenged us to take action, maybe it even made us cry (guilty), but did anything really happen? As a play, I would commend Lions for Lambs without question, but once it becomes a film isn’t there supposed to be a little thing called plot? Something more than discourse on loaded political issues that have already been attacked ad nauseam?

The problem with turning away from this movie is that you then by default prove the message the film is promoting: that when faced with challenges, our country would rather change the channel than get involved. In that sense, this is the most genius film ever created because it inherently guilts you into seeing it and thinking about the issues it ponders. Ultimately that’s a guilt-trip worth taking, since no matter where you stand, you have stand somewhere, and you won’t leave Lions for Lambs without discussing it.