It had an American with an American accent playing an important German historical character, granted. And granted, that fact seemed to upset people, particularly in Germany. But what do you dislike about the movie itself? Am I mistaken in my sense that it was more historically accurate than most Hollywood films? I enjoyed the movie, and to be honest I am more likely to watch a well-made Hollywood film about history than I am to watch a subtitled foreign film about the same event, and I imagine that's true for most North Americans.

(I don't have anything against subtitles. But I want my movies to be entertaining, and Hollywood knows how to entertain. I appreciated what I felt was a relatively high level of accuracy in Valkyrie to go along with the entertainment.)

As a slight tangent, I believe that movies (or books, or any medium) should be free to reinterpret and reinvent classic stories, because doing so does nothing to take away or tarnish the actual classic story, which still exists. If you want to present a story from Culture A in a package that is more likely to get people from Culture B to watch it, then by all means, what's the problem? If Culture A wants to then adapt a story from Culture B with A-Culture actors, go for it! If a movie set in Texas, played with French actors, gets French people interested in American history, then all power to them. If Americans don't like it or aren't interested, they can make their own movie. Similarly, if Germans don't like an American playing Stauffenberg, they don't have to watch it and can make their own ...

(P.S. at least Cruise looks fairly similar to the real Stauffenberg, as well.)