Bryan Singer's historical thriller Valkyrie pits Tom Cruise against overwhelming odds: as Colonel Stauffenberg, he must kill Hitler after losing one eye and seven fingers. As an actor, he must anchor a movie that lacks believability. In both instances, Cruise falls short, but not before making a reasonable attempt.The film begins with Stauffenberg writing in his journal, condemning the atrocities he has witnessed as a Nazi leader. The next day, after confronting a general about taking action against Hitler, the African camp he is stationed at is attacked, resulting in the aforementioned injuries. The movie picks up as Stauffenberg meets with a group of Nazi conspirators and is made the leader of Operation Valkyrie, a plan based on a version of Hitler's own intent to protect the central government if Hitler were to be killed by deploying the Reserve Army, which would be mobilized to deal with any civil unrest. Stauffenberg takes advantage of his high rank to rewrite Operation Valkyrie and have the plan approved. Enacting it will help his group take control of Berlin's government after Hitler is killed, establishing a new regime and ending the war.

The plan is risky, and the men involved will certainly lose their lives if anything goes wrong. But this is a story where the outcome is already known; Hitler is invincible, as we all know he will not die in an assassination plot. However, I wonder how Stauffenberg and his men will eventually fail, even though I don't feel nervous because I already know what happens.

The most impressive thing about Valkyrie is that it builds tension, regardless of the fact that we know the good guys lose this time.

For example, there is a scene in which Stauffenberg arms the bomb that he plans to plant near Hitler. He is in a changing room, struggling to close a briefcase containing the explosive, on the verge of being discovered by an officer. As he fumbles with his three fingers, the officer opens the door and Stauffenberg barely makes it out undetected. Does it matter that he got away then? To history, no, but to the audience, the scene gives us hope, and we want Stauffenberg to get as close as he can to succeeding.

Yet I'm not sure someone so unhandy, so to speak, would be assigned the task of handling the bomb.

Treat this as a Hollywood thriller in which Tom Cruise has an eye patch, and you will enjoy Valkyrie. But as an account of the most well-known assassination attempt on Hitler, it fails in presenting anything believable. And, the movie's serious tone is compromised by the numerous Americans with American accents portaying Nazis.

What is the audience meant to think when Stauffenberg's narration in the beginning changes from German to English? Rather than strengthening the movie's claim that "The following is based on a true story," I am reminded that this is Hollywood and that Stauffenberg is not actually a German but the same guy who played volleyball with Val Kilmer in Top Gun.

As a colonel who decides to put his and his family's lives at risk and betray his loyalty to the Nazi army, the potential for the exploration of Stauffenberg's character is huge. Consequently, Cruise's flatness in Valkyrie is disappointing. At the end of the movie, when he is facing execution, I still don't quite sympathize with him.

When I saw Valkyrie at its press release in December, the theater was packed 45 minutes before the movie started. Clearly, people wanted to see a movie about a group of high-ranking Nazis attempting to kill Hitler. But a film with interesting subject matter is not always interesting. Valkyrie turns out to be a decent Hollywood suspense film but a poor "based on actual events" story.