Ever watch The History Channel? It’s got the H logo in the corner – for history! Every time I go to that channel, it seems to be about Hitler. So often, in fact, that I just call it The Hitler Channel. I mean, how many documentaries can there be about one guy? At least that channel (and history class) has drilled it into my head that he was a pretty evil guy.

Valkyrie assumes we’ve all watched The Hitler Channel, er, The History Channel. That’s probably an easy assumption to make, but in the universe of a single film, it’s a lazy assumption. Within Nazi Germany, there’s a growing unrest among the higher-ups who want to end the war. This sentiment comes from a loss of faith in Hitler, the desire to avoid the invasion of their homeland by the Allies, fears of the negative perception of Germany by the rest of the world, and so on. Or so I assume. One of these is our main character, Tom Cruise’s Colonel von Stauffenberg. He hates Hitler because, um, he’s… a bad guy? Stauffenberg says several times that Germany has to be saved from Hitler, but isn’t very clear in his explanations. Early in the film, we’re shown how Stauffenberg becomes disfigured after an attack by the Allies. At one point, he even shuffles his family into the basement during the bombing of Berlin. And, of course, he’s risking his own neck taking on Hitler. But why? Why are we, the viewer, left to assume so much of what drives Stauffenberg to risk the lives of his family and his fellow men?

Valkyrie is an extremely crisp looking film. The filmmakers made sure to show step-by-step how Stauffenberg’s circle put their plan into motion, and detailed all the speed bumps along the way. But it’s damaged by its lack of motivation. Richard Fleischer’s 1970 film Tora! Tora! Tora! shows how government blunders led to the successful surprise attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor. The problem with that film was that it was nothing but a dry re-hashing of a history book. It was so, well, matter-of-fact that it failed as a movie. A well-made movie has character development and plot movement that gets you emotionally invested in the intensity of its characters and events. Tora! did not. The explosions at the end were neat, and everyone in uniforms sure looked like they were in the military, but so what? Valkyrie falls into the same trap. It presents facts, and shows people doing things, but why do I care? How is it drawing me into the emotion? I found no reason to feel tense when Stauffenberg put his assassination plot into motion. Of course, Hitler’s the bad guy and needs to get beat up or killed or jailed or whatever, but I know that happens already. Make me think that Stauffenberg can’t pull it off, or get away, or find the golden ticket or something.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Valkyrie was definitely a very good-looking film. I’m not usually a fan of Tom Cruise, but I felt like he pulled off the bitter soldier quite well. All the pieces were in place for this film to succeed; I place the blame for coming up short on direction. Bryan Singer has done quite well with emotion in the past (see Apt Pupil for proof), but just didn’t give me that here. It was a treat to watch, but I just don’t feel like I gained anything lasting by watching it. If you’re a fan of war films, I’d definitely recommend Valkyrie, but otherwise… I just don’t know. Other people in the theater felt strongly about the movie, and I heard someone say, “It was pretty intense!”. But I think it’s fair to demand that movies make you empathize, and have a reason to care about the hero. If you wanted facts and nothing but, then there are numerous books (and documentaries on The History Channel!) about plots to kill Hitler. But for a film, the viewer needs a little more.

Rating: ★★½☆☆ 

Check out Michael’s review of Valkyrie here.