Hi Richard, I threw that in there just for you mate ;-D

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Lol.

__________________

My Silent Hunter 3 U-Boats Skins to Download.
http://www.ww2f.com/simulations-gaming/32642-my-u-boat-skins-d-l.html
Small selction of My SH3/4 Mods
http://www.ww2f.com/simulations-gami...-sh4-mods.html

Well......I actually paid to go see this flick. It was not as bad as the critics have made it out to be but it was not great. Cruise does not carry the film at all and really does not do even a good job of acting. I hope they did not pay him a superstar's salary because he did not earn it.

As with a majority of films, there was some things missing and some inaccuracies. The number one that sticks out is the troops guarding the Rastenburg complex are Heeretruppen instead of Waffen SS. I only say the Waffen SS guarding Hitler's Bunker. Also, the actions taken by the conspirators in the taking of Berlin seemed drawn out compared to what I read. I would consider it controversial.

I think the film did a good enough job to educate the public about the events of 20 July but it was not entertaining, thrilling nor action pack. The use of computer graphics was minimal and was used wisely.

Worth a single viewing but as always, interested in y'alls perspective.

__________________

Cruise's Valkyrie blasted as "Nazi apologia"


An influential US critic on Friday blasted Tom Cruise's latest movie Valkyrie as ``Nazi apologia'' in the sharpest criticism yet of the WWII thriller.
The movie features the US superstar as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, an aristocratic German who headed a group of top officers who hatched a plot to kill Hitler late in the war.

Roger Friedman, film critic for Fox News, said the movie appeared to intentionally minimise the impact of Nazism.

"I'm concerned that Valkyrie could represent a new trend in filmmaking: Nazi apologia. Not once in Valkyrie do any of the 'heroes' mention what's happening around them. Hitler has systemically killed millions,'' said Friedman.

"Valkyrie opens the door to a dangerous new thought: that the Holocaust and all the other atrocities could be of secondary importance to the cause of German patriotism.''

Friedman criticised the set designers for minimising or hiding the swastikas that have become symbols of the evils of Nazism, and blasted the portrayal of Hitler as a ``doddering fool with a British accent and a nice suit''.

Friedman's political criticism of the movie may have been the sharpest of US reviews, but it was far from the only negative assessment.

Writing in the Washington Post, Phillip Kennicott blasted the film's puzzling failure to portray von Stauffenberg's life before his unsuccessful assassination attempt - when he was untroubled by Nazism and served as Hitler's loyal soldier.

Kennicott also criticised the movie for failing to point out that the plot was hatched not out of moral objections to Nazism but only when Germany was facing imminent collapse.

Stauffenberg ``was not a committed anti-Nazi until very late in the game'', wrote Kennicott. ``Many anti-Hitler conspirators weren't so much against Nazism, with its vile racial and militarist policies, as they were against Hitler's disastrous leadership of the war''.

Cruise himself came close to distorting the extent of German support for Hitler and his policies.

``It's important to know that it wasn't everybody - not everybody felt the way (Hitler did) or fell into the Nazi ideology,'' Cruise said during the film's US press tour.

``The thing that stood out to me was Stauffenburg himself and the amount of desperation and pain for him,'' Cruise said. ``He wanted a moral country that participated in the world, not one of annihilation and Holocausts and world domination.

``He was a man who was able to see through all the propaganda and see how utterly insane Hitler was, and ultimately he was the one to say, 'Somebody's got to shoot that bastard.'''

AdelaideNow... Cruise's Valkyrie blasted as "Nazi apologia"

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

Eh, I don't agree with the author. I doubt it if Stauffenberg knew the exact details of what was going on in the camps, especially those in the East. They knew about the camps but not all of the details. So, putting the holocaust in the movie would just add more time to it, be inaccurate and would just not fit into the plot.

Many of the anti-Nazis did not do anything because they were outnumbered or at least thought so. At the end of the war, there were those who spoke against the Nazis but only after the war. Kind of like being a Dallas Cowboys fan. You're a fan when they are winning but when they are losing, fans are like rats abandoning a sinking ship. But these guys have been conspiring for a long time, they just did not do anything as drastic until 44'.

Can anyone really know why these men did what they did? To keep it accurate, one must stick to the facts. As Cruise put, the movie was about a conspiracy, not a war movie. I don't see Cruise as an 'apologia', he probably took the role just to look cool in a German uniform.....

