Rating: 
Summary: A very kool movie komrade.
Review: This is the story of the Nazi invasion of Stalingrad in WWII. However it is not really the siege itself that is the focus but the battle between two famous snipers. The russian sniper Vassily Zaitsev and Nazi Major Konig. I had always thought that Russia's involvement in WWII would have made for some great films and after seeing this film I'm not overly dissapointed. Historical accuracy is once again thrown out by Hollywood but the central focus in the film remains the same as that in which it was in real life; that the central character Vassily Zaitsev brings hope and inspiration to his fellow soldiers by his skill as a marksman.
Rating: 
Summary: Truth as it was.
Review: I know the truth, I am from over there. This film was one of the best films about WWII and the Soviet Union. It deserves to be watched.
Rating: 
Summary: At least they got the city right.
Review: unfortunately i had to give it one star, it deserves none. not since the movie " battle of the bulge " have i seen a film miss it's claim " the true story " so badly. the constant time-outs for the rest of the men in stalingrad when the snipers were hunting, seeking out their trophies, or as in the end, out in the open where they would have been cut down by any one of the hundreds, thousands, etc. of others there. good idea to tell the story of stalingrad , but at least come close to the truth. another story that fans of true history should beg speilberg and hanks to do. they seem to have gotten their last effort right
( band of brothers ). the bulge would be a good one for them too.
Rating:
Summary: Awesome!
Review: I really enjoy this movie.
I realize that it has historical inaccuracies (i.e. Red Army regulars forced into a suicide charge at the film's beginning), but I dig this flick nonetheless.
I also enjoy the Romantic aspects of the movie too. And it is good to see the Soviet women fight alongside their men.
"Enemy..." has much better sets and scenery than the German made "Stalingrad" (most of which takes places in the steppes outside the city).
Probally the one of best WWII movies, ever.
Buy it!
Rating:
Summary: Boring, trite, predictable, insulting
Review: A prime example of Hollywood's taste for Art Direction over script. Sure, the city looks devastated, but all the Russians are happy-go-lucky sorts throughout. What is supposed to be devastation comes out seeming more like "rustic charm." Starvation, disease, hopelessness? Not here, it's make-up for the ladies and dances every night!
I'm not against a love story, but pppllleeaaassee give it more depth than a late night episode of Elimidate. I'm tired of seeing the same "love at first sight" garbage. As for the way "they contrasted the two countries by making one sniper an aristocrat and the other a pig farmer"--ya, very moving, not since Rocky III where the Russian was training with high-tech equipment while Rocky was punching sides of beef have I been so moved by the subtle use of metaphor.
And as for showing the "realism" of war? Everytime people were gunned down they all died neatly or were wounded in that "ouch I'm limping" kind of way. Odd, you'd think a bullet tearing through flesh and bone would sorta make you scream uncontrollably. War here still looks like something you can tough your way through, when in reality it sends many of even the strongest souls whimpering into their pillow (read some Stephen Ambrose.)
The worst offense of all though was making the entire Battle of Stalingrad about these two men. i don't mean making the movie about them, I mean they literally made the entire battle hinge on who won the sniper's duel-yes, forget the MILLIONS who struggled and died there, it's the two with pretty eyes and strong jawlines who really matter. It's amazing that people who thrill over the accuracy of the weapons here are willing to overlook the trivializing of the entire event. No, you don't have to be historically accurate to the point of boredom, but you also don't have to be historically inacurate to the point of insult and stupidity.
In summary, if you thrilled to Pearl Harbor, you'll love it here.
Rating:
Summary: Magnificent, if not entirely historically accurate....
Review: Despite its historical flaws, Enemy at the Gates is an awesome war film. This film captures the essence of the sniper so greatly, at least in my opinion. The waiting, the patience, the careful aiming, the camouflage. All of it is depicted wonderfully. Much of this is due to the fact that the cast was taught by an actual sharpshooter. And the weaponry, wow. I could not believe how accurately the Gewehr sniper rifle was recreated. Everything down to the scope with its three separate lines instead of the intersecting two on most other sniper rifles.
