Rating: 
Summary: a must own
Review: What many people do not know about this movie is that it was based on a true story. Its about WWII and the fight between Germany and Russia. The movie is setup at the time that Russia is losing the war and they need something to get the people and the soldiers moral boosted again so that they could win the war. So what they decide to do is make a soldier(Jude Law) a hero by putting his picture in the paper and telling how many people he killed. By doing that, it works and Germany comes up with the idea to try and stop it by getting a sniper(Ed Harris) to kill the Russian hero. Besides that happening, the soldier has a friend(Jospeph Fiennes) that becomes jealous about his relationship with a woman (Rachael). With life like images of war throughout the movie with graphic gun shot scenes, its not for kids. I could not even come up with a better ending for this movie. That ending will keep your eyes glued to the movie. This movie is something I would own. The dvd version has nothing big but the basics: trailer, commentaries, and behind the scenes.
Rating:
Summary: very unorthodox war movie
Review: this movie shows us many unorthodox features compared with those of traditional war movies, we are shown the humane side of soldiers, of civilians, of those who are wounded and those who are refugees;
neither vassilev nor koenig were portrayed strongly as either good guys or bad guys, instead, both were depicted as professionals, and women are included as major characters too, quite an unusual feature as a war movie.
lastly, the uniforms and weapons used in the movie are also historically accurate.
Rating: 
Summary: RECOMMENDED
Review: The opening scene of Enemy At The Gates is very much reminiscent of (and heavily borrows from) the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan in its graphic depiction of the madness and brutality of war. However, that is no bad thing because to this point Saving Private Ryan is the most realistic cinematic depiction of war ever made. Set around the Nazi invasion of Russia, and more specifically the Battle of Stalingrad during World War II, this is the story of a reluctant hero Vassily Zaitzev (Jude Law), a sniper elevated to iconic status by a combination of his own deeds and political war propaganda. Vassily gives his people new hope and as a result, the Nazis view Vassily as a major threat to their conquest of Russia and send their own expert marksman Major Konig (Ed Harris) to Stalingrad to hunt down and kill Vassily, and so begins a game of cat and mouse.Director Jean-Jacques Annaud expertly recreates and captures the horrors of war and a city made desolate. The main cat and mouse plot between the two expert marksmen is also well-handled and Annaud maintains a good balance between the need for suspense, urgency and character development. Okay so what if it was only the Penal units of the NKVD that shot retreating soldiers and not the main part of the Red Army? (You say tomato I say tomatoe). It is a fact that under Stalin and subsequent communist Soviet regimes that people were unfairly imprisoned for such crimes as having a different opinion or writing a book and that Stalin committed horrific crimes against his people. Is it morally okay to shoot criminals and people who were unjustly jailed? I don't think so. It is also a fact that propaganda (on all sides) always plays an important part in war, and that the Russian soldiers in WWII fought incredibly hard and won against all odds, as depicted in this movie. However, this is not just a war movie or a thriller set in wartime, it also maintains a couple of good sub-plots, including a love triangle between Vassily, the propaganda journalist Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) who made him a hero and a female soldier played by Rachel Weisz. The casting of the movie is pretty interesting, with the exception of the excellent Ed Harris, the main characters are all played by British actors (with English accents), including a cameo from Bob Hoskins as Joseph Stalin. The reason behind this I don't know but they all give good performances, although I must admit to still being slightly unconvinced with Rachel Weisz's acting ability. While not quite hitting the heady heights of classic war movies such as Saving Private Ryan, Enemy At The Gates nonetheless gives a refreshingly alternative viewpoint and historical retelling of the second world war from what has often been a neglected Russian perspective: Differences aside and contrary to popular opinion, it is unlikely that the Allies would have won WWII so quickly if it were not for the doggedness and enormous sacrifices of the Russian people. This is definitely superior to most of the dross that gets released on a weekly basis and whilst not quite scaling the heights to greatness, it's a pretty good film that I highly recommend checking out.
Rating:
Summary: A New Look at World War II
Review: I was not taught about the battle at Stalingrad in my history classes in high school. I had no clue of what happened in Russia at that time. We all know of what happened on the Beaches with the Americans but few know about the Soviet Snipers that changed the way the Germans fought the war. This movie has provoked me to study more about Stalingrad. The movie is pretty accurate as to what actually happened. The cast was chosen pretty well. Ed Harris & Jude Law, as the DVD says, were chosen because of the looks in their eyes. The movie diplicts the life of a sniper pretty well. The tactics and methods of snipers was very well done. The actual story line, which is very close to reality, was written well. I enjoyed the movie because it was very educational and because I am fascinated with the sniper fieldcraft. The DVD is great. There is behind the scenes footage and behind the movie comments from the actors & crew. There are also a few deleted scenes that are interesting.
