Rating: 
Summary: Another Hollywood "epic"
Review: More Hollywood crap. Looks like the filmmakers became a little light-headed during their shopping trip to Spielberg World. It is 1942: "Europe lies crushed beneath the Nazi jackboot." A map hemorrhages a dark, Nazified stain across the continent until it reaches...Stalingrad! There, the fate of the world will be decided by the Nazi Konig (Harris) and his Russian target, the Red Army marksman Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law). Yeah, well, I suppose it didn't matter that Stalin was all too happy to help Hitler decide the 'fate of the world' before Hitler's army invaded Russia. Will Zaitsev and his anachronistically free-thinking Jewish comrade, Tania (Rachel Weisz), live to see a better day? Knowing the history of the USSR and its Jews, you sort of think not. So when it comes to 'Enemy At the Gates', you're better off not knowing anything. There's a distracting lack of logic and a confusing policy regarding good and evil in this movie, which is loosely based on the true-life exploits of a Russian sniper. In one scene, Zaitsev, the dead-eyed "shepherd of the Urals," uses five bullets to kill five Germans at long range and is seized upon by political officer Danilov (Joseph Fiennes), with the support of a squat, balding martinet named Khrushchev (Bob Hoskins). Zaitsev becomes the reigning, inspiring hero of the motherland, and Danilov's rival for Tania's (Rachel Weisz) affections. Sent to kill the Commie sniper is Konig, a high-born aesthete whom Zaitsev knows is the better shot, if not the better man. "It's more than the conflict between two nations," Danilov says of the face-off. "It's the essence of class struggle." Is it really? The thing is, 'Enemy At The Gates' doesn't go over the top with its treatment of Konig. So where does his evil come from? Because he's an upper class German? Class struggle, indeed! How ironic it is that the Nazi is an oasis of intelligence in a sea of mud and stupidity. So between the silly by-the-numbers love triangle, the digital FX, the confused subplot about Konig and the young shoeshine boy Sasha and Konig's ability to navigate the city unnoticed, you have a movie that's right up the alley of most Americans. Just remember, when Hitler fell, Stalin and the 'Boys in Red' went on to enslave half the continent.
Rating: 
Summary: Only Makes It To The Edge Of Town
Review: In war, during a prolonged battle-- the outcome of which will be pivotal to the efforts of both sides-- death becomes a fact of life and the decline of morale among the troops follows in it's wake. What better way, then, to bolster the spirits of those who must fight and die than by giving them a hero? For once established, even if he is killed, the hero will have served his purpose, for the martyr is just as potent in death as the hero is in life. In "Enemy At the Gates," directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud, the Russians and Germans, in September of 1942, have reached an impasse during the siege of Stalingrad. Casualties continue to mount on both sides and the Russians especially are beginning to feel the weight of what seems to be a futile effort, though this is the city that must not fall to the enemy at any cost. When Khrushchev (Bob Hoskins) arrives to take charge and solicits ideas from his officers as to how they may turn the tide of the battle, a young political officer in charge of propaganda, Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) steps forward and proffers a hero, a soldier from among the ranks he knows to be a marksman of exceptional ability. His name is Vasily Zaitsev (Jude Law), and with Danilov's newspaper touting his exploits, Vasily soon becomes the hero of the Russian people who rallies them to the cause. Quickly aware of the situation, however, the Germans waste no time in bringing in a sharpshooter of their own, Major Konig (Ed Harris), specifically for the purpose of hunting down and eliminating Zaitsev. And so, in the pitch of battle, the duel between the two becomes the focus of attention, the outcome of which will seemingly be viewed as victory or defeat by and for the armies of both sides. Early in the film, Annaud creates a sense of urgency and tension that promises to sweep you along to the climax, and the anticipation of an involving emotional experience at that point is high. Unfortunately, even as the siege reaches an impasse, so does the film. About half way through it all begins to sputter, and you begin to get the feeling that the promises made at the beginning will never be