Home :: DVD :: Art House & International :: British Cinema  

Asian Cinema
British Cinema

European Cinema
General
Latin American Cinema
Enemy at the Gates

Enemy at the Gates

List Price: $9.99
Your Price: $9.99
Product Info Reviews

<< 1 .. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 .. 33 >>

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: Worth seeing, but not a keeper
Review: An enjoyable wartime thriller that doesn't quite warrant being kept in my collection.

The cast are generally OK, although the excellent Ed Harris as the Nazi sniper Major Koenig is the only actor who enhances his reputation in this film. The script is decent, and most of the direction is understated but fine enough.

Some of the Russian characters' accents are slightly dubious, ranging from upper class English (Rachel Weisz) to Cockney (Bob Hoskins, as Khruschev), with Jude Law somewhere in the middle. Hoskins is miscast, in fact, and I'm not too convinced about Law either. Nor does he handle a rifle with Harris' assurance.

The sniper confrontations between Law and Harris are very well done, and actually fairly gripping (with excellent use of bomb-damaged Stalingrad), but the film occasionally get bogged down in earnest scenery-chewing sections of emotional turmoil. Added to this is James Horner's sub-Titanic music score, with an annoying wordless female chorus occasionally intruding to let us know that something momentous is happening on screen in case we miss it.

Technically the film is very well made, with fine use of CGI effects to conjure up awe-inspiring images of war-torn Stalingrad.

The DVD itself is first rate: the 2.35:1 anamorphic transfer is flawless, and one of the best I've seen. The extras include 2 reasonable featurettes and an above average trailer.

To sum up, worth seeing but I'd recommend sampling before buying.

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: good war picture
Review: ***1/2 Jean-Jacques Annaud’s “Enemy at the Gates” opens with an extended sequence depicting the 1942 Siege of Stalingrad that is almost as impressive, in its size, scope and battleground realism, as the Normandy Invasion scene in “Saving Private Ryan.”

Although “Enemy at the Gates” never again returns to this level of greatness, it does emerge as a pretty decent war movie, nonetheless. The film is based on the true story of a Soviet marksman, Sergeant Vassili Zaitsev, who finds himself - as much through fate and the efforts of an officer friend of his as through any act of bravery on his own part - suddenly thrust to the forefront as a national hero, a position created to bolster the fading morale of the Russian troops who are, at that moment, being mercilessly pounded by the German war machine. So famous – and, thus, so much a threat to German security - has Vassili become, that the Germans have even sent their greatest sniper, Major Konig, to find and dispatch him.

Thus, the film becomes at times a fascinating depiction of a cat-and-mouse duel of wits between two evenly matched antagonists both bent on the same outcome. Ed Harris plays Konig with all the steely-eyed intensity of a bloodthirsty killer, as much driven by his need for personal triumph as his love of the greater cause. In contrast, Vassili is portrayed as an almost reluctant hero, a man who would gladly relinquish the burden placed on him if circumstances could be different. Part of the fascination of his character rests in the struggle Vassili undergoes as he tries to reconcile the heroic image of himself as portrayed in the newspapers with the all-too-human man of flesh and blood he knows himself to be. Jude Law, despite his grating and wholly anachronistic English accent, underplays his role nicely, as does Joseph Fiennes, as Commissar Danilov, the Marxist idealist who comes up with the plan of turning Vassili’s acts into the stuff of legend.

In addition to covering an aspect of World War II that has long gone untouched by moviemakers until now, “Enemy at the Gates” provides us with an interesting plot - even though, at 130 minutes, it does tend to fall into a dramatic monotony every now and then. Furthermore, the film is saddled with a romantic triangle of such surpassing banality that it threatens to reduce the movie in the final scenes to as great a pile of rubble as those we see so skillfully created by the set designer. Speaking of which, the single greatest element of this film is clearly its meticulously mounted imagery of both chaotic battle scenes and the burned out remains of a devastated war torn city. Kudos go out to all the film’s technical people, its production designer, art directors, set decorator, editors, cinematographer, special effects technicians etc. They have done a truly monumental job on this film. Only James Horner’s score turns out to be a bit problematic, since the first ten or so notes of the recurring main theme sound exactly like John Williams’ work from “Schindler’s List.”

