Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Valkyrie (2008)

This is topic Valkyrie (2008) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001491

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-22-2008, 12:43 AM:

Arclight Galleria in LA, auditorium #4

I was quite disappointed with the presentation here. The theater itself has been very nicely renovated, the seats are comfy and they even have Kinoton projection...but the presentation suffered.

The entire movie was ran out of focus, despite the obvious projectionist peering out the window. The film was dirty at the reel changeovers, even though this print had never been ran before. The aperture was knocked noticeably off center causing a huge fuzzy edge on the left side of the image. Every time there was even a hint of something with a moderate level of bass, the drivers bottomed out and farted. (There was no real low end to the sound system in the first place either.) The focus was uneven from side to side, the xenon lamp needed to be changed and the picture was terribly shaky (part of this was certainly the printing, which screamed Deluxe Toronto).

Despite all of those distractions I must say I really enjoyed this movie! For those not in the know (and who slept through history classes), this movie is about a group of German officers who plotted to kill Adolf Hitler to take over the military and government. The pacing is just what it should be with solid performances and a surprising amount of suspense. No spoilers here, go see it.

4.5 out of 5 stars
[thumbsup]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-22-2008, 02:51 AM:

I am glad this one stacks up. I am disappointed that it is flat, but what can ya do?

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-22-2008, 04:40 AM:

Make a statement and run it in scope anyway.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 12-24-2008, 06:12 AM:

I agree with the above, it should of been in scope. I've read a lot of early reviews and people talking about how Tom Cruise ruins this movie. I really didn't see that, I thought he turned in a solid performance as well as the rest of the star studded cast. Bryan Singer does a great job moving the story along and it really dosen't drag. I really can't say much more then it s a good movie and worth seeing.

4/5 [thumbsup]

It really isn't your usual holiday fair but its a refreshing change of pace.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-27-2008, 11:30 PM:

I agree that this should have been filmed in scope, but Singer chose to shoot in 1:85 aspect ratio (with no reason on the choice unless to make it look authentic in a pre-anamorphic time period), and since the majority of the filming took place in Germany, Singer used Arriflex cameras with Zeiss lenses.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-27-2008, 11:45 PM:

I was just made aware that Tom Cruise plays a German dude. WTF?? Not only is that like having an Australian play an American Revolutionary War fighter, he doesn't even try to do a German accent. WTF?? Tom Cruise must be a horrible actor. What's next, playing a Japanese samurai, also with a perfect American accent?

I would find this incredibly distracting.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-28-2008, 12:04 PM:

The opening of the movie is in German and then they transition to English. I didn't think it would work when I heard about that, but I had no problems with the transition or the rest of the movie being in English. If anything it made it less distracting.

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 12-28-2008, 05:02 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
he doesn't even try to do a German accent.

unconfirmed rumor, but i heard that they had to refilm a lot of this because he/they did try it out with a german accent, but it sounded so bad they reshot.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-28-2008, 05:12 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
The opening of the movie is in German and then they transition to English.

Kind of like The Hunt For Red October? It was VERY effective how they did the transition in that one. [thumbsup]

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-28-2008, 07:47 PM:

Actors speaking with accents is not more authentic. Cruise speaking English with a German accent is not authentic. Authentically he would be speaking German without an English accent. Everybody knows they were playing native Germans so accents are unnecessary to indicate the nationality of the characters.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-28-2008, 09:06 PM:

Remember Kevin Costner and his "Robin Hood" accent back in 1991 - how horrible that was?

Sorry, even though Tom Cruise is a good actor and get into the films he's acting in, he just doesn't have the personna to be that character that he's portraying...

..now, Dustin Hoffman can do this hands down without a hitch...

quote: Joe Redifer
What's next, playing a Japanese samurai, also with a perfect American accent?

What annoyed me about "The Last Samurai" - he just couldn't be a believable person. Now, in "Eyes Wide Shut" as the doctor, one could almost see him as that role in real life..

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 12-29-2008, 04:24 PM:

There is nothing more irritating than a German speaking to a German(in an English language film) than "Vee hav vase ov making you talk!". Know what I mean. In Germany they have as many diverse accents as we do in the UK (and I assume the US). So why is it wrong for an actor to speak in his native accent when playing as a native?

Posted by Tyler Potts (Member # 4952) on 12-29-2008, 08:22 PM:

I feel something of this magnitude of history should be made by that country. I don't know how I'd feel if World Trade Center came out two years ago as an all German film. I love German movies, I feel everyone should see Goodbye Lenin and Downfall at some point in their lives, but can easily pass on Valkyrie.

With this I kept thinking, I know him from Pirates of the Caribbean, he was in V for Vendetta, there's that cross dressing comedian... and Cruise's "Heil Hitler!" caused the audience to start laughing.

Then I was confused seeing Christian Berker playing Colonel Mertz von Quirnheim as he looked just as he did in Downfall as Dr. Ernst-Günter Schenck. I think Downfall's actors were so spot on resembling their characters it was eerie, Valkyrie's just seemed Hollywood.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 12-31-2008, 10:28 AM:

There have been two German films on the subject, made at the same time by different directors:

DER 20. JULI (1955, dir. Falk Harnack)
IMDB: Der 20. Juli

ES GESCHAH AM 20. JULI (It Happened On July 20th, 1955, dir. Georg Wilhelm Pabst)
IMDB: Es geschah am 20. Juli

I agree with you on the WTC movie, but sometimes it can be an advantage if a story is told by someone with an "outside vision". Some of the most famous movies on American life were written and/or directed by foreigners, like Alfred Hitchcock (SHADOW OF A DOUBT) or Billy Wilder (THE APARTMENT).