So I totally disagree with the author's assessment on the 'trend' of recent movies. It is funny that the article did not print the author's name.

__________________

It is funny how the same article is posted on different sources yet none mention the author. Only the critics.

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

This movie was great. All critics are idiots, who are unfamiliar with History. It pisses me off when I see someone talking bad about this movie. Tom Cruise was a good choice for this movie for one reason his resembelance to Stauffenberg. I enjoyed the movie I thought the "Wolf's Lair" looked authentic and this movie had the old WW2 film feeling. It was great movie very entertaining. Just watch and enjoy try not to critique it so much. I can't think of one film ever that depected a historic event in perfection. The only thing I wished to see more of is more cinimatics of the german army marching around and Hitler after the bombing being mended by his doctor. From what I have read when HItler's dr was mending him. He was fustrated Smashing his fist on his knee's saying "they dont undertstand!"

__________________

One yes vote in. Come on American folk I need to hear your views on this film.

Go fourth and watch the film.

I'm sure JC will give me all the bones on this one.

__________________

My Silent Hunter 3 U-Boats Skins to Download.
http://www.ww2f.com/simulations-gaming/32642-my-u-boat-skins-d-l.html
Small selction of My SH3/4 Mods
http://www.ww2f.com/simulations-gami...-sh4-mods.html

First off. There are many critics who are very knowledgable in History including Military History. I personally know one here in Portland. And because two critics do not agree with your point of view you paint all as idiots? There are a few reviews that are quite positive. Are those critics idiots also or does that not apply because you agree with them? Second. Just because someone resembles who they are portaying does not make the movie or the acting any better. Cruise has the same wooden acting skills that he has used for decades. His acting is not any different from any of his other movies. It is an actor's job to portray his character and make a believable performance. Just from what I have seen I do not think he does so. I do not see him as Stauffenberg just because he looks similar. And I for one do not have a problem with the movie itself. I do have a problem with the choice of Cruise and his acting skills for the part of Stauffenberg. In addition I find your comment about seeing " more cinimatics of the german army marching around" interesting, How and why would this improve the move, if at all??

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

Sounds like a well-produced film but perhaps the "feeling" missing. No Oscar there it seems for Mr Cruise.

__________________

If TC gets a Oscar for this one he will be bouncing up down on as many sofas as he can.

BTW: I feel Tom Cruise is not the right actor for such a film but that said I will be seeing it from a historical point of view.

__________________

My Silent Hunter 3 U-Boats Skins to Download.
http://www.ww2f.com/simulations-gaming/32642-my-u-boat-skins-d-l.html
Small selction of My SH3/4 Mods
http://www.ww2f.com/simulations-gami...-sh4-mods.html

I agree that the movie was good but again Cruise as being miscast. I think they chose him just because they needed a big name American actor for it to sell in the US market. Personally, I think that Thomas Kretschmann would have done just as good of a job if not better and it would have kept it more of a European, thus more realistic, feeling. But that is my two cents worth. Good flick and definitely better than what the critics said.

__________________

Thanks for the critique Ike! This is why I didn't go see it!

__________________
Scott

When I refer to critics I am mainly refering to rottentomatoes.com The everyday person who voices their opinnion on movies. These people know nothing (If you do not believe me go visit the site) I should have made it more clear when I originally typed this. I posted this right after I was reading reviews on that website. I am not refering to anyone on this website. I have not read any reviews by anyone who has Knowledgeable mililtary History on that website. NO critics who do not share my view are not idiots. I am a political science major I would get nowhere with that attitude. I am strictly refering to the everyday person who critics a movie based on action and irrelevent aspects. I could suggest other actors but I believe Cruise did the job Heck I would rather see Ed harris as Stauffenberg. The reason for more cinimatics of the german army marching around is.. for my own satisfaction of seeing old war relics being worn and used. Instead of just talking about them on a website or looking at them through glass windows in a musem. I never posted on here to start an argument I have nothing but respect for everyone but I like debates thank you for you input!

__________________

Saw the movie this afternoon. Did not get the critics "Nazi apologia" angle at all. Also, saw plenty of Swastikas displayed. That guy must of watched a different movie than I did. Think he is way off base with that. All in all, a pretty decent film. Also thought the actors did a very credible job, including Cruise. Not a great film, but a good film that is well worth seeing.

I did notice that there were only about 50 people in the theater. It may come out on video by the end of the year.................which is next week.

__________________

A mini review from someone else who saw it that I found on another site.

