Valkriye- or why I am fed up of critics bullshitting about things they clearly know nothing about because someone else told them it was true
I just saw Valkriye. I'd recommend it. Tom Cruise is his usual wooden, uprighter-than-thou type, but it suits his character this time round. Good thriller, interesting subject, not too much hollywoodisation although they played a little fast and loose with his motivations, which was to be expected.
What got my goat was all the bullshit critics reading wikipedia and then sneering at the film for being inaccurate. In my youth, I was a real WW2 buff. I still am, although arguably I've shifted to Vietnam readings now. If anyone can find one thing that was false about the actual main plot of that film, then please do feel free to let me know, because if I read one more broadsheet review from some fisher price wikipedia critic sneering at the historical inaccuracy I will go postal.
Yes, it's a film about a historical event, so the character and their motivations get dramatised. We can't re-animate von Stauffenberg and get him to confess his innermost feelings, so we guess and we try and make a gripping film out of it. This is not historical inaccuracy, it's interpretation, and it is completely legitimate. I won't spoil the film for you, but every grand historical, factual event in that film did actually happen, however unbelievable it is that Hitler was only a few hours away from actually being deposed.