Rating: 
Summary: I love snipers
Review: This movie is all about snipers! I always hate going up against a sniper in all my video games.. this just brings it out even more :)
Rating: 
Summary: Can't say more...
Review: Just one more pseudo-historical, cynical and surreal nonsense, a slap in the face for me as a Russian! Too bad I couldn't give it MINUS FIVE stars...
Rating:
Summary: Great Movie
Review: This movie is awesome. That is all I can say. I think it shows how war really was and how scary it would be. This movie has good action scenes and a good story line, especially since it was based on a true story. Great Movie!
Rating: 
Summary: Very Interesting War Movie
Review: Now, if you, like me, play paintball, there is a lot to like in this movie. The story is riveting, the acting is excellent, the reconstruction of the atmosphere of the battle of Stalingrad brings thrills along your spine, and you can feel the tension and the adrenaline pumping up. The idea of presenting a more intimate angle of the battle by making it a game of cat and mouse between two snipers with a personal war of eyes is awesome, and the viewer is exposed to a series of sniper techniques that alone are worth the whole movie. Even romance is presented in a very original way and is not disconnected from the rest of the plot. Finally, there is an excellent moral message on the failure of the Marxist ideology, given at the end by the Russian Danilov: "There is no new man. There's only man. We tried to build a perfect and equal society, but even within our society there are rich and poor... rich in love and poor in love."
Awesome.
Rating: 
Summary: Banal depiction of one of WWII's greatest battles
Review: There is a certain kind of war epic that I am uncomfortable reviewing. Enemy at the Gates is one of these. If it were a court case and I were a judge, I could excuse myself. Since it isn't, I'll give it my best shot. If you look at the movies made prior to W.W.II, you won't find many war movies. Most of those that were made viewed war as either savage, pointless, or, at best, a necessary evil. Gone WIth the Wind is the most famous example. During W.W.II, Hollywood cranked out hundreds of war- themed films. This was only natural and was intended to boost both moral and patriotism. Despite how sanitized and unrealistic most of these were, I can appreciate how necessary they were and how they serve today as a vital record of the social structure of the time. W.W.II is still a valid and interesting theme, one which in recent years has inspired several brilliant movies, including Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List and Life is Beautiful. Enemy at the Gates, however, in no way deserves to be compared with them. It taked a script structured basically like the war movies of the 1940s and 1950s, then adds in all the graphic 'realism' that modern technology allows. They must have ordered fake blood by the ton. That the results are expected to pass as entertainment suggests that all social changes over the decades are not positive ones. The movie takes place during the siege at Stalingrad, USSR in the winter of 1942. This battle was at least as decisive as the Normandy Invasion [D-day]. It took a lot longer and the toll on civilians, as well as the military, was much higher. Because it involved mainly Russians and Germans, it is not that well known in America. For a time, it looked as though the Russians would be resoundingly defeated. One day they learned that a soldier named Vasili Zaitsey {Jude Law] was a great marksman. They transferred him to the sniper division where he killed scores of German soldiers and officers. The Russian publicity machine made him a hero, and his efforts may have played a role in turning the tide against the Germans. The Germans finally resorted to bringing in their best sniper, an aristocratic officer, Maj. Erwin Lonig [Ed Harris]. An elaborate game of cat and mouse followed. This part of the story is true. What is not true is a love triangle between Zaitsey, a fellow officer [Rachael Weisz] and Commissar Danilov [Joseph Fiennes]. There was a similar triangle in this year's Pearl Harbor, and I guess the thinking is that, if worked for Titanic, it'll work in any expensive historical epic. The cast is good, but as I watched, I couldn't help thinking about the really great movies they have acted in. Titles like Shakespeare in Love, Elizabeth and Apollo 13 came to mind. Almost all of the characters speak with an upper-class English accent. This somehow sounded most unrealistic, as if members of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art had decided to do a play about the Battle of Stalingrad. Like the rest of the movie, it made the mostly true story seem like fiction.
Rating:
Summary: A good war movie
Review: I liked this film from the start. It opens up with an exciting scene where Russian conscripts are ferried across the Volga river, which happens to be under heavy shelling and air attack by the German army at the time. The duel between the two snipers is exciting, and will have you on the edge of your seat through most of the film.
I deducted one star because I did not think nearly enough sniping scenes were shown. The few that are in the film are amazing, and make one think a lot about how much a talented sniper could change a battle.
There are two books which are very close to this movie. One is War of the Rats. The other is Tale of a German Sniper.
Rating:
Summary: A Dud- Russians&Germans Could Make More Intelligent Films
Review: This movie is proof Hollywood has alot of money for special effects with typically weak thin story with holes; alot of the usual overwhelming background music and historical inaccurancies, ie. speaking to Kruschev on regular basis; unrealistic sniping scenes ie. the shooting of a sniper jumping between building, a unrealistic one-sided portrayal of all Germans as heartless evil gestapo robots, and listening to this comic book dialogue... Without the native language spoken the film's credibility is compromised from the start but Americans hate reading subtitles. Obviously the authors of this boring bomb-dud weren't at all that well read. I believe Hollywood should outsource its big money to an European production to hire authentic German & Russian actors and maybe one of the great Polish directors. International production in this case for the world economy makes alot of sense in that it would give adult people a higher quality product & realistic historic portrayal.
Rating:
Summary: Brits on skids...
