Rating: 
Summary: A very good film, but not quite a classic
Review: This film is one of the first films ever sold to a primarily American audience about the Soviet Front in WW2. In that regard it is an important film. Although the American involvement in the war has been greatly documented in countless films (starting even during the war, with 1942's "Bataan", and reaching up to now with the recent release of "Pearl Harbor") the "Great Patriotic War" as it was remebered in the former USSR, has largely been ignored by Hollywood and the Western media in general.It is on the Russian Front that the hitherto undefeated German war machine finally met its match. The incredible saga of the German invasion of Russia in the summer of 1941, until the final, devastating defeat of Germany and Nazism in the spring of 1945 is a factual subject that, if it were a work of fiction, would put J.R.R. Tolkien's works to shame. This particular movie is about a very personal duel within the context if the battle of Stalingrad, a mammoth battle which consumed the entire German Sixth Army. (numbering nearly a quarter of a million men) A Soviet sniper named Vassily Zaitsev, (Jude Law) whose roots are from a poor, Siberian herding family is quietly and efficiently killing off large numbers of German officers. A political commisar (Joseph Fiennes) witnesses one instance where Zaitsev single-handedly kills five German officers and decides to use Zaitsev as a propagnada example of how the Russian soldiers should be. As Zaitsev's kills continue to rack up and his fame and notoriety become more and more widespread, the German high command decides to send their own master sniper to deal with the Russian. Their answer is the commander of their own elite sniper school in Berlin, a Major Koenig (wonderfully played by Ed Harris). As the two antagonists become aware of each other's presence, their duel becomes one of personal survival and conflict, more and more detached from the larger battle raging around them. In a twist in the plot, there is a Russian boy, named Sascha, who "helps" both Major Koenig and Zaitsev, pointing out places where the other is likely to be and where the other likes to stalk his prey. There is also a love triangle between Zaitsev, a female soldier (Rachel Weisz - "The Mummy") and Danilov the political commisar (Fiennes). All in all, this was an excellent movie, but did not make a truly lasting impression on me like other classic war movies, such as Saving Private Ryan, Full Metal Jacket, and Apocalypse Now.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent!!
Review: this is and excellent film that contains the very essence of what war was like for the russians. it is a very good film that you should take your kids to see as long as you cover their eyes in the parts that contain sexual content. You should only take your kids to this if you know they are mature enough to see such a film as this one because other then sexual content it contains very graphic displays of warfare. If they see this movie they will learn the true history of what happend at that battle.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant Euro War Movie!
Review: This is perhaps the best WWII film I've seen this year, even better than Pearl Harbor I must add! Jude Law's portrayal of Sergeant Vassili is so real, you could feel his determination and courage in fighting the seemingly lost cause of Fatherland Stalingrad in his eyes. The cinematography of the movie is brilliant thanks to Jean-Jacques Annaud's eye for details. The head-on battle confrontation between the Nazis and the Russians is brilliant and the part where Russian soldiers turning back in fear were shot by their own officers shows the desperation and suffering one has to endure to save a country's freedom. Joseph Fiennes also put up a great performance as Commissar Danilov who falls for the same woman as Vassili. Ed Harris' portrayal of Nazi Major Erwin Konig is a cunning and worthy nemesis of Vassili. The sniper scenes where Vassili singlehandedly kills 6 soldiers in the Nazi "Showering" scene were impressive and also the part in the ruined factory when Vassili managed to escape Major Erwin's attention with the help of a glass' reflection was also well choreographed. This is one good war movie to watch and if anything, the movie teaches one to believe in one's ability to contribute to a greater cause when all seems lost. Absolutely Brilliant!!!!
Rating:
Summary: The sniper is the real person..
Review: That character - Zaytsev - was a real man. He was from the Soviet Racific Fleet, from Vladivostok. In 1942 a lot of sailors were sent to defend Stalingrad. By chance ! after the first training at the shooting range, Zaytsev became a sniper. Total he killed 275 German officers and soldiers during the war. I read his memoir and met him,when he visited our school in Vladivostok ( I was in the first grade ). It is the truth, that he killed the commander of the Keningsburg sniper school, who was specially sent to Stalingrad to kill Zaytsev. The only line , which must be met with laughter , is about Kruzhev. In reality , Kruzhev had nothing to do with Stalingrad's victory. Every schoolboy in Russia knows that. Why the creators of the movie did that is the mystery.
Rating:
Summary: THE BEST MOVIE EVER
Review: This movie will make you say saving private who??? This movie has great battle scenes and the plot is very indepth you will never see a movie quite like it. The sniper duels are amazing. the only downfall is the love in it. they should have stuck with the good stuff. The war scenes are graphic and depict the most bloody fight ever Stalingrad. This movie is worth ever penny
Rating:
Summary: ENEMY AT THE GATES A HISTORICAL WAR FILM...
