Rating: 
Summary: visuals are fine - dialogue a crime
Review: This film should have been great. Its clear that the director has a great eye for detail such as the the realistic Children's Fountain which matches the real life documentary footage of the battle. I can even overlook the fake CGI stukas which don't look quite real as well as the soldiers standing alongside the Panzerkampfwagen IV shooting their guns in a completely un-realistic fashion. At least the tank is not a Sherman with German markings which you so often see, so I was kind of impressed with that.In fact I was pretty well captivated with this film ... until things started to descend into Buddy-Buddy-Movie hell where I was half expecting Zaitsev the sniper & his new chum the Political Commisar to start exchanging 'High Fives' & 'Home Alone' 'YES's. And add in a Hollywoodesque ubiquitous love triangle and I found the whole concept barely tolerable. The dialogue is not the best I have heard, but the irritation factor is magnified by the Cockney accents which halted my suspension of disbelief. The actors certainly try their best & if this film was the 'Rats of Tobruk' I'd be pretty pleased with their performance, but hampered by an appalling script & a clueless yet earnest director, they fall way short of expectations. Its still worth checking out but to have repeated viewings is a asking a bit too much.
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: wonderful duel, in the context of war-torn Stalingrad
Review: This is a really good film of a talented fighter, Zaitsev, who is chosen as a tool of political propaganda in a desperate era. The acting is wonderful, from Law as the hero, Fiennes as the political propagandist and Hoskins as Krushchev, to Ed Harris as the sensitive and hoghly talented villain/sniper. I have watched this, utterly rivetted, several times these last months, and my fascination with the historical period and characters is undiminished.
Warmly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Good Hollywood effort to recognize the other front
Review: "Enemy At The Gates" surprisingly tells a plausible tale of Vasily Zeitzev, the legendary WW2 Russian sniper, and his experience in the pivotal Stalingrad battle in the winter of 1942. The fact that a conventional studio would tackle the subject is worth some stars at least, since as far as most of Hollywood is concerned, the United States won WW2 more or less single-handed. In fact, not until June 1944 (D-Day) were more than a handful of American divisions engaged against the Germans; in the meantime, the Russians had been in continuous combat with the Nazis for three years.
The movie effectively relates the interaction between Soviet politics, propaganda, and the front. The Soviets had to popularize heroism, since their battlefield tactics were anything but. Contrary to some reviews, Kruschiev was a significant player at the Stalingrad front, and the need to give the Soviet troops something to maintain morale was a key factor.
Yes, the one on one duel between Zietzev and the German ace sniper was contrived. Yes, too, the love interest, and especially the nice hopsital scene at the end. This can be overlooked since unlike some other movies (say, "Pearl Harbor"), these aspects are overshadowed by the depiction of city warfare and the political issues of Soviet leadership. The chamelion-like Jude Law is fine; I think Bob Hopkins is a good apparatchik (see also his portrayal of Beria the excellent Russian-directed "Inner Circle").
If you don't like this, go back to "Big Red One" and tell me that is a historical movie.
A more realistic film that made it to the art houses but nowhere else is the harrowing German film "Stalingrad", which decidedly does not have a happy ending.
Rating:
Summary: This movie is fair, but that's all
Review: Judging by all the comments made about the historical innacuracy of this film (somehow the outcome of biggest battle in the history of the world hinges on the personal gun duel between a Russian speaking with an English accent and a German speaking with an American accent), or the hackneyed way the contrived romance displaces what ought to be the real story in the movie (the sniper duel), I still rented this movie hoping that I would like it.
To be honest, there were some very fascinating parts of this film -- even the innactuarate ones like the nonsensical opening phase of the film is still interesting to watch.
The sniper scenes are also interesting to watch, however I doubt that a huge battle between several hundred thousands of soldiers would suddenly cease just so that a sniper duel between two people can have greater dramatic tension. There are many points when the snipers reveal themselves in the open where, although perhaps invulnerable to each other, would make wonderful targets for other soldiers, including other snipers.
I also found the ending very odd. I got the impression that when the Russians were evacuating the city across the Volga river, that the Germans were poised for victory. Suddenly, the movie cuts to the next scene where somehow the Germans lost. Although this is true historically, the movie offers no context or explanation for the sudden change in fortune. In reality the change in fortune came about because of large Russian army counterattacks on an overextended German line, but the movie tries to tell you that the battle was decided one the Russian sniper bested the German sniper.
