Rating: 
Summary: great movie
Review: I think its a very good history movie to see because it talks about the real story of Vassili Zaitsev the russian sharp shooter. Jude law is a very good actor in this movie. And so is Ed Harris
Rating:
Summary: Great movie.
Review: This DVD is beautiful. The picture, the sound, the clarity. The movie is something that I find interesting. It's about the only movie based on the Eastern Front of WWII. It deals with a true story. It is basically a sniper movie, but it's a war movie at heart. So what makes this movie so good? A combination of things. First off, the acting is excellent. All the way from the up-and-coming Jude Law to the very underrated Ed Harris. Second, the image the movie puts in your head of what war is like is second only to Saving Private Ryan. There are many more reasons to get this DVD. Okay, enough of all these compliments. Now the complaints. About my only complaint is the love story. I'm not a big fan of love stories in war movies. But, this one seems to pull it off pretty good. So, if you want a good movie, get this.
Rating:
Summary: The most realistic war movie I ever saw
Review: It is not easy to write a review on this movie - on the one hand it is a ``piece of art,'' but on the other hand it is very rare in the social/historical sense. As the former, I think it not perfect at all as many noticed (but complain about the accent? I don't think that subtitles are any better), but now a day after watching it I am still intrigued and wonder about it. As a suspense, I think that the duel between snipers is very interesting, for example. I think many people expected to see a war epic and therefore were disappointed with the personal ``chamber''-like further developments, so they could not except the love story. However, I found these personal developments of characters the most interesting (and there were not much of epic there anyway). I think this is the most realistic war movie I ever saw - when people (both Germans and the Russians) are just people and do what they have to do, since there is no way out of this mess. So, they don't expect to survive and cannot therefore postpone their personal feelings. The historical aspect is much more important. Indeed, after these numerous Hollywood war movies one can be under the impression the American troops won the WWII alone. However, a simple analysis of the death toll - 295,000 (US, military, both in the Pacific and Europe) and more than 7,000,000 of Germans (3,250,000 military) suggests that somebody else was also involved. So, here comes this movie about the main pivotal point of WWII filling the gap a little bit for a wider audience. It would be interesting if they did a movie about what happened after that on the Eastern front.
Rating: 
Summary: Decidedly mixed, but worth watching
Review: The opening scenes of the movie are incredibly accurate and well handled, portraying the hysterical shoveling of untrained soldiery into a desperate struggle to retain control of Stalingrad. Few westerners have any idea how many Russian soldiers died during the opening year of Hitler's "Barbarossa" campaign, and this opening scene shows why: incompetent leadership caused largely by Stalin's purges and the control given to the NKVD (predecessor to the KGB) over military operations about which they had no clue. "Hold at all costs, no retreat on pain of death" was the sole order of the day and it led to the needless sacrifice of millions as whole armies were destroyed. From here the action shrinks from epic to a more personal level as we meet the protagonists. Again, the film handles things well although we have the first inklings of formulaic characterization and "pat" storytelling. Jude Law is appropriately noble and down-to-earth as "Vasily," Rachel Weisz' character is fairly obviously drawn from the legend of the female "Baltic sniper," and Ed Harris' "Major Koenig" is the epitome of the cold, calculating, Teutonic knight. Joe Fiennes' betrayal of Vasily is all the more appropriate as he represents the corrupt Communist leadership. Ron Perlman's character is obvious cannon fodder. The list goes on. As others have already pointed out, the plot is broken into obvious elements--the duel, the love triangle, the tragic child, and so forth. Why it's impossible for Hollywood to create any but the most simplistic plot devices and elements is a mystery worthy of Robert Stack. We know how the various threads will resolve long before the denouement appears onscreen. Of course, since the film is based on a true story we should know the result of some of the plot threads, but the filmmakers unfortunately chose to alter history in favor of the happy ending. Despite all this it's a watchable film with good action sequences and a reasonable story line. It makes a reasonable attempt at tactical and military accuracy, which is very unusual. It's also beautiful on the big screen; it's just too bad that the director resorted to such obvious devices and left us with an appropriately American, nicey-nice ending. Much of the film's impact is lost to this vapid and predictable closure. 3 1/2 stars since Amazon doesn't allow half-point ratings.
Rating: 
Summary: Too much hollywood
Review: The name of this movie comes from the non-fiction book by the same name about the battle of Stalingrad which devotes only a couple of pages to Zaitsev and his feats. The movie actually follows more closely the novel, War of the Rats, by David L. Robbins. The novel is excellent and the start of the movie was such that I though we finally had a movie that was going to follow the book. But, alas, that was not to be. After the initial scenes it became the typical Hollywoodized war flick that mangled the book from which it was adapted. Some of the people were there but were it not for their names I'd have not known who they were supposed to be. If you're looking for a war movie with some impressive sets then you'll enjoy it but if you're looking to learn anything about the true battle of Stalingrad, forget it. This movie is at best worth the price of an evening's rental. That's how I first saw it and in my opinion it's worth no more than that and certainly isn't worth purchasing.