Review: Jokes aside, this one is a good if not flawless war movie. The producers call it mystery-thriller. I still call it war movie, since there is no mystery in who is who in this one. What rather constantly bothered me was this very pronounced British accent in Russian garments. Acting is good but could be greater. The only one who really stands out this time, is Ed Harris. He does a magnificent job as a German expert sniper with a casual fatality about the job he has to accomplish (those who are about to die, salute you...).
Bob Hoskins instead, as Kruschchev, is simply ridiculous. I appreciate his immense effort he has made to hold back on his Cockney, but still he does not possess the stamina to play the, much younger then, and more energetic Nikita Kruschchev (I can see him as Beria anytime...).
Annaud is not really at his best in this one. Although Stalingrad has been reproduced quite well, Annaud simply makes it an action shooting movie, adding here and there some pathos to help the actors involved getting along with the plot...
If you want to watch truly impressive movies about the battle of Stalingrad, then rent or buy the 1992 released "Stalingrad" or even better, the 1949 russian movie "The battle at Stalingrad".
They will tell you a lot more about the horrors of war than this schmoozie-woozie, wimpy and intellectualoid film...
Sorry, Jean-Jacques, try harder next time.
Rating:
Summary: Great
Review: For those that would love history and adventure this is truly a great video. It is truly "The most triumphant war movie since 'Saving Private Ryan'". The story is based on a true story of a Russian sniper against the best of the German snipers focused on the battle of Stalingrad. Like their counterparts in the West (there was an American sniper against the best that the Germans could muster), these snipers duel against each other until one pervails. And this is where the suspense really comes in. The setting is very interesting and there is a short commentary on how the movie was created at the end of the video that is truly worth the viewing. The choice of actors is really superb with Jude Law playing the part of the Russian sniper Vassili Zaitsev, and Ed Harris as the German sniper. The romance between Vassili and a woman - played by Rachel Weisz - also employed as a sniper, is somewhat lacking and unconvincing. Russian women in uniform really were not that glamorous. I would have expected someone more robust and masculine. However, it does make for a good story.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent portrayal of an oft-forgotten War
Review: I have watched this movie four times, and have read the reviews here on Amazon three times. I am now compelled to write mine... First of all, let me start by saying that there are better books on the battle of Stalingrad (I have close to a dozen at arm's reach) and there are better movies about the battle. However, if you look in an 'average' person's library, you might find one or maybe two of these books, and probably none of the movies.
I give this movie five stars because it is Hollywood's attempt to show the bravery and sacrifice of the brave soldiers who lived, fought, and died in the cold and bloody battles for a city which no longer even bears the same name! Yes, I'll be the first one to point out that there were a number of small flaws in the movie. How about the last frame of the movie, which mentions that "Several times decorated with the Order of Lenin..." His actual "medal tally" was as follows: Gold Star of the Hero of the Soviet Union (awarded for killing 225 German soldiers and officers from 10 October to 17 December 1942 in Stalingrad) the Order of Lenin, two Orders of the Red Banner and the Order of the Patriotic War 1st Class. Additionally, they neglected to mention that he actually did become a factory supervisor after the War, as he mentions as his goal in the movie. I have read numerous complaints about the movie here in the reviews. Let's remember though- this is a MOVIE. It's not a documentary, meant to be 100% 'actual and factual'. Watch the History Channel if you want that. In regards to how it compares to the book, let me say this- try adding every detail and/or plot twist of a book into a movie. You simply can't do that, unless you want your audiences to watch a seven, eight, or nine-hour movie (and you go bankrupt in filming it!) Yes, I'll agree with some of the reviews that Ed Harris was a bit too stiff and colorless, even for a 'stiff' German officer. He attempted to make his character sinister and evil through his cold and colorless portrayal, and that is what it became- cold and colorless acting. Additionally, a note on "Russians" with British accents, as mentioned by another reviewer. Yes, they did have some heavy Brit accents. However, having lived in Russia for nearly two years as an English teacher, one comes to realize that most Russians who learn English in school learn "British", and I have known many Russians with impeccable "British" English.
Finally, yes, "love" did exist during the War. Two feet away from me, I have the medals belonging to a Captain (male) and a Sergeant (female) who fought together (in the same unit) through Stalingrad, Warsaw and Berlin, and were married during occupation duty in Germany! It did happen... Is the movie better or equal to SPR? Yes and No- they are different movies, filmed about different events, two years and several thousand miles apart. SPR is definately bloodier, and even though I believe it is one of the best war movies ever made, I have no intention of watching it for a third time (though I think it should be manditory viewing at least once!) In my honest opinion, I believe that the movies are on par with one another, with EAG being much more watchable.
One can nit-pick this movie (and any movie, for that matter) to death, but based on the fact that, for the first time, Hollywood is actually acknowledging the War that happened on the OTHER side of the world, and gave it their best shot, it deserves a five-star rating. The impression that this movie leaves you with is the right one- the War on the Eastern Front was bloody and brutal, and many, many brave men and women (both in and out of uniform) died defending their country's interests. One can only have the utmost respect and admiration of anyone who survived these terrible battles. Next time you see a veteran of one of these battles walking down the street, thank them for everything they did, to spare the majority of us from ever having to experience these horrible events. Until then, grab some popcorn, toss in the movie, and enjoy!
|