PLEASE.
Overall, an okay movie. My boyfriend majors in european history and he was more disappointed in this movie than I. I could stand the romance, however the way it was played was too cutesy and unlikely. This movie is a throw-away popcorn flick that for some reason thinks it's better than it really is. A wannabe epic in the Pearl Harbor (2001) vein.
Rating:
Summary: good B movie
Review: Its funny but I think I like this movie best for reasons that other people seem to dislike it. If I really wanted historical accuracy wouldn't I be watching a documentary? Personally I found this movie to be completely entertaining, and when I define entertaining I mean Not Boring, which I find more and more movies to be these days. Also, the Russian viewpoint of the film is at least a different take, not a volunteer army. In short with all the garbage movies out there, I fail to see how anyone could dare call this movie bad. It was at least good, if not great, and I personally think it still to be Jude Law's best role to date, if that's saying much, heh?
Rating:
Summary: Engrossing Movie
Review: I can hardly fathom why this movie has a lot of negative reviews. I have had this DVD for two years, and I watched it again last night. The fight scenes are intense, the acting is quite good, and Ed Harris always gives us a fantastic performance. These people must hardly enjoy anything at all.
Please give this movie a chance. It is well worth viewing at least once.
Rating:
Summary: Duel in the rubble of a burning city
Review: The fortunes of the Second World War on the Eastern Front were played out both in a macrocosmic and a microcosmic way, the former being the German army versus the Soviet army, the latter being the personal duel of two opposing infantrymen in war-torn Stalingrad in the autumn of 1942.
Such is the setting for this movie, which deals with the brutality of the no-holds-barred war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, where no quarter was expected or given. Stalingrad was to be epitomized as the turning point of the war on the Eastern Front (and the graphic showing the map of Nazi-occupied Europe being "inked" over by a spreading swastika showed this memorably), yet the focus for this film was on four particular people: sniper Vassili Zaitzev (Jude Law), upon whose real-life experiences in Stalingrad the film is based, the political officer Danilov (Joseph Fiennes), their mutual love interest Tania (Rachel Weisz) and the German army sniper Major Konig (Ed Harris).
While the Germans do their level best to kill every Soviet army soldier in sight both on the ground and from the air, the Soviets have to kill the enemy as well as avoid being shot themselves for "cowardice". In one harrowing scene, shortly after Zaitzev lands ashore after being nearly killed while crossing the Volga in a flimsy passenger boat, soldiers fall back after an utterly ill-thought-out infantry attack involving both armed and unarmed soldiers against enemy positions, such was the desperation - and absurdity - behind the "tactics" intended to throw the enemy back, only to be mown down by fellow soldiers at the behest of fanatical "no-retreat" officers.
And yet even the German commander-in-chief (Matthias Habich) tells Konig upon first meeting him that his army "was not meant for this kind of fighting", a sign that defeat was already on the way - hence, the (unrealistic) idea that the killing of Zaitzev might somehow demoralize the Soviets to such an extent that they may lose heart in fighting for Stalingrad's survival. Certainly, Krushchev (played with vigor by Bob Hoskins), after hearing a report that the famed shepherd boy from the Urals had been killed, believed that with that memorable line to Danilov, "What are they [the Germans] supposed to do? Dangle his body in front of our men?!"
Many war movies, amongst them "The Blue Max" (1966), "Mosquito Squadron" (1968), "Zeppelin" (1971) and "The Pianist" (2002), inevitably involve principal male characters falling in love with female characters, yet such sub-plots usually are seen as doing more to damage, if not derail, the main story. In this case, it is the "cat-and-mouse" sniper duel between Zaitzev and Konig, with "moves" being played out according to information being passed on to both men by a boy named Sacha (Gabriel Marshall-Thompson), who believes in Zaitzev yet ultimately loses his life in a shocking way.