"Tom Cruise bore a resemblance to Stauffenberg i.e., the nose and their silhouette. With that said, I watched this movie not expecting much, but I personally thought it was better that I expected. It was a solid performance by the cast including tom Cruise. The reason why so many people hated this film is not due to Tom Cruise acting, but his connections wth Scientology along with his offscreen rants.
My only dissapointment with the film is that it was a little too sympathetic with Stauffenberg, neglecting show his initial support of the Nazi policy of conquest aswell as the anti-semitic views that the real Stauffenberg expressed to his wife in a letter from Poland in 1939 in which he derrided the Poles and the Jews as "A people that is only comfortable under the lash. The thousands of prisoners will serve our agriculture well."
The film did not really delve into his evolution from being a loyal soldier of the Nazi regime to a disgruntled conspirator.
Aside from that I give the movie an 8 out of 10. I recommend it."

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

If these people know nothing why are you so concened about their opinion?

You can always watch "Triumph des Willens".

__________________

I take your point but I also feel the author was making a good point in that these men were perfectly happy to go along with the Nazis, they knew about the racial policies, they knew people were being beaten in the streets, Stauffenberg even seems to have approved of the use of Poles etc for slave labour. I think the general point is that portraying these men who helped keep the Nazi regieme going for so long as heroes is to say the least controvercial.

Good analogy, but again, these men only decided to act as the ship was sinking, it isn't really heroic

Again, this came up when Downfall came out. The point being made is that there is an increasing trend in current movies to portray the German people as victims of the Nazis, to say 'look at all the horrible things Hitler and a few people did, but it wasn't us!' Now right or wrong there was a definate sense of this in Downfall and (from the review though of course I have yet to see the film) there seems to be in Valkyrie.

It is interesting that in terms of historiography there was a period immediately after the war when historians were effectively saying 'Germans are different from the rest of us, nobody else could have allowed this to happen' and so on, effectively a backlash against the shock of learning what people are capable of. A decade or two later people came in on the other side (in keeping with the EU etc) to say that the German people aren't different from the rest of us, that it was circumstances which led to the events of the 30's/40's. The risk is that this may have gone too far.

Now we all know not every German was a Nazi, we all know that most people were simply victims of circumstance and we can all clearly see that the modern generation aren't to blame for the crimes of their forebears. However I think the general, overriding point being made by this article and others on the subject is that the trend now seems to be to totally absolve the entire German nation of blame and to focus on the victims/resistance. Is this right? In fact, is it dangerous to totally take away responsibility for what happened from the people who not only allowed it to happen but actually took part in it? Therein lies the rub I think...

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

You're wrong. The Wolfschanze was guarded by the Führer-Grenadier-Bataillon (also known as Führer-Begleit-Bataillon). This was indeed a Heeres unit and it had protection of the Wolfschanze Führerhauptkwartier as its primary task. This is why the guards of the Wolfschanze in the opening scene of Der Untergang (Downfall) are also depicted as Heeres troops.

__________________
Also spricht der Narr: 'der Umgang mit Menschen verdirbt den Charakter, sonderlich wenn man keinen hat.'

why does everyone who wants to discuss World War II have to pander to Jewsih sentiment. Why is it necessary to qualify the pre-war sentimentof Stauffenberg, or for that matter, every Germany officer, regarding their feelings on Hitler before discussing any other aspect of their lives. The Holocaust was not the only thing that happened in the war. In fact 90% of the war was not about the Holocaust, it was about the war. I, black African man, do not cry about the slave trade or slavery everytime I talk about Washington, Jefferson, the many English governments that supported and profited from that practise. I simply talk about the issue at hand, whether it is washington's wooden teeth or the eloquence of Thomas Jefferson.

I saw Valkyre ant it was a good movie. I think that the producers tried to abide by truth as much as they could, and truth does not always lend itself well to entertainment... I will write more about what I thought later today... but this is my first post here... so let me go back to work..

Although I haven't seen it the impression I get from those who have is that it is more "Mission Impossible 4" than a genuflective commentary on events of late WW 2.

If you want to compare it to that kind of movie then I would choose Ocean's elven. Why? Because Oceans showed the team planning and preparing for their actions... As did the people with Operation Valkyrie.

__________________

[quote=Dingane;347163]why does everyone who wants to discuss World War II have to pander to Jewsih sentiment. quote]

Exactly.

__________________

yeah, that's the subject were discussing here.

__________________
Scott