fulfilled. And you're right. Failing to elicit the necessary emotional involvement from the audience, it finally stalls altogether and by the time you get to the end it seems almost anticlimactic. Overall, the film suffers from it's own ambition; it attempts to be of a much larger scale and more profound than it really is. Annaud apparently intended to make a sweeping epic and an intimate, character driven film at the same time, but the formula for any success in the endeavor eluded him. By interjecting and concentrating on too many elements involving the relationships between the characters, he minimizes the importance of the duel itself, and thereby diminishes the impact of it--especially the outcome-- that greatly affects the success of the film. Distracting as well is the fact that all of the Russians have class-distinctive British accents, which makes their credibility a bit hard to swallow. The high point of the film would have to be Jude Law's performance as the sniper, Vasily Zaitsev. He manages enough emotional depth and lends a bearing to the character that make him believable, though there is one lapse near the end when during a particularly emotional scene he briefly slips into a such a "Cockney" dialect that it takes you out of the moment. That one exception aside, it's a solid performance. Ed Harris delivers a notable performance, as well, though far removed from the best work he's ever done. Though he affects a fairly stoic countenance, he never quite achieves the enigmatic quality that would've made a dramatic impact as a counterpoint to Zaitsev's more overt humanness. Rachel Weisz comports herself well as Tania, the woman who impacts the lives of Danilov and Vasily, but the role is far from challenging. There is some chemistry between her and Law, however, and their scenes together create what little emotional apex there is to the film. Surprisingly, the low point of the film is the performance given by Joseph Fiennes, a terrific actor who was so outstanding in "Shakespeare In Love." Any depth of character he achieves here, as Danilov, seems feigned, and his whole delivery is simply too melodramatic to be entirely effective. As the director, of course, Annaud is the one who must ultimately be held accountable for it. And it illustrates just how much impact the expertise (or lack thereof) of the director can have on a film, for even the best actors must rely on the instincts of their director, as well as their own, to keep them on task. The supporting cast includes Ron Perlman (Koulikov), Gabriel Thomson (Sasha) and Eva Mattes (Mother Filipov). Though based on a true story, and dealing with a significant historical event-- that being the battle of Stalingrad itself-- "Enemy At the Gates," simply does not deliver what could have been an engrossing cinematic experience. It's not a bad movie, by any means, and it certainly has it's moments; but in the final analysis, it's just another movie, and not a very memorable one at that.
Rating:
Summary: Anomie at the Gates
Review: Where is reality here? Filmmakers can take certain license where moviegoers have some knowledge of the facts (e.g., The Right Stuff, or even Zulu). Where fans are typically entirely in the dark, Enemy is a wonderful example of how easily filmmakers can revert to Gunga Din and other shopworn Circa 1930's templates. Facts: (1) Sasha was 15 when he was hanged for espionage - he never met Chernova or Zaitsev. (2) Zaitsev's "career" was over by the end of August 1942. Its end had nothing to do with "Danilov" (a fictional character) or his jealousy - simply put, Zaitsev's propaganda value deteriorated because he wasn't the #1 Soviet sniper any more, because he was beginning to be viewed as comically irrelevant, because the Red Army and its Allies started making real news of their own, and because Zaitsev was shot in the face and temporarily blinded. (3) Konig, or Konings, may or may not have existed. His "son", his gold-tipped ciggies, and his relationship with poor Sasha were all made up. (4) Chernova and Zaitsev WERE lovers, but she was also a sniper, and, after recovering from her grievous abdominal wound, never saw Zaitsev again. Zaitsev married and realized his dream, verbalized in the film, of managing a factory - why that was brought up and dropped is a bit of dopy editing. The Red Army was clearly not on the verge of throwing in the towel at the beginning of November 1942 - they were in the midst of preparing the offensive against the Germans, Hungarians, Rumanians and Italians that would turn the tide of the war. Oh, well....you get my point.
