Rating: 
Summary: The good and the bad
Review: I thought this movie was great to watch and I definetly want to own it, But at times there were some unrealistic scenes. For example, there is a sex scene, which at that time would have never happened (especially during a war). I understand that for it to be a drama, hollywood probably has rules about adding things like that. The movie still had suspence though. Although it doesnt capture the true story of the sniper and the war in Russia, It does give a rough look to audiences who are not up on their history. In other words, if you want the true story look it up in a book or on the history channel and one will notice that the movie is slightly off. All in all, I still enjoyed this movie. When my boyfriend took me to see it I thought it would be a guy movie, but it turned out to be pretty good. I think everyone should see it at least once.
Rating: 
Summary: Good story, great acting, excellent & enjoyable film
Review: As a general rule, I don't see war movies in the theater, but my husband took me to this one because he was interested in the sniper-aspect of the story. I was glad he did, because I was spellbound all the way through the movie. This movie was about a Russian boy-soldier, Vasilli (Jude Law) who happens to be an excellent sniper. He saves the life of a political propagandist, Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) who then writes up the Vasilli's exploits to encourage the Russian army, and the local Russians, all of whom are being brutalized by Nazi forces. Vasilli quickly becomes a famed hero, and something of a celebrity. No sooner does he kill off most of the Nazi commanders in town, but an infamous Nazi sniper, Major Konings (Ed Harris) comes to hunt him down. The chase is on, and the tension builds steadily. Add Tania, a beautiful female soldier, to the mix, and a love triangle develops between Vasilli and Danilov, further fueling the tension of the film.This movie had an authentic feel and a good story full of twists. And the acting was great. Jude Law gives a steady performance as Vasilli, and Joseph Fiennes lights up the screen with his passionate and deep Danilov. Ed Harris is intense as usual, and it was nice to see Rachel Weisz in a role that was quite a departure from the comical librarian in The Mummy. Other notable supporting characters: Ron Perlman as Koulikov, and Bob Hoskins as a perfect Nikita Khrushchev. The look of the film was both lush and spare, perfect for a war movie. The directing was skillful, and the script was great, taking a refreshing non-American view of the Russian fronts of World War II, and avoiding the easy resolutions of many Hollywood movies. A movie well worth seeing.
Rating:
Summary: Good war movie, but not perfect...
Review: The first thing this film definitely deserves credit for is the fact that it presents a WWII story from a POV that definitely hasn't been explored enough in film (the Russian perspective). And this film does so without any strong biases. It does not try to portray the russian soldiers from an American point of view, for example (although it did have a bit of an underlying commentary on communism). An American viewer will not feel conscious of the fact that these are Soviet heroes rather than US Army Rangers...they are simply portrayed as protagonists in a desperate conflict. Stalingrad was a pinnacle point in the war and it really does deserve to have a mainstream film made about it. As a movie about the battle of Stalingrad itself, this film is good but not great. The sets are great and the opening battle gives you an idea of just how desperate a situation the Soviet troops were in (and why their valiant efforts at Stalingrad should be tributed). But on the other hand, I felt that the background information leading up to the battle was overly simplistic. The extent of the battle was not really portrayed enough either. After the initial landing scene, the battle of Stalingrad is largely ignored so that the film can focus solely on the sniper battle as if it was the only thing that mattered. They should have shown more of the large scale warfare and the bloody and hopeless city fighting that went on, as well as how the Germans began losing the upper hand (it's not like it was due entirely to the efforts of one single russian sniper!) They could also have portrayed the fact that people were starving, rather than having the available resources to sit down and have good meals and parties while they weren't fighting. Nevertheless, the sniper battles were very well done and the atmosphere was conveyed very well. I also felt that the plot (about the russian sniper who must bear the unwilling burden of being a heroic symbol for his people, despite his own fears and limitations), made a very touching example of wartime sacrifice. Sometimes you have no choice but to be a hero, and it is not an easy cross to bear. I think that the love triangle could have worked, but it really needed to be fleshed out a bit more and the resolution seemed too abrupt, too simple and overly dramatic. As a result, it hurts the film and gives us the impression that they just HAD to throw in a generic love conflict. But its not nearly as untolerable as the one in Pearl Harbor though. Ultimately, the film's main flaws are that it is a bit too conventional and also fails in one or two major areas in successfully telling the Stalingrad story. If it had been tweaked a bit it would've had potential to be a classic war film along the lines of Saving Private Ryan. Instead it turns out as a very well executed, albeit conventional war film. Although not perfect, it still stands high above such useless drivel as "Pearl Harbor" and "The Patriot".