Rating: 
Summary: A Russian perspective on this insulting and pathetic film
Review: The movie had great potential even though it was based on partially true events. Anyway, the movie starts as Vassili Zaitsev is going to the front padlocked in a boxcar. This was the first thing I noticed that was insulting to my country and its history. The portrayal of my grandfathers that fought in this battle as ill-equipped frightened cattle. This is pure BS, if anyone has ever read a non-fiction account of this battle or seen a documentary about this battle then they know that what they show on the screen is pure crap. History has shown that Soviet soldiers weren't so frightened and ill-equipped when compared the the "MIGHTY" Wehrmacht. The first 30 minutes of the film insulted me on such a level that I had no interest in watching the rest of this bland and worthless film. In the first scene, supposedly you see the Red army in action. What you are really seeing is an NKVD penal unit charging across "Red Square." into the german machine guns which of course decimate the soldiers and then as they retreat their own officers(aka executioners?) mow down the rest. the Red army never fought like this. The Penal units of the NKVD did-however shooting retreating soldiers on such a scale was never done. Who in the already dwindling 62nd army had time to waste more men for nothing? Besides, Stalingrad was not fought charging across squares-it was fought within houses, rooms, factories all in brutal close quarters fighting. The Specialties of the Soviet soldiers: Submachine guns, grenades, flamethrowers, knives, bayonets, sharpened shovels, and any other form of material that could be found. the 10man storm squad was more important than a 10,000 man division. The first scene is heavily done with all the typical western stereotypes and cliches of the cold war. oddly enough the character i liked was the German sniper-he seemed very real to me. the "Russian" Characters were all marionettes-I felt no sympathy towards them. The Characters, with the exception of the German were all without depth-no surprise here-film made by a French dabbler named jean-jacques annuad. Little does this incompetent idiot understand Russians, and the Battle of Stalingrad. Some of the sniper scenes were interesting to watch even though they were done in a surprisingly quiet Stalingrad. The Propaganda theme was pathetic-Historically it played a very miniscule part. the love triangle was out of place-Women played a very impotant part, but they were not frightened whores as this film would have one believe. Vehicles were important to Annuad-he got them and their usage wrong. German pz. III's effortlessly mowing down Russian defense in the factories-please, there were 3 soviet tank brigades equipped with T-34's and KV's that fought in the factories. "the germans have tanks, aircraft, artillery what do I have?" A dialogue done by one of those "Incompetent" Soviet wusses.
Guess what, our soldiers had all of those things. How else were they able to bleed the Germans? I won't write anymore, I don't want to think of this pathetic film anymore."A foreigner will not notice, a Russian will not forgive." -Valeriy Potapov, Director of Russian Battlefield(History.vif2.ru)
I recommend watching The Russian film "Come and See" or to read The books "Enemy at the gates" or "War of the rats" Read and watch this and maybe you can understand the Russian fron of WW2. this film isn't not a source for anything-Pure BS 0/5
Rating:
Summary: A hero sharpshooter at the battle of Stalingrad
Review: This 2001 war movie brings WW2 to audiences from a unique perspective for Americans - the battle of Stalingrad in 1942 which lasted six months, took 2 million lives and was an important turning point in the war. It stars Jude Law as a Russian sharpshooter and Joseph Fiennes as a fellow soldier of a slightly higher rank who publicizes the hero's courage throughout Russia. However, the Germans bring in their own sharpshooter, Ed Harris. A young shoeshine boy, Gabriel Thompson, who might or might not be betraying his country, a Jewish Russian soldier, Rachel Weisz, who is the love interest of the two Russian soldiers and Bob Hoskins as Nikita Krushchev, round out the cast. Each one gives an impressive performance. The battle scenes are excellent, the cruelty of war clearly demonstrated, especially in the scenes when the Russians shoot their own men for running away. There's a lot of blood and it is all very real and gruesome. This sets the stage for the rest of the story, which is quite gripping, especially as the two sharpshooters are locked in a cat and mouse game throughout most of the film. At those times, my eyes were glued to the screen, feeling the tension as well as the hardships that the Russians endured. However, when it came to the romance, the story lagged and there was just a little too much modern interpretation of Communism for my taste. The story was a good one though and could have stood on its own without all that extra stuff. I did thoroughly enjoy the video, however, and recommend it for war film buffs, especially for those who might want to explore this rarely explored part of history. The film has its weaknesses, but it is still worth watching.
Rating:
Summary: First Rate War Film
Review: This was one of the best movies I have ever seen. I highly recommend this film to everyone. If you are interested in war films, you will especially appreciate this movie. Joseph Fiennes and Jude Law were both excellent, and they didn't get the recognition they deserve for this one. It's worth every minute.
Rating:
Summary: What critics?