The story begins with a senseless, suicidal charge on the Germans by the Soviets. I was blown away by that. The men are rushed out of trains and onto tranport ships as stukas bombed and shot at them. You can sense the madness of Stalin even though the tory isnt truthful to history: The men are forced towards the German lines, some not even quipped with weaponry and if they retreat they are shot by their own officers.
I think the main reason people dislike this is that it doesn't center on the Stalingrad battle. It centers on a sniper duel between Major Konig, played magnificently by Ed Harris, and the Soviet sniper hero Vasille played greatly by Jude Law. You have the expert sniper who is bent on killing the morale booster/officer killer soviet. The whole movie is basically a dramatic story of courage and heroics. You have the hero, Vasille with the gift of aim and courage,and the man who makes him famous played by Joseph Fiennes. You have a strange love triangle between Fiennes, Law, and the heroine played by Rachel Weisz. I wouldn't really call it a triangle since Law and Weisz are the ones in love. Fiennes is the hopeless. It not much of a romance, but it adds a bit of flavor into the plot. As the movie comes to a close, you see that the love story was actually essential since the two friends develop a hate for each other that is eventually reconsiled. There are many twists in the movie that make your jaw drop. I don't want to spoil it for those who haven't seen it, but the most unexpected things happen at moments that make the timing outrageously and surprisingly impecable. I just love this movie.
While not entirely accurate to history, it is indeed a great war movie. I find it laughable that people trash this film because it isn't the most accurate thing. If people expected to see the true battle of Stalingrad, then would not the description of the movie give them some sort of hint?
All in all, if you're looking for a movie about Stalingrad that is historically accurate, don't turn to this. Go for 'Stalingrad' with Dominique Horwitz. If you're looing for an awesome war movie/sniper drama and don't really care about the facts, this is for you.
Rating:
Summary: AN INSULT TO THOSE WHO DIED IN THE REAL THING
Review: Hollywood goes to Stalingrad. Except for the names of the individuals involved and the background situation "Enemy at the Gates" is just a made up Hollywood story; and a very mediocre one at that. They should of had the integrity to either tell it like it was (which by the way would have made a much better story as well) or they should at least have had the integrity to change the names. Yet another case of Hollywood miseducation. No wonder Americans are so clueless about history, geography,...
Rating:
Summary: A rarely seen angle of WWII . . .
Review: I love this movie. It is great to see Hollywood crank out a WWII movie set in the Soviet Union.The duel between two oposing snipers in the war becomes a perfect simile for the dynamic struggle of two countries, ideologies, and style of propaganda. Of course, there are complaints about its historical accuracy. As you can imagine, Hollywood is more bent on entertaining than educating. . . and as long as it doesn't grossly cross that line (i.e. Pearl Harbor) is a nice way to expose many people to the significant events of history. If you want perfect accounts of history, read a book... and anyway, I'm not even sure history authors tell the whole truths either. The biggest problem I had with the factual hiccups of this film is quite minor actually.... I find it rather silly that Russian soldiers speak with English accents.... and German soldiers with American ones... If you can get past that however, you'll love the beautiful scenery, the great sound and story.
Rating: 
Summary: Great beginning, the rest is decent.
Review: Enemy at the Gates opens with an impressive battle sequence that unleashes the horrors of war and displays just how furious and devastating the battle of Stalingrad was. After that harrowing set piece, the movie settles down to a cat-and-mouse game between two legendary snipers (Jude Law vs. Ed Harris). Such moments are tense, but too much of the film is ineffective, such as the romance between Law and Rachel Weisz, the incredibly derivative musical score (the usually great James Horner, ripping off his own work such as The Perfect Storm and Braveheart, as well as from Schindler's List), the predictable plot, and rushed pacing and editing. Still recommended for war film fans.
Rating:
Summary: Dreadful.
Review: I had high hopes for this because I usually love Jude Law movies. This is just one long, drawn-out, boring, one-dimensional war movie. Some nice score, some cool sound effects for your home theatre system, but that's about it.
|