With the "love triangle" involving Zaitzev, Danilov and Tania, it is tempting to believe that it is totally unnecessary and might lead to many in the audience cringing to the point of frustration, given the amount of time devoted to it. Nevertheless, instead of putting Russia first, Danilov's interest in Tania and his jealousy betray his weak character, as he is prepared both to abandon his main propaganda tool and to betray his comrade by daring to report to the authorities Zaitzev's alleged "change of attitude", much to the shock of the woman who has to type his lies (although, curiously, this betrayal is never followed up). With friends like him, who needs enemies? Certainly not Zaitzev, who admitted to Danilov at one point that he was on the verge of cracking up, because he was being made to carry a burden that he would otherwise never have chosen had he realized what Danilov was getting him into. Only the manner of Sacha's death stiffens the Russian sniper's resolve to kill the German responsible.
As a war film, "Enemy at the Gates" has more going for it than some might suggest. As well as Robert Fraisse's photography of a city being bombarded and destroyed, the dark colors and constantly burning buildings creating the mood, Alain Godard and Jean-Jacques Annaud, both of whom had worked together on "The Name of the Rose" (1986), have produced a memorable movie dealing with one of the darkest chapters in world history with their meticulous attention to detail. Even the scene where Zaitzev tells Tania, "These people know they're going to die, so each night they come back is a celebration", shows just how characteristically the Russians viewed both their lives and the situation in general, as they battled to keep Stalingrad in their hands, which they eventually succeeded in doing after 180 days of the hardest fighting ever experienced by two opposing armies during what the Soviets termed the "Great Patriotic War".
Rating:
Summary: Soviet hero at Stalingrad
Review: I am bit amused to read so many negative reviews about this movie which people complaints of historical inaccuracy and all that sort of nonsense. And these are probably the same people who praised movies like Braveheart, Elizabeth, Windtalkers and other numerous historical movies that have no concept of being historically accurate.
Enemy at the Gates is based on the true Soviet hero but obviously it been fictionalized to meet the Hollywood's standards for entertainment and story. This is typical and not abnormal as some people thinks. Jude Law does an very good job in the lead role and he proves to be well supported by his supporting cast members like Joseph Fiennes, Rachel Wiesz and Ed Harris. Does it really matter if Ed Harris' German sniper ace really existed or not?? Does it matter that Mel Gibson wore kilts in Braveheart when real William Wallace never did?? Or Christ was nailed on the Latin cross in Passion of Christ when he was actually nailed on a Roman "T" cross? I guess not so when does historical inaccuracy doom any movie??
The movie was made with a singular view point of Jude Law's character. Fiennes' character was most uneven as he goes from overzealous promoter to jealous lover. The romance angle was not bad as Rachel Weisz provided an interesting character. Their love scene among the dirty sleeping soldiers in the bunker add a certain level of reality to their situation. Ed Harris provides an interesting and challenging foe as an ace German sniper whose ego regarded his duel with Vassili like a game. I thought the movie was pretty entertaining as both sides play their cat and mouse game as the story unfold. Interestingly, you never really know who's the mouse and who's playing the cat!
The DVD of Enemy at the Gates proves to be a pretty good set. The image quality is pretty good and the sound effects works well in Dolby Digital 5.1. There are also few extra features included in the DVD which may or may not enchane your viewing pleasure.
I thought this was one of the underrated World War II movies that came out in our recent years. It could just be that Soviet heroes are not popular Hollywood material (Harrison Ford's K-19 movie sunk at the box offices too).
Rating:
Summary: Director need to sight this one in better, missed by a mile.
Review: The story, while well worth the film deserved better. The german production of "Stalingrad", or the Sam Peckinpaw epic, "Cross of Iron" with James Coburn as vaunted Sgt. Steiner are better representations than this PC crap. Even Ed Harris can
t save this movie. His protrayal of the German Army sniper instructor come sent to Stalingrad to liquidate the hero is based on true events. The amateurish mistakes that let the hero win the duel of wits are cartoonish. The real events were more dramatic though less visual. Days of stalking, lying in hides, until the loser made a fatal error, would not a good movie make, but don't make the experienced German veteran look like a dolt.
The romance subplot, well I won't waste time on that, it was rubbish designed to attract the female audience to a war movie.
Gee could it be...Cold Mountain set on the Eastern Front? Where was Colonel Klink and Sgt.Schultz when we need them?
|
