Enemy at the Gates

Rating:
Summary: Both good and disappointing (contains spoilers)
Review: It is so gratifying to finally see a major motion picture made about the WWII Russian Front. After all, it was the Red Army that inflicted 80% of Germany's total casualties in the war, a fact that many Americans remain sadly ignorant of. It is high time we get past Cold War attitudes and pay tribute to the heroism of the Soviet Union in its bitter but ultimately triumphant struggle against Nazism. _Enemy at the Gates_ is a movie of epic proportions, featuring good overall performances by a solid cast as well as a spectacular cinematic recreation of the bombed-out city of Stalingrad.

Still, the movie tends to drag at times, and could have been much better. The love triangle subplot was more of a distraction than anything else, taking up time that could have been better used to tell more of the awesome story of the battle of Stalingrad as a whole. Rather than simply having the German commander state, "These snipers are demoralizing my people," it would have been nice to have actually "seen" a little bit more of how the actions of Zaitsev and the Soviet snipers wore down the vaunted German infantry. Regrettably, the duel between Zaitsev and Koenig seemed to be taking place in a separate reality than the war itself, almost giving the impression that both sides had an unwritten agreement to let the two rivals shoot it out without interference. Also, the abrupt ending gave no explanation as to how the Red Army, seemingly on the ropes throughout the movie, suddenly emerged victorious. It would not have taken much film time to explain how this came about: the tenacity of Stalingrad's defenders drew the mechanized German forces into costly city fighting, allowing the Red Army's powerful reserves massed to the north and south to punch through the weak Axis flanks and encircle the Germans. Saving Private Ryan succeeded in telling much of the story of the Normandy invasion in a way that neatly complimented the movie's plot. I wish that Enemy at the Gates had made more of a similar effort.

I know that 'dramatic license' is a fact of life with historical movies, but it is way overdone in this one. The opening sequence of the Volga crossing is powerful filmmaking and is mostly accurate up until Zaitsev and his fellow soldiers enter the city. The following part about only every other man receiving a weapon and being sent of in a suicide charge is purely the stuff of legend, though, more fitting of the WWI Russian Army or a Soviet punishment battalion. The reality was that the Red Army in Stalingrad fought mostly in small detachments armed with submachine guns rather than rifles, moving stealthily amongst the rubble and ambushing the Germans in brutal house-to-house fighting. This sort of close-quarter combat, where the front lines were often separated by less than 20 yards (or even a mere hallway or staircase), would have played out on screen just as well (better, in fact) as the 'charge of the Red horde' that is the stuff of popular imagination rather than true history. The conclusion of this scene is misleading, as well. The Soviets did shoot many deserters who attempted to flee the front lines, but this degree of harshness did not apply to survivors of a failed attack as shown in the film. The commanders of the Red Army were often brutal towards their men, but not quite that brutal. As for the way the sniper duel is finally brought to a close, with Koenig walking upright in plain view towards what he suspects is the spot where he has just shot Zaitsev dead, it is just ridiculous. Not even a rookie sniper would have made such a fatal error, much less an instructor.

The Soviet characters all share the names of actual people, but none are true to their real-world counterparts. Vassili Zaitsev was more of a natural leader than the movie gives him credit for, not just a shy boy from the Urals reluctantly pushed into the limelight. Danilov, the political officer, appears to have been crafted by the screenwriters almost solely in order to make a faddish intellectual statement about the pitfalls of Communist idealism. The real Danilov was shot (though not fatally) when he foolishly stood up to point out Major Koenig's location to Zaitsev, not in an act of suicide. Tania Chernova's on-screen character was the furthest from reality, though. She was actually a short, temperamental blonde who had previously fought as a partisan in Byelorussia and the Ukraine. A veteran killer by the time she arrived in Stalingrad and possessing a single-minded hatred of the Germans, the real-life Tania could hardly have been more different from the sensitive student/soldier who never actually fires her rifle once throughout the whole film. Also, Chernova was likely Ukrainian, not Jewish (only worth noting because of the widespread myth that most Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis as liberators from Soviet rule). Ironically, the character that seemed truest to reality was Major Koenig, a shadowy figure who some historians claim might never have existed.

Though I used most of the space here to criticize this movie, I guess the fact that I bought the DVD means that I nonetheless enjoyed it. I probably would have rated it better were I not such a Russian history buff. Do yourself a favor and take the time to read both _Enemy at the Gates_, by William Craig (a very readable non-fiction account of the whole Stalingrad campaign) and _War of the Rats_, by David Robbins (a novelized version of the sniper duel that is both a better story and closer to historical fact than this movie was). My main regret is that the film's potential was largely squandered to make room for unneeded political rhetoric and melodrama. I only hope that its mediocre performance will not discourage film producers from backing other Russian Front projects in the future.