Rating: 
Summary: A Movie That Never Takes Off
Review: So at last they made a World War Two movie which actually involves other countries apart from the American and British armies.I was so looking forward to this film yet I have to say I came away a bit dissappointed with it. They say the battle of Stalingrad was one of the main turning points of the war.While all war is surely horrific-many historians have claimed that this long battle was one of the worst ever fought.Having read Anthony Beevoirs book I can well believe it.So to make a film on this was obviously going to be a very ambitious project and ultimately I think Jean-Jacques Annaud fails to capture the full horror.The film sets are terrific and some of the battle scenes are very realistic.The re-creation of Stalingrad was also very impressive. The film falls down because it tries to protray that a duel between two snipers would have a very telling effect on the whole outcome of the battle.The Russian sniper,Zaitsev,played by Jude Law has become a hero to the Russian troops.His fortunes are so important that they dictate the morale of the Russian soldiers.The German's are anxious to eliminate him so they send over their top marksman Koenig,played by Ed Harris to do the job.At first the duels and close shaves between these two characters are quite interesting and tense.After a while it all becomes pretty boring and you don't really care what happens to either of the characters. They then throw in a few sub-plots of love,jealousy,suspicion etc.These come about when Rachel Weisz who plays a Russian sniper-yet you never see her use a gun once-falls in love with Zaitsev.This enrages Joseph Fiennes who is also in love with her himself.The thing is he created the myth surrounding Zaitsev and it is this myth that first attracts Weisz.Added to this you have the pressure Fiennes is under from the soon to be banging his shoe on a U.N. table Nikita Kruschev-who I have to say is almost (Undeliberately) comically played by Bob Hoskins. With all of these subplots I think it underplays the whole scenario as to what happened in this battle.Rarely do you see widespread horrors that all historians claim there was.The citizens of the city seem to be able to get on with their normal lives and have no problems getting food or keeping warm or even having electricity!The battles themselves seem to have very small numbers and would not be on the grand scale used by Spielberg in the Private Ryan film.The detailed recreation of the city is quite amazing though-the rubble on the streets,the derilict buildings and the mud everywhere feel is quite impressive. Another negative aspect to the film I believe is the dialogue.It never really flows at all and makes all the interaction between the characters quite stilted.Instead of having the usual American accents all the characters seem to have substituted them for British ones-Laws cockney accent being particularly ridiculous.So all in all I don't think this movie ever really flows at all.It has it's high points and moments of drama but overall I was a bit dissappointed in it.
Rating: 
Summary: Sniper Battles for Stalingrad and the Girl
Review: The year is 1942. The battle is for Stalingrad, the last obstacle between the Nazis and the oil fields of the Asian Soviet Republics. Into this epic struggle between the desperate Soviets and the overextended Nazis plunges our hero, Vassili Zaitsev, fresh from the Urals and played by Jude Law. Surviving a horific boat ride and initial battle, he befriends and impresses young comissar Danilov, played by Joseph Fiennes. Vassili is an excellent shot and he's clever. We see him dispatch six or so Nazis, with the others in their midst not even noticing because of the way he's timed his shots to coincide with explosions. Danilov has Vasily transferred to the sniper division and proceeds to make him into a national hero by writing skillfull propaganda. Danilov and Vassili's friendship is tested by their common desire for beautiful Tanya, a fellow soldier. Daniliv feels a special desire for her since they are both Jewish, but she is more drawn to Vassili's bravery. Meanwhile, Vassily is picking off Nazi officers all over Stalingrad. The Nazis decide this won't do and send the aristocratic head of their sniper school, Major Konig (played by Ed Harris), to finish off the young sharpshooter. This is played up by Daniliv as an epic class struggle in the best tradition of Soviet propaganda. The movie moves to its conclusion with the struggle between and Vassily and Konig and the love triangle involving Vassily, Daniliv and Tanya as the central elements. Did you ever think you'd see stirring site of the hammer and sickle waving in the breeze, while cheering soldiers circled it, in a Hollywood movie? Joseph McCarthy must be whirling in his grave. Seriously, it was great to see history portrayed from a non-American viewpoint. There were no American characters in this film.
