Rating: 
Summary: Excellent
Review: this is a great look at the other front of the war, between the russians and the germans. it does a nice job in describing the terrible anguish and suffering the russian soldiers had to go through in order to repell the germans. if it wasnt for the russians defeating the germans, the allied forces would have had an even tougher time defeating a very powerful german army.
Rating: 
Summary: Well concived
Review: This movie is eye candy and no one should miss the first 20 minutes however after this it seems to get stuck in the middle. I have some problems with this movie A. The lack of Russian and German accents the movie would have been 5 stars if you didn't have Jude Law dropping back into Cornish every 5 secounds B. The plot holes like what happens to message about Vasily after Danalov writes it? (The DVD did a good job clearing that one up) C. And most importantly that when the movie is said and done Ed Harris the #1 sniper rule "Never ever revial your position to the enemy even if you think he is dead" Stick it is a better movie then "The Thin Red Line"
Rating:
Summary: Sniper's aren't the same as sharpshooters.
Review: I am very interested in Sniping and history, so I was very excited about this film. I waited a long time and finally got it on video. I have to say I was slightly disappointed. I wouldn't know a badly directed or choreographed (I have no idea what that mean's anyway) or whatever film if one came and kicked me up the backside. Its not because of that. It is amazing to look at and it has excellent special effects. I was disappointed because I had hoped for historical accuracy and good sniper scenes and stuff. The history wasn't accurate and the sniper scenes were a bit weak. Why they keep calling the sniper's 'sharpshooters' I don't know because they aren't the same thing. Sniper's target important enemy soldiers (officers, tank commanders, enemy snipers etc.), while sharpshooters shoot at any enemy soldiers they see. I thought with the big budget and everything they could have done a better job. The huge Stalingrad sets they made specially are largely wasted. It is still a good film and worth watching, even if it was a bit disappointing.
Rating: 
Summary: Raping history on celluloid...
Review: Ok, lemme begin by explaining why i think this film is raping history. For those of you that havent read a book about Stalingrad and what REALLY happened there, it will will be hard to understand why this film is offensive and this must be said beforehand. But facts are facts, and no matter what Hollywood's "needs" are when trying to score a box office hit i think it's a sacrilege to the 100s of 1000s of ppl who lost their lives in that battle to do films like this one.
First of all, if we are to take for granted what this film shows what happened was that the Russian army was an ill-trained bunch of peasants running mindlessly into machine gun fire. Also, while the Wermacht was roaming the city there is no Russian army to be seen defending it except for the odd sniper here or there, plus, the Russians are portrayed as an army equipped only with rifles when in reality they had some of the most advanced technology of the time both in hand weapons as well as in heavy weapons.
The Stalingrad battle took place as much outside the city in the open steppes where 1000s of ppl died by freezing or starvation as well as inside the city where the battle was literally taking place face to face. There are accounts of German soldiers occupying the top 3 floors of a building and the Russians the bottom floors!!! All this, along with a plethora of other facts are spectacularly ABSENT from this film. But perhaps the most notable thing being absent from it is the fact that the German army was just as much in panic and despair as the Russian one could be if not more. All history accounts agree to the fact the Stalingrad was the personal hell of every German soldier, a fact also shining by its absence in this film. Even the story between the Russian and the German sniper isn't completely accurate but this is minor compared to the overall picture...
This is not the first time Hollywood butchers history nor will it be the last. And maybe Hollywood is actually improving when one thinks of the surreal distortion of history they did recently with "Pearl Harbor"...
So, any positive stuff concerning this flick? Sure. Ed Harris gives his usual stunning performance. Jude Law is very good too allthough to me he hardly brought in mind a Russian, it looked more like a British soldier having a trasnfer over to the Red Army. The production (keeping in mind the overwhelming innacuracies) is incredible, and especially the depiction of the ruined city. The duel itself between the two snipers involved is superbly given and it's probably the one thing that keeps this movie going. In that sense, think of this film more as a "war thriller" than a war film because the real Stalingrad story was many dozens of times more brutal than this and, as i mentioned above, totally different.