Review: Enemy at the gates is a ultimate war epic film the best i seen since "Saving Private Ryan", a cutting edge type,that will keep you at the edge of your seat thru the entire film, suspensful, and has high tech special effects, and great images of war... This movie is based on the great defying battle of Stalingrad the battle which decided the victory and destiny of the nazi's and the russians...and about two master sniper rivals hired to kill each other...(Jude Law) is the heroic russian sniper , (Ed Harris) is the more intelligent and proffesional nazi sniper, both are hired to take each other down, based on historical facts, this film is one of the best made war films of all time with an unforgettable cast,performances,screenplay and war scenes ... i guarantee you'll enjoy this film ... this film was not meant to be seen by children because of the strong and violent war images...includes images such as: lost limbs,corpses, and some sexual content
Rating: 
Summary: Bad movie, please dont see it
Review: I saw this movie at a movie theater. I was excited because I had been waiting for hollywood to make a movie about the Eastern Front. Cross of Iron is great, but I wanted a modern interpretation. The first, oh, 10 minutes may be more poignant than SPR's first 20, as the untrained, panicky recruits, complete with Jude Law, go across the Volga in barges and then attack a German position, many without rifles. This is the most realistic part of the movie. Basically all of the men are senselessly slaughtered, as in what really happened. Then everything goes to hell. For one thing, they make it seem like this duel between the two snipers decides the fate of the great Battle of Stalingrad. The thing is, however many kills snipers rack up, they are not battle winners. The standard infantry is, as they can defend and take positions. It would have been so much interesting if they have concentrated on the standard infantry, not the snipers. It's like there's nothing else happening, and these two guys are just duking it out. So unrealistic. I thought that at least IN THE CONDITIONS OF STALINGRAD, THE FILTH, THE VERMON, THE IMPENDING DEATH, we wouldn't have a cheesy romance. ... The lovey dovey degrades everyone's intelligence. The very last thing on a soldier's mind in those conditions is [romance]. ...
Rating:
Summary: Believable fiction
Review: Yes, the plot of this movie is fiction. Zietzev arrived in Staligrad an accomplished sniper with a well-equipped Siberian division, for instance. However, there are a number of reviews attacking the believability of this fiction that are quite off.</p> First: Front line romance. It happened in the Red Army, and not rarely. The Soviet Union went so far as to lift the ban on abortions for service women (if they so chose) so they could continue to fight. While the love story is certainly not the best written ever (Two men see one woman who sees them back. DING - love triangle.), it doesn't detract from the realism of the story.</p> Second: Snipers navigating wound the city undetected by the enemy. Hundreds of snipers on both sides did. Granted, as a sniper you were MUCH more likey to die than your comrades, but but the ones who survived did so by getting close to the enemy and getting away. In Stalingrad, there weren't any "lines" for them to go through either. People from both sides would often assume an area to be secure only to find themselves surrounded, on the "front line" or being the lines. One night, while celebrating for having fought their way to within sight of the Volga (and assuming the battle to be won) some 200 german soldiers were picked off by Soviet fire from the surrounding buildings. You could get through (like Zietzev), or you could get unexpectedly killed (like his first kills).</p> The movie is definitely historical fiction, but it's fiction that is very true to the truth of the events.</p>
Rating:
Summary: Very good film; flawed near-classic
Review: Historians (eg AJP Taylor) occasionally remind us that the Second World War was essentially a war between Germany and Russia. That was where WWII was won and lost; the rest was not side-show, by any means, but the Russian front was where Nazism was defeated. And yet in the movies, until now, "the Russian front" has never figured except as the end-of-film punishment for the Nazi officer or soldier, vicious or comically bumbling according to stereotype. This film's best moments come in the beginning, with a horrific battle scene, in which the utter inumanity of both sides is made clear. To their own officers the Russian soldiers are cannon fodder, no more. As they go in to face the Germans their officer shouts (possibly the only training they have had): "The man with the rifle shoots. When the man with the rifle dies, the man behind picks up the rifle. The man with the rifle shoots. When the man with the rifle dies... " and so on, over and over. Soldiers who panic are shot by their own officers. The only way out for these soldiers is death, and it is a terrible way to die. The film first focuses on a young Russian soldier, a peasant who has developed a marksman's eye shooting wolves on his grandfather's farm. Though wounded, he is able to kill a number of German officers. In doing so he gains the friendship of a young Commissar, who uses him as a propaganda weapon, to give the Russian side hope and a symbol, in a war they have so far been losing. The scenes between Jude Law as the marksman, and Ralph Fiennes as the Commissar work well, showing the knife-edge of cynicism and service involved in such deals. And Bob Hoskins is superb as Nikita Kruschev, sent by Stalin to stiffen resolve at the front. Hoskins plays Kruschev as an amiable thug, with a certain charm to go with his utter ruthlessness, which is perhaps not far wrong. The film actually works best when dealing with a grand scale and a larger canvas. When it narrows down to deal with a (slightly contrived) duel between the Russian sniper and a German expert brought in to kill him, it loses some of its power. It does the sniper duel extremely well, and it is an entertainng and intelligently presented duel. But it personalises a conflict which was above all an impersonal one. The fate of individuals in a bloody conflict could still have been presented, without this loss of the large picture. On the other hand, the love story was well presented and credible; life does go on, even in a city reduced to rubble, still being defended though hardly one brick or stone stood upon another. Jerry Hopkins' score is also worth singling out: often a pastiche of Prokoffiev, and in particular (and quite appropriately) _Alexander Nefsky_, it manages an impressive grandeur in the larger set-pieces, as well as considerable lyricism in the more personal scenes. This could have been a classic film; it is not quite that. It is, however, a very good film, well and intelligently made, and interesting even for its flaws. Recommended. Cheers! Laon
Rating: 
Summary: love in thie film?
Review: It was nice. Jude Law is a good actor and he is cool. However I felt that love was expressed very shallowly in this film. They rather should have focused on one subject. They might have thought that the espisode of romance could enhance the story and also catch the attention of audienct. However for me, love should be treated more neatly and there is no need to put that long love scene in this film. If they had space for that scene. they would have been able to make the romance part deeper but putting another scenes. On the other hand, Ed Harris was really good in this film. His eyes, as those of Jude Law have good effect in this film, made the scenes more tense than battle scene. The main story is nice.
| 