Review: I only recently saw this movie because it was finally back in stock in DVD format at the video store. I had wanted to see it because Ebert & Roeper, Joel Siegel, and whoever reviews movies for People Magazine had all said this was a good movie.
They were all right.
I thought the director did a very good job of portraying the TRUE battle between a Soviet and German sniper in WWII Stalingrad.
Other than that, I can't put to words why I like this movie. It's just more than worth seeing.
Rating:
Summary: WHAT A GREAT MOVIE, THIS IS WHAT WAR MOVIES SHOULD BE
Review: Nice to have a movie that is not about America, we have to remember that the war was more than D-day, Pearl Harbor, Battle for the Atlantic, so on and so on. This is a great movie to see this, it is very educational, before it I had no idea of Stalingrad, and I love history and specially WW2, sure, is not as good as Saving Private Ryan, but it is at least as authentic, which makes it a great contender for best war movie. Plus, the story is based on a true story, all the characters did exist, a thing that I loved, plus it shows how hard it was for Russia to stop Nazi Germany, moreover, the Nazis are shown, just like in Ryan, as true people and soldiers, not evil people, or the bad guys, because I think as well as Spielberg and Jean-Jacques Annaud that in a war there are no good guys and bad guys. And this movie is like that, although some people might argue about that, this movie is not that heroic, we have to remember that it is a true story, and it can't be changed that dramatically. It is still about Russian folk hero Vassili Zaitzev, but Ed Harris did as usual a great job in being a nemesis, authentic and real, not exaggerated. The rest of the cast is al so great, Rachel Weisz is both beautiful, like I have always said, but also authentic, she really played a strong character, not a damsel in distress but a soldier, which makes the movie good, plus she played it great, you fell related to her, to Jude Law, to Joseph Fiennes, to Bob Hoskins, to Ed Harris, and to Ron Perlman who had a sort but memorable role, but I specially liked Rachel, it was about time she showed her skills and her beauty, the Mummy was not enough, although she looks dirty because of her role as a soldier, in some takes she really looks lovely, sure, she looks amazing in The Mummy Returns, but I liked her in this movie. Still, the cast is all amazing, big names, big movie, not many publicity, I almost not heard about Enemy, I saw the trailer when it was already playing, weird thing, that's why the movie is not that famous, but it should be. And the DVD, well, to be a Paramount movie, it has good special editions, a trailer, deleted scenes, 2 featurettes, this is the least you could have done for Braveheart or The Untouchables, but that is a thing of the past, keep it up, don't loose track. The sound is good as the picture. This a must have.
Rating:
Summary: An excuse for a movie ,a soulless movie - avoid at all costs
Review: I have decided to let this one go out in order to express my almost total resentment from the film and to authentically put into words my true emotions . I hope it would help you understand why you should not see this movie . By and large , I hate the after-feeling of watching a real bad movie . This motion picture generated that feeling - don't let it do the same for you . Let my redeeming be in the form of preventing you from sharing my misfortune . In case you haven't heard , this film was a disaster at the box office ( which is , surprisingly enough for some , quite a good criterion in this case... ) , and that according to critics the story was weak and lame - they were right all along ; This film has no standing ability whatsoever . The idea of making a movie about the eastern flank battles in WWII is interesting and welcomed on its own - but what about the rest of the story ? What about a decent plot ? What about acting ? In my opinion , what they had decided to do here was to ride success wave of "Saving Private Ryan"(SPR) - somebody wanted to make some money and found a way : let's take a good part of "SPR" - the sniper - concentrate and develop his contribution to the war efforts - and build an entire movie about the heroism of his mighty loneliness . What a hoax ! What a sham ! There is no development , no depth , no understanding of his hardship of killing men that are unaware of his existence , almost no inner conflict - just the expected , seen before , 100 yards meaningless executions for the lust of the blood you 'ought' to show in WWII movies . The worst part of it all is that I feel for the SPR sniper character much more than I would ever feel for this sniper ! His leading actor abilities are so feeble , I couldn't care less for his fate in the end . Aside from that , the sniper duel is shameful to Ed Harris who agreed to take part in a role , that didn't utilize even an inch of his talent . They could put me in Harris' place and it would still be the same ( I'm exaggerating here only to stress my point ) . His Part , like all the others' is without soul or depth - they actually didn't give him a chance to play ! I don't really want to discuss the plot , nor the rest of the crew - they don't deserve it . The only interesting thing I found was the intense battle scene in the beginning , again just like in SPR - a complete and disgraceful copy of the structure of that film . Like its predecessor , this scene is hard to watch , but convey the horror of the war . Even the final scene of the duel is so irritating you won't imagine . No moral , no relief , no hubris , no tears - nothing ! Do yourself a favor and complete your liabilities to this movie by clicking this review's 'No' or 'Yes' button and continue to better movies .
|