And lastly, is ths film worth watching? Yes, if you are aware WHAT it is you are watching. If you know you are watching a nicely filmed lie then yes. If not then no.
Rating: 
Summary: War Movie, but just missing a certain pfiff
Review: I really was expecting more than I got, as this was one of the first European large productions... Well to make it short, I enjoyed the story of Zaitsiev, the noble sniper (check the book Stalingrad by Anthony Beevor), being made in to a movie. Snipers sure played a part in destroying the German morale in Stalingrad, but that is not of discussion here. On the down side are the language (everyone has an King's English accent) no Russian, absolutely debatable portrait of the Soviet Union (Ideological battle in a movie) and just taking in famous names does not make it special...
Rating:
Summary: Halfway decent war flick, Lousy History
Review: I'm not one of those historical nitpickers who trashes war films because soliders depicted in 1943 are actually wearing uniforms not manufactured until 1944, but this films treatment of the Eastern front in WWII borders on the science fiction. Jude Law plays the real life character Vassili Zaitsev, one of many talented Soviet snipers - and only about mid-way on the list of those with the most kills. Ed Harris turns in a typical excellent Harris performance as his Nazi opposite number. Joseph Fiennes is a political officer in charge of mythologizing the Jude Law character and Rachel Weisz is the girl they both have the hots for. Political Officers, who in historical fact were often the best trained and hardest fighters, particularly in the early days of the war, are made to look like sputtering morons with the morals of a side show pitch man. Bob Hoskins as Nikita Khruschev plays him like a small time mafia enforcer who calls JV Stalin, "Da Boss". The movie starts with promise, showing an animated map with murky Nazi ink slithering across Europe and announces this is where the future of the world will be decided. Not bad considering the fact that 8 out of 10 German soliders were killed by the Red Army. Then the film gets so nervous about making Russians looking heroic they slip in absurd bits of crude anti-Communist propaganda. It is as if the House Un-American Activities Committee was hired to do the editing. We get some good combat, some tense drama and a few good performances. But we get too much laughable dialogue and too many mixed messages.
Rating:
Summary: A very heavy and tense wartime relationship
Review: Enemy at the Gates embraces two frist class actors to tell a story of admiration, love and hate. Same with all war movies, we need a hero to lead the story. However, what made Enemy at the Gates a different war movie is that, the hero was made unvoluntarily. Jude Law just happened to be a the right place at the right time, spotted by Joseph Fiennes about Jude's ability and put him on the altar for worshipping, so as to boost the morale of the army against the German invasion. However, ironically, Joseph started to be jealous aginst the hero he created by his pen, and this was intensified when the girl he liked fell for Jude. His creation and attempted destruction of the hero he created, put this "hero" in an ever struggling position which is nothing more than a puppet to his creator. The psychological and emotional changes and state of these characters were well played by both Joseph and Jude. However, in terms of the plot, it is somehow predictable, and especially when it is love that torn two good friends apart, this has been used too much already. Should there be some new ideas about this part of the plot, the story will be much better and less predictable. The enjoyable index will also be higher. Nonetheless, two thumbs up for both Jude and Joseph.
Rating: 
Summary: WHATS WITH THIS LOVE TRIANGLE CRAP!!!
Review: This film as a weak plot and a realy stupid love circle which goes way of the actual events that took place a the Battle for Stanlingrad all and all its realy stupid.But there is one thing I want to add the historical acurse of the battle is very close to how thing realy happen on the eastern front, so in that respect it is an ok film.
Rating:
Summary: Good Movie
Review: This movie was good but it wasn't that spectacular like Saving Private Ryan or The Thin Red LIne. For military buffs this movie would be a keeper.
Rating:
Summary: Solid movie let down by English accents
Review: This portrayal of the Seige of Stalingrad and the sniper duel between Russian and German aces is very gritty. The demolished Stalingrad setting is very believable along with the usual horrific depictions of war. I enjoyed the movie, despite the love story not gelling too well. A very interesting (and different) war story, only really let down by the English speaking Russians. This movie would have come into its own had there been German and Russian actors (aka Crouching Tiger). Recommended.
| 