Rating:
Summary: Did I miss something here?
Review: I just saw this movie and read all the reviews. Was Koenig (played by Ed Harris) an American who defected to Germany? No one commented on his utter lack of any accent or effort to even make an accent up. Jude Law is an excellent actor, but hey, if youre such a highly trained actor where was your linguist coach too? I wasnt aware that Russians also had English accents. The movie itself (although hardly historically correct) wasnt too bad. Unfortunately, it was the director who ruined it. He should have insisted these actors try to use or get dialect coaching to bring more realism to it. I just couldnt bring myself to believe that I was watching a real German sniper going after a Russian one. Suspension of disbelief is one thing, but this is rediculous.

Rating:
Summary: BRILLIANT MOVIE
Review: The movie is very good. Very realistic, and based on true story. Recommend to get it. Cast, acting and awesome special effects. Oh yea for don't know history. Russians reffer "Fatherland" not "motherland". And the movie is not about who is better Stalin or Hitler. Its about fight to survive, fight for our country and for the world, because if Soviets would lost the war, US would be next

Rating:
Summary: Better than average large war film but the DVD is lacking.
Review: Let me preface this by saying if you are a person that does not enjoy movies that are loose interpretations of historical truths, this movie may not be for you. Even with myself not knowing anything about the true story this movie was based on I can already tell you that this film took HUGE historical liberties with its adaptation. There are just too many parts of the plot (the romance, the best friends battling over a woman, the fate of the child, the ending, etc.) that come out of Hollywood's favorite audience manipulation methods. The movie is a good portrayal of Stalingrad's general atmosphere during World War II and urban sniper techniques but the story's details are straight out of Hollywood.

If you're not familiar with "Enemy at the Gates," the movie is based on a battle between two of the war's top snipers (German and Russian) in the Battle of Stalingrad which was a turning point in World War II. As far as casting, the movie has an excellent ensemble of some of today's top acting talent. As mentioned in the DVD documentaries, Ed Harris and Jude Law are perfect candidates for the sniper roles considering the constant closeups required on their eyes during the film. Both actors are blessed with brilliantly colored eyes that project a sense of tranquility required for the audience to believe their roles as snipers.

The DVD was a little disappointing. Considering the big budget financing this film, you'd think they would have added more extras in the DVD. Besides the usual DVD options, (sound, subtitles, scene selection) two documentaries are included that cover the making of the movie. Both are general in theme. It is impressive to witness the production design required in "Enemy at the Gates" as they had to rebuild battle torn Stalingrad for this movie's filming. One surprsing element of the film are the enjoyable deleted scenes. When watching deleted scenes, many times it becomes apparent just why they were deleted. I felt though that "Enemy at the Gates" should have included some of their deleted scenes as they reveal more about the characters and their complexities. In particular, the political officer's disillusionment with communism is covered in greater detail which allows you to see the character in a different light. With the current editing of the movie, the political officer (played by Joseph Fiennes) comes across as a shallow and pitiful person but his character is given much more depth and better understanding of his final actions in the movie with the deleted scenes. Sadly, some of the brilliant peformances by Bob Hoskins were also taken out.

Some big budget war epics leave you with the impression that the director was out of his league. Jean-Jacques Annaud does a very good job of keeping the audience in the film and the cinematography is s superb complement to the acting talent. This is the type of movie that is much more enjoyable with a great theater sound system but it will keep you captivated throughout the film regardless. The ending was a letdown and almost leaves you with the impression that a test audience decided the outcome as it doesn't seem to fit into the movie. Still, a good film and one of the better World War II projects in recent years.

Rating:
Summary: Very Solid Entertaining Movie. Fell Short of EPIC Status.
Review: I am not a fan of giving details and spoilers as unfortunately so many others here feel necessary. Often I felt as though I watched the whole movie already after reading varous reviews. So please forgive the generic review.

"Enemy at the Gates" is a very impressive movie. It is a visual feast. The acting, plot, beautiful cinematography, and directing are top-notch. The setting and war scenes are simply amazing. We really enjoyed this movie very much.

However, there are some minor weaknesses that prevent this picture from reaching EPIC proportion. The accents of the 'Russians' are .... British, just like the actors. No attempt was made to have any side speak the authentic language, or at the least, try to have some degree of authenticity by using a russian or German accent. I was not as moved as I felt I could have been by parts of the story, nor did I feel they developed the Russian story as well as they could have. Too much emphasis was placed on the love story instead of further developing the intracacies of the Russian 'story', especially in magnitude. Often, I felt as though there were only 50-100 Russians fighting the entire Russian war. Stalin was totally avoided in this picture as well as any real politics besides a small handful of people. I didn't expect a documentary, but I did expect a little more BEEF in this regard. This could have been an EPIC, however, it is now just a good, entertaining movie.

