Rating: 
Summary: What a drag! -talk about disappointing
Review: I couldn't wait to watch this film: it has Rachel Weisz, Ed Harris, Joe Fiennes and directed by the great director of Seven Years in Tibet and The Bear, what could go wrong, right? Well, everything is wrong in this film, the fight scenes are good enough, and the actors do a great job (specially Harris), but there's nothing to like about this flick: it all looks fake, the dialogues are flat, the scenes change without any order or logic (if both snipers stalked each other, how, after one of them shot somebody or something, how on earth did they return to their quarters so easily, how did they manage to cross enemy lines without being seen?). This is not a history lesson, I know, but this film shows one more time how easily impressionable and gullible, even, we -audiences- have become, how we have gotten used to watching mediocre films believing they are good, when they really stink.
Rating: 
Summary: A decent triller.
Review: As a viewer looking for entertianment this was a marginal success, as a serious war movie it was a faliure. This movie had some good looking battle sceanes and some well thought out sniper duels, that manage to make the movie watchable and kind of fun. However, there is a love story that distracts from the meat of the movie, and is poorly held together. If a movie is going to have a real romance during the bloodiest most brutal battle the world has ever seen, the film is going to have to make some sacrifices on its impact and how it shows the war. This movie trys to have it both ways, to be a serious movie on the battle of Stalingrad and still have a cheesy love story. This doesn't work, I didn't believe it, and watching the actors I don't think they really did either. Russia really did have female snipers in WWII, and the hero that the movie follows is believed to have had a reltionship with one of them during this battle. However, the reltionship was never really called a real romance, it was more about a couple of nervous soldiers comforting each other. If this movie had stayed closer to its roots in the novel "The War of the Rats" it would have been much more powerfull and much more relevant. This production tried to have its cake and eat it too. Too bad, this decent movie could have been really good.
Rating: 
Summary: World War 2 Through a Soldier's Point-of-View
Review: This isn't the bland look at World War 2 that you would find on The History Channel. It's done through the point of view of two of the soldiers, from their own perspective. There are very interesting tactics involved in the shooting procedures that are made interesting and suspenseful throughout this tipped off by constant camera attention toward a portrait of Hitler. The movie goes back and forth between a German leader and an American one as they are both fooled by the same 12-year old, who is trying to help put an end to the brutality. The shooting sequences aren't just there for the sake of gore and blood, but more for the sake of developing battles between professionals who have been there before. Acting performances were more than impressive for Jude Law, especially, and Ed Harris. They brought a lot of realism to the table and they easily resembled the real soldiers at that time. Sasha, the adolescent who serves as the spy, did a fairly good job. The atmosphere for "Enemy at the Gates" is very dreary, similar to "Gladiator", but, I think that made it more realistic, such as scenes with the soldiers cooped up together in shelters, almost silent, a few of them talking about how they may never get to see their family again and things of that nature. There is a small bit of romance in this but it doesn't get too involved with the main storyline, fortunately. This is like a "double-biography" of the lives of two warriors who sacrificed everything for their country.
Rating:
Summary: Way disappointing
Review: I guess the pitch meeting made it look great: a tragic love story during one of the worst (or the worst) states of siege in WWII, battles that made many of the other ones look like a game, Jude Law, Ed Harris, the gorgeous Rachel Weisz... too bad it was all wasted in a HORRIBLY written story. I don't mean to get personal or offensive, but it is obvious that the writers aren't English speakers, their dialogues have no substance at all, they never get our attention, what was supposed to be profound or important or existencial is just simple and dull, the characters never lift from the cartoonish depth they were given at the beginning. Forget about how real it is or it should be (it is a movie, not a history lesson), it is just too boring, yes there are battles, blood, violence, acts of courage, etc., but it all seems way, way amateur; it doesn't look like something made by the director of 7 Years in Tibet, and it does NOT look like something you should waste your money or time on. You had better wait for the release on video.
Rating:
Summary: An Opening Gate For A New Movie
Review: This movie is very well written, directed and acted. This is definitly a movie worth seeing. With its akward and gruesome approach towards WW2 It shows Vassili (Jude Law) as a soldier with an amazing shot. He is taken under the wing of a news reporter who makes him a hero. He quickly becomes one of the most popular people in Russia and later in the wolrd for his amazing shot. He helps Russia progress greatly through the war when times looked their worst. He then discovers that the very best sniper (Ed Harris) in the world has been sent by Germany to kill him. The war then makes the fight between two nations a conflict between two men. All each other needs is a single bullet to win the war. It all depends on who fires first. This movie has an amazing performance by Ed Harris and Jude Law.