Yet, “Enemy at the Gates,” though not a perfect film, has much to offer in terms of its plot, its performances and, above all, its grand visual style. For that last aspect alone, the film should not be missed.

Rating: 2 stars
Summary: Painfully Average War Film
Review: Despite a truly gifted cast, this film lacks the slightest hint of dramatic tension. I watched this film wondering how Jean-Jaques Annaud keeps getting backers for his projects. From the utterly boring "Seven Years in Tibet" to this overblown piece of junk he proves over and over that he is a sub-par filmaker who cannot sustain suspense and has a hard time with character development. Although technically proficient, the film was not the least bit compelling and the characters motives are as blurry as a stained glass. Any director who can make Ed Harris seem so boring and conventional, should be thrown out of the guild for crimes against competent actors.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: A very good film, but not the best
Review: Enemy a the gates is a very good movie. However it lacks in some of the aspects of a great film. for a war movie it is great. It contains lots of action, and it takes place all in Russia, a very seldom looked at front. It's the true story of Vassili Zaitsev of Russia, snipering off the German army. Then the Nazis send thier leading marksman to kill him. It contains a love story between Vassili and another woman sniper, which was a little weak. This is definatly a good war film, but seems to lack the emotion that films like "Saving Private Ryan" seem to capture. All in all, however, this is a good film definatly worth a trip to your rental store to see.

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: Harris & Law play Cat & Mouse
Review: 'Enemy at the Gates' is a solid sniper movie. It is set in World War II, and told from a Russian perspective. All the main characters are Russian, and their primary adversaries are the Germans, who want to take over their cities. Standard WWII stuff.

Jude Law plays Vassili, a young Russian sniper who excels at what he does, and has become a sort of folk hero for his people. Ed Harris is Konig, a German officer, also adept at sniping, sent to kill Vassili, thus quashing the Russian spirit. A game of cat & mouse is afoot, and it is adequately played out.

The film has a stirring beginning not unlike the heavy introduction of "Saving Private Ryan" - a raging battle is afoot. It is quite graphic, as artillery shoots into people's heads, body parts fly everywhere, and bullets riddle the brave. After that somewhat vivid bit of cinema, things settle down, and we get to know the characters better. Vassili meets a young newspaper man, played by Joseph Fiennes, who helps turn him into an instant legend. Rachel Weisz plays Tania, Vassili's love interest. There develops somewhat of a love triangle, which basically just serves as filler space. All the while, Konig is setting traps to lure Vassili into a showdown.

'Enemy at the Gates' is acted and directed well. The cinematography is ripped straight from "Saving Private Ryan", and adds an overall *gritty* feel to the picture. The plotting is well-paced. The sniper scenes between Vassili and Konig are effectively tense.

I am aware, through research, that this film is not quite historically accurate. I do not mean to be callous, but I usually don't mark that against a movie. Movies really aren't here to be history books, they're here to tell an interesting, emotional story. I have rarely seen a picture, based on real events, which truly captures exact facts - no mistakes. 'Enemy at the Gates' makes for engaging cinema, and is done suitably well. It is not groundbreaking, but it is not meant to be. It is a solid sniper flick.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: Great epic
Review: A must for one's war movie collection. If you liked Saving Private Ryan you will love this one. Set during the battle of Stalingrad, Enemy At The Gate shows the brutal conflict of the eastern front. A great addition to anyones war movie collection.

Rating: 2 stars
Summary: Hollywood cliches
Review: I'd been waiting for the release of this film for more than a year and I was completely frustrated with it when I finally saw it. The film does not do the least bit of justice to the actual fighting that took place in and around Stalingrad. There is not a hint of the suffering that millions experienced there. In the city itself, we see the Soviet troops drinking and singing every night as if they're out for the happy hours after work.