Rating:
Summary: Good flick, with a surprise... for Hollywood anyway
Review: As another reviewer pointed out, it is difficult to decide whether you root for anyone when it's a Hitler versus Stalin match, but the film itself is exceptionally well done. Although the ebb and flow of the battle is lost in the context of the story of the two snipers, the film holds your attention to the end, wondering who will win the game of cat and mouse being played out in the midst of one of history's most horrific battles. The real Hollywood suprise however, was that the dedicated Communist journalist recognizes the moral equivilence of nazism and communism at the end, when it is too late. That in itself is a real shocker.

Rating:
Summary: Public Enemy
Review: "Enemy at the Gates" is a noble effort at bringing the pivotal WWII battle of Stalingrad to a wider audience. Unfortunately, Hollywood thinks that audiences won't go to the movies to see a historically accurate war movie anymore--look what they did to Pearl Harbor--and marketing demands sex scenes and love triangles to sell a picture, so these elements had to be written into the story. Also, unfortunately, the sniper's duel between Major Koenig (Ed Harris) and Vasily Zaitsev (Jude Law) is also fictitious. Koenig's existence or presence at Stalingrad has no support in the historical record. Zaitsev was the most celebrated sniper in the Red Army. Yet it is this contrived duel that gave the film its most personal touch. It's as if the weight of each combatant nation rested upon the shoulders of these two characters.

I had high hopes that this film would do justice to history. Silly me. This is movie history. Had the writers, producers and director stuck with the human drama of survival against each other, and against the brutality and carnage of urban combat, the film would have outdone "Saving Private Ryan" in its depiction of the cruelty of that battle and the effect the German defeat had on world history. However, the film's compromises with the studio's marketing department totally detract from the fact that two million people on both sides died in the six months that the Nazis and the Soviets fought over the city of Stalin. Also, of the 300,000 soldiers of the German 6th Army trapped in the city as a result of the Soviet counterattack in November, 1942, 90,000 surrendered on February 3, 1943. Of those 90,000 who became prisoners of war, only 6,000 survived the end of the war.

This was an epic story that the studio should have left well enough alone. Instead, it resembled high school boys fighting over the belle of the ball while the building burns down around them all. Both the Nazi and Soviet systems were evil, so it was very hard to root for either side. This is probably why no major studio ever made a film of this cataclysmic collision between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

Now, turning to the performances, I did enjoy Bob Hoskins' portrayal of Nikita Khrushchev (who was at Stalingrad during the battle). The cast turned in fine performances overall considering the material they had to work with. Technically, the film excels. The special effects, particularly the scene when a formation of He 111s bomb the city, were visually stunning.

I believe that a more historically accurate and satisfying picture is the overlooked "Stalingrad" from the same people who made "Das Boot". I had high hopes for "Enemy at the Gates," but in the end, it left me as cold as a Russian winter. Winston Churchill described the German defeat at Stalingrad as the "hinge of fate". It was a shame that Hollywood couldn't leave well enough alone.

Rating:
Summary: Enemy of "Enemy at the Gates"
Review: A good movie subject, but a poor movie. Should have skipped the love story and focused more on the battle. Seemed too upbeat at points for a war movie. Didn't let you get too involved in the story. Not suspensfull enough for a story of two snipers fighting each other.

Rating:
Summary: Great War Film
Review: Based on a true story, this movie attempts to bring the climatic battle of WWII to life--Stalingrad. 1942 was the make or break year for Russian resistance to Hitler. Defeatism was abundant in the Red Army, they felt they couldn't win. Being a maniac also, Stalin needed the enemy to be halted at the city bearing his name.

Jude Law plays Vassili, the Russian supersniper who claimed 242 kills at Stalingrad. Joseph Fiennes is Danilov, the political officer who makes him a star--it seems in real life Danilov really was not terribly involved. Rachel Weisz is Tani Chernova, another sharpshooter and Vassili's love. Like many other people, I too had a problem with these British Russians, particularly Weisz--I kept waiting for Brendan Fraser and a mummy to show up.

The love story between Tani and Vassili is out of place in this film. Perhaps we were shown to understand that even love can flourish in the worst of conditions. The sex scene does seem terribly out of place.

Ed Harris is Major Koning, sent from Berlin to hunt Vassili down. In many books I have never found a Major Koning, but rather an SS Colonel Heinz Thorwald who hunted him down. Take it for what it is, there was a German sniper hunting him so let's not worry about the name.

The cat and mouse game which many seem to dislike is the best part. It's a struggle between two men, told through their eyes. The backdrop is impressive, fighting among the ruins of a once great city. This was some of the most savage fighting of the war and it is accurately depicted.

Some complain about historical inaccuracies---movies will always have them. The Russians may have been outproducing the Germans, but the supplies weren't reaching the troops. Guns and ammunition were in short supply at the beginning of the battle, which in when the movie takes place.

The Russians suffered casulties of 750,000 at Stalingrad, the Germans were defeated soundly for the first time and began their march backwards. Excellent film---pick up a book on Stalingrad and get the full story.

Rating:
Summary: Enemy At The Gates
Review: Excellent story with great cinematography and a picture perfect ending