Rating:
Summary: Great new perspective on the 2nd World War
Review: "Enemy at the Gates" is a great film. The combat scenes are all excellently choreographed and edited, from the massive opening battle sequences, to all of the tense sniper vs. sniper showdowns in the bombed out ruins of Stalingrad. The opening batttle sequence is shocking in its brutal depiction of World War II's eastern front. The film shows a new perspective on WW2. There are no Americans in this film, so you can get a feel of how the struggle against Nazi Germany extended much farther than U.S. casualties. In fact, the Soviet Union lost close to 50 times more people in the war than the United States did. That's right, 50 times. Over one million soldiers lost their lives in the Battle of Stalingrad, which the movie is set in. That's why I think this movie is informative in showing a new perspective. It is also goes beyond the typical communist=evil rhetoric that has been so common in U.S. movie making. The special effects, sound, and cinematography are all excellent, and there is a riveting plot to hold the wathcer's attention. Of course, I have to discuss the weakness, which is, of course, the love triangle between the film's three main protagonists. Unnecessary, and it does take away from the power and meaning of the film. Some have complained about the accents, among other things, of the characters being detrimental to the realism. You have to realize that this is a film. Everything can't always be portrayed accurately you know. Besides, normally the results are not always too pretty when an actor tries to put on an accent that is not their own. Further, this is not a documentary, it's historical fiction. Watch it as what it is.
Rating:
Summary: A great movie!
Review: This movie was great. Unlike Saving Private Ryan's fake set decoration, these people were able to pull off a set design for an entire city (I bet with half the budget). It was very moving and made you think what would happen if you were there in the midst of all of that. Enjoy this great movie
Rating:
Summary: WOW!
Review: If you like War movies, especially World Wr 2 movies, I recommend this movie. It was a very great sniper movie and very realisitic. This movie had a very great plot and tons of action.
Rating:
Summary: Real World
Review: I was a sniper in the army against special terrorist activities in some local territories. I had had chance to use lots of types of sniper rifles and shot over 500 rounds. I must say that, this film does reflect the feelings and the actions of a real sniper. From the loop sights to the snow-rule. Pay attention at the very begining of the film to the snow-rule used to hide your breath track on the open air. It's respectful to see the demo of such a real sniper rule in a film. Watch carefully and try to feel stress of the dual of two snipers. Have a good watch!.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Movie
Review: Unlike most true stories that are made into movies, this one does not have all of the "excess excitement" that is usually added to keep the attention of the audience. The few moments of graphic violence in this film depict the reality of war quite well wihtout under estimating it's true ugliness. This is an excellent love and war movie wrapped into one. It is a slow moving film but this allows you to take a glance into the hearts of it's characters, which is something that is loss in most of today's fast moving sex, violence and action filled films.
Rating:
Summary: Great movie anyway,,,
Review: This is a wonderful war movie. Don't lie to yourselves, if you like war movies, you surely enjoyed this one. I really enjoyed how the movie shows you that perfect preparation/formation not always win, you can tell that by noticing that the German sniper was actually more talented than the russian, but the circumstances and the people involved sometimes play a critical role and decide the destiny of people. I loved how the German sniper accepts this fact at the end of the movie. The movie has some other interesting insigths, like the importance of being there at the right time, at the right place like when Finnes discovered the sniper's talent and how he tied this to his war strategies and need to survive. Then, the heavy load of fame on the russian shoulders and simple life, etc...In net,a great movie !
Rating:
Summary: A film about Stalingrad that had to be made.
Review: As an English Eastern Front enthusiast I was very pleased with Enemy At The Gates. It lacked in many areas however the fact that the film was made at all can only be a good thing. With most WWII films coming out of the US or the UK with a very clear bias to them the general public is still convinced the Allies beat the Germans almost single handledly with the Russians playing a minor role. A film like this addresses this issue and brings to the film-going public's attention the front where the Germans really lost the war and brings home the brutality of the pivotal battle that finally halted their advance. The script is clearly the work of a non-English speaking European as it lacks realism and on 2 or 3 occasions leaves you cringing. Although I am English the accents seemed out of place - especially the American actor who plays a Russian sniper putting on a pretty awful Cockney accent. However the film's action scenes soon overshadow these flaws. The opening action scene I felt was more compelling, grandiose and spine-tingling than Saving Private Ryan's much heralded opening scene. While I have read endlessly about the Eastern Front and in particular the Battle of Stalingrad this film gave me a visualisation and a truer picture than I could possibly guess. The fact that is was also made without a political or a propagandist slant from either protaganist nation in the battle is another plus. If so many films since 1945 can be made about the North Africa campaign where in a reality only a small number of divisions were involved, I hope that more films can be put into production about this huge and unhumanly brutal battle and indeed about the many battles on the Eastern Front. However as neither an American or a Briton ever fired a shot on this front I find it difficult to believe this will happen.
|