Rating:
Summary: well acted mish mash history drama
Review: I didn't come away from this movie feeling it was a complete waste of time but it was a waste of resources, $90million worth on sets and costumes and authenticity for a basically theatrical production. All the actors put in good performances particularly ed harris. The film basically never gets to grips with its material or the setting. Are we grateful to the russians for saving us from fascism and being utterly cruel and heartless in the process or should we revile them as they were in the cold war ? This is not a dilemma the film answers but just raises over and over while pointing out these are all people who love and hate and are weak and strong and they are in a war, apart from that the war could be anywhere. Lack of vision is what i'm talking about. For example the film actually opens to tell how far the "german jackboot" has put its heel into Europes back, well so what if you were unaware of a war in Russia or a place called Stalingrad in history this piece of information is next to useless to citizens of 2001. It is clumsy and at best school room history. Then theres the whole issue of the central character and his conscience over killing so many for whatever cause. Little effort is made to see inside the characters beyond some minor lines about the obvious side of killing for example Zaitsev explains to a would be sniper that these are real people they are killing but he could be talking about buying cucmbers at the supermarket for all his zeal in the task. The script is poor and does no service for a new europe seeking truths in the past for all that the film is just another technical production success with a well acted drama element not untypical of a tv show like wings of war. I particularly enjoyed the romance section of the film even if cliched
Rating:
Summary: excellent
Review: great dipiction of Stanlingrad in WW2 plenty of action with a love story that adds nothing, and really wasn't neccassary overall, i really enjoyed it! so did my friends
Rating:
Summary: Classic War Movie
Review: In my book this is one of the best war films ever made. Jude Law is spectacular. Ed Harris and Joseph Fiennes aren't slouches either. Like Saving Private Ryan, this is also great moviemaking that puts you believably inside a war zone, this time in Stalingrad.
Rating:
Summary: The Battle of Stalingrad brought to life!
Review: I just got back from seeing the movie, and my first thoughts after leaving the theatre was that this movie was excellent. The opening battle sure gave you an idea about how the movie was going to be. The commanders would shout out something like; "the first man with the rifle shoots, the other man follows.. when the first man is killed, the second man grabs the rifle and shoots". It was quite graphic, basically on the same level as Saving Private Ryan. There are numerous battle sequences throughout the movie. Most are short, which was kind of a bummer, I was hoping they would be longer. The bombing raids were awesome. I thought those had the best special effects in the whole film, second would be the dive bombers attacking the boats on the Volga River. The whole plot of this movie is a duel between a Russian and German sniper. Much of it was very suspensful and exciting. Unfortunatly there are breaks in the film which slow it down, but I guess all that love triangle stuff was put in to attract women viewers to the movie. Some of the other reviews I've read complained about the story. Overall I thought it was very good, and didn't take anything away from it. Another thing about this movie is how well they re-created the look of Stalingrad at that time. Those sets must have been huge, because hardly any of it looks like it was computer generated. Just an awesome look and feel, even better than SPR in that department. This is a great film, I highly recommend it.. I'm definetly going to go see it again!
Rating: 
Summary: ETMR - Enemy at the Gates
Review: 1. Humanity: Stalingrad, with its torn buildings, dismal skyscapes, and eternal battles of gunfire, is almost more important than the sniper Vassily, the main protagonist. What does the landscape of the city tell you about the passions of men? 2. Implications: This film tries to pay credence to both the Russians and the Germans, while trying to play at their faults as well. It appears, however, that the film is still in favor of the Allies, from the distasteful humor in Major Konig toward his work, the ominous rows of sleek black German battle tanks, and the hopeful dancing of the Russian soldiers who knew they were to die. How does this movie paint the German personality? Do you think it is a valid statement? 3. Evolution: Cinema has seen many, many WWII films. From the blood and dust of Saving Private Ryan, to the practical jokes and youthfulness of The Great Escape, WWII films showcase a museum of human feelings regarding the Second Great War. Where does Enemy at the Gates fit into this grand tradition? How does it compare? 4. Realism: It's obvious the film tries to be realistic. The bloody battles and lost friends and gloomy atmosphere only emphasize and accent this theme. Yet there is a certain glee in the gun-battles, as if it were a video-game being played out. This is perceived in the cycling of snarpshooters beside Vassily the inevitable conflict between Vassily and Konig, the kill count papers, and the soap-opera love triangle between Danilov, Vassily, and Tanya. Do these elements become shortcomings, or do they flourish the film in its cinematic quest? 5. Stageplay: One of the first surprises of the film is that the Russian actors have British accents, while the Germans have German accents and speak English. How does this affect the atmosphere of the film?
|