Posted by Carey Barber (Member # 1586) on 01-02-2009, 10:59 AM:

I really enjoyed this movie...

The pacing was good, keeping you entertained. All of the principal actors did a good job. The film itself looked and sounded good. I am also very interested in this period of history.

Even though Tom Cruise's public persona is rather annoying, he is a decent actor and does a good job here. (In my experience, people sometimes have trouble separating the two, as if you cannot be talented AND an annoying twit.)

I do wish that this movie had been in scope!!!

Grade: A-

Posted by Louis Belloisy (Member # 3836) on 01-02-2009, 07:04 PM:

I enjoyed this movie also. I am not a fan of Tom the Cruise, and he was not the best person for his part.

I am interested in this period of history and found the movie to be interesting. I, too, wish it had been in scope, they should ban flat format.

4 out of 5 for me.

louis

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-11-2009, 07:45 PM:

Location: Carmike 8, Lawton, OK
Auditorium: #7
Format: 2K DLP, 1998 X 1080 pixels
Rating: 3.25 stars out of 4

Valkyrie was more entertaining than I expected. The show has some repeat viewing value. However, I'll wait and see about buying a copy of the movie on Blu-ray. It's at least worth renting to watch one more time.

Since the movie is mainly directed at an American audience I didn't mind Tom Cruise being cast in the lead role. I didn't really mind all the British actors playing German roles either. It's pretty common these days to see British actors playing American roles, enough that few people mind it.

I do agree the movie would have been more authentic with an all German cast -and even having the movie's dialog set in German with English subtitles. Das Boot is one of my all time favorite war movies and I prefer watching the German version with English subtitles even though many of the same actors performed their parts in English for the dubbed track.

Unfortunately, the reality of business and drawing viewers to the box office is a pretty important concern. There are few, if any, German born actors that are bankable draws at American theaters. Not many Americans like watching foreign language movies with subtitles either. Thomas Kretschmann (Wanted, King Kong) is the highest billed German-born actor in this movie. He played Major Otto Ernst Remer, the fellow directly in command of the reserve troops.

FWIW, Lawton has a significant German-born population, largely due to American servicemen marrying women they meet while being stationed in Germany. A lot of German military also train at Fort Sill. To get to the point about that, an elderly German lady was in the audience near us. The friend I was with knew this lady and we talked after the show. It turned out this lady did clerical work for the German Army during WWII. She really liked the movie and thought the American filmmakers did their homework -despite the American and British actors playing most of the roles.

As to the issue of flat versus scope, I didn't mind the flat treatment either. Much of this movie takes place within indoor offices and other confined spaces -not exactly material great for framing in 'scope. Not every movie needs to be in 'scope. There's a lot of casual dramas and comedies using the Super35 faux-scope format when they probably would be better served in 1.85:1 or 1.66:1. I rented Pineapple Express this weekend and didn't think the 'scope ratio helped that movie at all.

The cinematography seemed pretty decent, but also a bit drained of color. That was probably done on purpose. At least this movie was shot on film.

The sound mix had a lot of directional cues. The auditorium where I watched the movie didn't have as many sub drivers as the bigger rooms so the bottom end was a bit limited. This was a pretty loud mix too. I thought the fader was turned down a bit on the dialog in the opening scenes, but when the air attack began -whew, it was pretty loud. A bomb going off under a table scared the shit out of everyone in the theater. Hehe.
[evil]

Apple currently has the first 6 minutes of Valkyrie posted on its Quicktime movie trailers site:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-11-2009, 07:50 PM:

I do not approve of putting an apostrophe in front of "scope".

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-11-2009, 07:56 PM:

I like putting the ' ahead of 'scope because it signifies that the term 'scope is being abbreviated in a generic form. Brand names like CinemaScope, TechniScope, Panavision, etc. are more accurate to naming the process, but who wants to refer to those brand names all the time?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-12-2009, 02:14 AM:

Does Joe say "you all", or does he say "y'all?"

Would you catch on if Bobby said "C'scope" - in which I've heard some projectionists use this term for the anamorphic procedure?

(Gee, wonder if FOX made a big stink with everyone saying "CinemaScope" for every anamorphic print release and threatened to file legal charges, thus all had to shorted the term down to 'scope - being our term today..just to keep the heat off ??)

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 01-12-2009, 03:27 AM:

Just update it to the new improved street-hip CinemizzleScizizope

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-12-2009, 07:56 AM:

Scope is such a generic term and it does not need the apostrophe. Nobody cares if it is Cinemascope or Techniscope or Endoscopy. It's such an insignificant difference, and this is coming from an actual projectionist! If you must use the apostrophe, then you must also refer to Flat as "widescreen". And I beat up anyone who calls flat "widescreen".

Only people from Texas say "y'all". Instead I say "Hey assholes!".

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-12-2009, 09:07 AM:

People from NC also say "Y'all." At least they did when my mom worked at Duke.

[Razz]