Just like many other big-budget movies, Enemy at the Gates is made up of modules. There is a love story, there is personal rivalry for the affection of the female character, a parallel personal rivalry between two snipers, etc. There are only winners and losers, heroes and villains, or at best synthetic Hollywood characters.

By the way, even though the story between Zaitsev and the German sniper is legendary, Anthony Beevor, the author of "Stalingrad - The Fateful Siege" says there is not a single mention of it in the archives, even though the slightest incident involving the sinpers was recorded by the Soviets for propaganda purposes. (In the 10-hour documentary "Russia's War", Zaitsev makes an appearance as an old man and retells the same story, though.) And also, Krushchev being sent there by Stalin to get things straight is utterly inaccurate historically.

If you're interested in not just another Hollywood movie but some insight as to how people lived through the siege under such extraordinary conditions, I highly recommend Vassily Grosmann's novel "Life and Fate", centered around the fighting in Stalingrad. As a Soviet war journalist, he spent a long time in the city during the siege and knew many of the leading snipers, including Zaitsev, personally.

Lastly, The Soviet regime had a liking for glorifying superhuman amounts of work done by industrial workers before the war. The most famous such worker is Stakhanov, a miner who allegedly produced in a day an output equal to that his whole work team would produce in a week (or something like that). "Socialist competition", as it was called, then spread around the country with reports of how much coal a certain Ivan extracted in a certain coal mine every day in the newspapers. During Stalingrad, the same idea applied to snipers. The competition among snipers for the greatest number of Germans killed was reported with relish in the Red Army newspaper handed out to the troops. In short, Zaitsev was not the only sniper, nor did he actually kill the most. But he was the most well-known, for some reason.

I give the film 2 stars because however frustrating it is, it was interesting to see the ruined city recreated. And the river-crossing scene at the beginning is also stunning.

Rating: 2 stars
Summary: Hollywood not History!!
Review: I was so excited to sit down and watch what I thought was going to be a recreation of one of the most important duels not only in WWII but in any war. However, after sitting through this two-hour plus movie, I was more disappointed than anything. Half the movie is building up a love story that frankly has nothing to do with what happened during this historical event. It drags the movie and was insulting to a historian like myself.

Secondly, If you are going to base a movie on a historical event, the least the director could do is get the ending correct. Instead of making a partially correct ending so he or she could ad some Hollywood flare.

Finally, I just couldn't get serious about a war movie where Germans are speaking English. This was a big factor in my displeasure of the movie.

Overall, for those who know nothing about the historical background of the movie, you just might enjoy it. Those looking for a solid war movie, might get disappointed by the non-stop inclusion of scenes dedicated to building up the love story. It's unfortunate that such a great true life story had to be butchered, one day maybe someone will get it right.

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: This is not history, it is slander
Review: Watched the movie yesterday...It is an isult to every Russian. It was a great battle between The German 6th army and the Russian 62nd. As the result, 220 thousand German soldiers sarrended with their fieldmarshal. The commander of the Russian 62nd army was general Chuykov. Khruzhev had nothing to with it at all. Russian showned as a bunch of cretins. There is no army, no commanders, just dirty people etc. The movie was made ...in Germany. No wonder. By the way, who won the war ? Who took Berlin ?

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: Falsification
Review: Ordinary hollywood-"historical" movie that like any other hollywood movies has nothing to do with the reality. It depicts neither the character, nor the spirit, nor the soul, nor the mindset of the people. Forget the real events and characters. It is about an imaginary people invented by hollywood.

This pure fantasy-fiction farce presents a medley, in one bowl, of situations taken from different places and periods of the war, an ignorant-tourist gift set like balalaika, nesting doll, bottles of vodka (glass bottles in the trenches?), and, of course, typical western fare of "Russian" "cannon fodder for the officers". Also, the Russians are to blame themselves for the massacre in the territories occupied by the Nazis and the loss of soldiers on the front.

This continued hollywood trip along the path of rewriting the history of the war more than fifty years after its end is an insult. It is not about my grandparents who fought in the war since the first day of it.


<< 1 .. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 .. 33 >>

© 2004, ReviewFocus or its affiliates