Went to see this one with the other half. First impressions after leaving the theater is .. everything is factually correct but Singer must have forgotten to imbue it with a heart. Everything seems correct ... well as accurate far as one can tell from it's wikipedia entry. However Singer in this outing has missed the most important ingredient of the movie for me. The heart. Devoid of emotions this was just like one of those stuffy afternoons I spent try to chow down historical facts from my Sejarah text book for future regurgitation. This movie strangely mirrors those days perfectly where after each session, I would feel fascinated with history as I wondered how the people involved felt.
This brings up the point to ponder. How far should a film maker go to give heart to cold historical facts? Some turkeys have surfaced in the past because they went over board with the emotions to the point of almost changing history. Pearl Harbour comes to mind. I am still harboring a plump and delicious little hatred for this turd of a movie that re-interpreted the American tragedy to be almost a victory for them! Valkyrie is on the other extreme of the scale and most of the time remains true to the facts. To this I would say history needs a person to interpreted the going ons to see it from the eyes of the protagonist to try and decipher how they must of felt, for if not it would just ultimately end up like how both of us felt at the end when the supposedly tear-jerker-cum-emotionally-driven-moment when Tommy bit the dust.. we were dried eyed and unmoved. That being said, I would like to give special mention to Bill Nighly who did a commendable job given the circumstances putting across the conflicted feelings of General Olbricht. Personally looking forward to his next outing.
My final conclusion ... thanks for the history lesson Bryan, just wished it was a tad more memorable ... 4/10
Trailer ...