Rating: 
Summary: Good War movie but they should've scrapped the love story.
Review: I was forced to wait for this movie to come on DVD because my local Theater didn't show this movie till four weeks after it was relaeased, even then it only lasted for less than two weeks and it was gone. Which is unfortunate, because this movie is one of the best war movies alongside Saving Private Ryan and Platoon to be made. Now some people might call this an action movie others might refer to it as a suspense thriller because instead of it revolving around the battle of stalingrad which was the turning point of World War II, they base it on two snipers hunting each other in the ruins of the city while the war is being fought in the background. The battle segments are short and are nothing but afterthoughts, you don't have any feelings for these people as you did in Saving Private Ryan when you were thrust into the conflicts. The one problem i have and what most reviews i've read also imply on is the love triangle between Jude Law and Rachel Weisz, this a meaningless distraction from the rest of the movie and should've been scrapped for pacing. Besides that this movie is well reccomended.
Rating:
Summary: Snipers!
Review: I love movies with snipers in them. If you like war movies and an entertaining one at that then you'll want this DVD. I dont think its all that real but its a good movie to watch. I also recommend U-571, The Longest Day, Patton, and Apocalypse Now. There are so many good films out there, but this one should be in your collection.
Rating:
Summary: Paramount Hits A Home Run
Review: I am writing this review to talk about DVD Qualty. Paramount has turned out more than a few DVDs of good movies on bad Quality DVDs ( bad picture , bad sound , no extra features and so on...The Hunt For Red October was a real disapointment for such a good movie! But they did a great job on this one!!!! The picture is perfect and it is presented in true anamorphic wide screen. The DVD includes plenty of extra features. The movie may not be the most accurate when it comes to history but it is still a very entertaining movie to watch Bob Hoskins as Kruschev He was perfect for the part . The best line in the movie was spoken by Kruschev quote..." I DON`T CARE IF YOU HAVE LOST HALF YOU MEN!! LOSE THE OTHER HALF THEN LOSE YOUR SELF!!!! I you like WW2 movies you should like this one Four stars out of five for Enemy At The Gates and good job Paramount!!!!
Rating:
Summary: Enemy at the Gates-a total VICTORY
Review: Probably the best war movie ever. The movie concerns the World War II Battle of Stalingrad from 1942-1943 with almost 2 million dead, it was the biggest and most deadly battle of all time. Based on American William Craig's book it concentates on a true life duel between the best German and Russian snipers.(The 400 page book had no more than 20 pages dealing with these snipers.) The only hokey/contived part of the mvie is the female Jewish sniper Tania. The real Tania was a blonde gentile ballerina/medical student and full time sniper and lover of the hero, Vassili. (If the movie needed someone "Jewish" they could have used 21 year old commando Captain Ignacy Changar who killed 200 Germans.) The battle scenes are stupendous and then some.
Rating: 
Summary: Another drab and contrived war film
Review: Once again Hollywood wages World War II. This time it's Gunfight At The Stalingrad Corral. The plot, based on a true story, is thus: When political officer Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) witnesses sharpshooter Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law) knock off 5 Nazis in as many bullets, he builds him up as a bona-fide hero in an effort to signify hope for the nearly defeated Russian army. That alliance is threatened with the arrival of Tania (Rachel Weisz), an attractive translator who finds herself at the center of a war-torn love triangle, and Major Konig (Ed Harris), the German sniper who is sent in to finish Zaitsev once and for all. However, on their way to Spielbergville, the filmmakers forgot about character depth and suspence. But the films major weakness is the setting: historical reality ensures us that the defeat of Stalin would not have been a crime against humanity. Indeed, when one takes into account the murderous and soul destroying ideology of Communism, the overriding sense of righteousness of the Russian cause is laughable. Fortunately, there is a notable absence of German atrocities in the film. Ironically, the Nazi sniper turns out to be an oasis of intelligence in a sea of stupidity. Indeed, Konig is not only the most interesting character in the film, Ed Harris is so good at capturing Konig's inner torment, I practically found myself on the side of the Germans. Bob Hoskins let's us know what a scumbag Nikita Kruschev really was. Which is not to say that Law and Fiennes turn in poor performances, but Fiennes suffers from his underwritten role and Law is unable to extract the slightest trace of warmth from his character. We also get the distraction of British accents on the Russian soldiers. If this wasn't bad enough, things take a major turn for the worse whenever Rachel Weisz appears on the screen. Her portrayal of the delectable Tania is an annoying, anachronistic performance (her attempts at portraying realistic grief are almost laughable). The score by James Horner carries his trademark style: utter regurgitation of previous works. Of course the film is entirely predictable - you know from the outset how it's going to end, but the road to the eventual outcome is cumbersome, logy and humorless. It is so derivative of the past century's stock of war films that it has no distinct personality of its own. Perhaps the films best moment is a disillusioned Danilov who discovers the fallacy of his socialist philosophy as he proclaims: "Man will always be man. There is no new man. There will always be something to envy." Indeed....
| 