Rating: 
Summary: Well acted,very Historically accurate WW II Movie.
Review: Jude Law, Rachel Weiz, Bob Hoskins, and Ed Harris star in this well acted and very accurate historical film about Russian and German snipers playing a deadly game of cat and mouse during the siege of Stalingard in 1942. The harsh combat conditions and reality of the war is recreated quite effectively, and people who like history recreated on film should place this on the same list as other recent movies like Saving Private Ryan.
Rating: 
Summary: Quite poor.
Review: The only reason I gave this film two stars is because of the interesting and suspenseful non-sniper battles, which really aren't much of the film. However, as soon as this movie moves from the battle fields to the relationship and human side, it loses all ground. The romance is trite, and the love triangle is even dumber. This movie tries so hard to have the gore and violence and shocks that Saving Private Ryan had, but there really aren't any characters to care about at all. Many of the human stories in the film have been so Hollywoodized that the film ends up being a trite war film about love instead of the tense sniper film that the previews made it out to be. Also, so many ideas are ripped off of other sniper films that it seems incredibly old. Many times in this movie I felt like I was watching much older films and reading many other books. The last thing I will say is that Enemy at the Gates could've been much shorter, by about an hour. This movie is quite dissapointing and isn't near the caliber of any of the great war films like A Bridge Too Far or Bridge on the River Kwai. I reccommend that you see any of those older films before you spend ten dollars to see this one.
Rating:
Summary: Blown Away
Review: This movie was the most amazing reconstruction of World War Two Russia I have ever seen. It depicts the Russian struglle perfectly while keeping the characters as real as possible. Stunning performances from Harris, Fiennes, and Law, all three alike. This is a must see for anyone with a strong mind who is ready to be blown away.
Rating:
Summary: ENEMY AT THE GATES
Review: This movie was well done. The opening battle scene was almost identical to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Lots of legs and arms went flying and many people were killed. As one good sniper survives (Jude Law, he kills 5 enemies with one rifle from very far away. Another soldier hooks him up with the newspaper industry and the sniper man becomes famous with the people and is on the hunt for another excellent sharp shooter (Ed Harris- The Rock). This film lacks in the middle where I off-and-on fell asleep, even though a few people get shot with a loud bang. The ending really pulled it around as {Rachel Weiez- The Mummy 1 & 2) became the true love of the young good shooter and her kid brother is hanged, and there is a big battle. The ending is not accurate to the actual happenings of the true event, but it comes somewhat close. Ed Harris shoots the good sniper's friend, but thinks he killed the good sniper, his enemy. Then Harris goes out and of course they see eachother at the same time... and well you get it. This movie is good in acting, directing (considering it was made in Europe), and story. The beginning rocks, the middle is sleepy, the keeps your eyes open most of the time. See this movie on video.
Rating:
Summary: See it for what it is
Review: "Enemy at the Gates" has often been criticized for being unauthentic. Have we forgotten that this IS a movie? The writers and director HAVE taken creative license when it comes to language, casting, and history. The true story has been greatly altered, but if you wanted to have a history lesson, I'm sure the local university could help you out. We go to the movies for entertainment. And that's exactly what "Enemy at the Gates" is. A full 2+ hours of excellent filmmaking. There is truly something for everyone. The guys will love the graphic battle scenes. The ladies will love the romantic subplot and the unbelievably handsome leading men. If the actors aren't speaking Russian, or if you find it unbelievable that a couple can make love amond a bunch of grimy sleeping soldiers, then where's your imagination? This a beautiful story of bravery, perserverance, and humanity in the face of unspeakable horrors of war. The acting is superb. Jude Law once again proves that his beauty is surpassed only by his talent. Ed Harris was perfect as the ice-cold Nazi sniper Koenig sent to snuff out Law's Vassily Zaitsev. Rachel Weisz was believable as the female soldier with a personal vengance against the Nazis. She was beautiful enough to be a leading lady, but not at all done-up. She's as filthy as everyone else, rather than fully made-up as she crawls through the trenches. To be fair, however, the one weakness I found was that the love triangle tentatively set up between Danilov (Joseph Fiennes), Vassily and Tania was not terribly effective. There was simply not enough interaction between the characers, mainly Fiennes and Weisz, to warrant Fiennes anger when it is revealed that Vassily and Tania are lovers. The character of Danilov was such a nerdy twitt anyway, don't understand why Fiennes bothered with it. He is cut out for so much more. But that's the worst I can say about it. Worth every penny you spend if you go into it with an open mind. Appreciate the amazing cinematography, the solid acting, the beautiful story. Forget the little details that give away that this is NOT the real WWII. I for one am glad of that.
|
