Rating: 
Summary: See this movie after you have read the book
Review: If you are interested in the turning point of the Eastern Front in World War II, I would encourage you to see this movie after reading "Enemy at the Gates" by William Craig.It would be very difficult to capture the full essence of the Battle of Stalingrad as detailed in the historic masterpiece by William Craig. Film director Arnaud did a great job of creating atmosphere with special effects in the introductory scenes. Why the writers created a fictitious story about a love triangle is not quite clear. It really does not add to the story line and discredits the film by needlessly altering historical fact. The ending of the sniper duel is pure Hollywood fantasy and a bit stupid. The German Master Sniper Konig strolls out into the middle of the street, in the light of day and Vassili puts a bullet through his brain. Hollywood Bolshevism rears its ugly head here and there in the film by downplaying the brutality of the NKVD Commissars to Soviet men, women, children and German prisoners. All one has to do is read the Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn to get the real story of the brutality of the Communists. The bloodthirsty hero of Stalingrad, Nikita Khrushchev, later nearly plunged the world into a nuclear World War III.
Rating:
Summary: Great War film !
Review: This movie is often compared to "Saving Private Ryan" and it is almost as good. The story is about a Russian Sniper who killed a lot of German officers during the siege of Stalingrad. The Nazi sent its own top sniper from Berlin to counter the Russian sniper. The Russian sniper played here by Jude Law and the German sniper played by Ed Harris. Performances are quite good and the movie is beautifully shot by director Jean-Jacques Annaud. Unfortunately the DVD sound quality is nowhere near the sound quality of Saving Private Ryan. If you watch this after watching Saving private Ryan DVD, you will be disappointed by the sound quality. The picture transfer itself is very good. If you like War movies, this movie certainly won't disappoint you.
Rating: 
Summary: The Truth Was More Dramatic
Review: I had high hopes for this film, and perhaps that's why I was so let down by it. A movie based on a very dramatic true life showdown between snipers during World War II featuring the amazingly talented actors Joseph Fiennes (Shakespeare in Love) and Ed Harris (Pollock) can't miss, right? Unlike the sharpshooters in the story, this flick misses badly. Mostly I blame the director, although the writer gets a big chunk of blame as well. The director, Jean-Jacques Annaud, seems concerned only with the visual effectiveness of the backdrops of this film and with nothing else. Joseph Fiennes is a terrific actor but the director allows his British mannerisms to show even though he's playing a Russian. Every time Fiennes pronounced Tonya as "Tonyer" it made the movie a little less real, which is the last thing a viewer wants from a historical drama. What I'll never understand is why the writer didn't stay true to history. The historical facts are much more dramatic than the story told here. Gone is the three day standoff between the Russian and German. Remember in Saving Private Ryan when the German sniper was killed by the bullet passing through his scope and hitting him in the head? That's how the real story in Stalingrad ended, but not in this film. The reason for this change is one of the snipers wants to go back to being a regular soldier. No reason is really given for his wishes. This is especially bad since he was pretty keen on becoming a sniper in the first place. The ending is anticlimactic, mainly because for most of the film we see the two snipers playing a game of cat and mouse. When one finally kills the other, it has nothing to do with sniping, and is only marginally connected to the game they were previously playing. The German sniper (Ed Harris) is woefully two dimensional, though Ed Harris manages to make him interesting even if we are never presented with the character's motivation beyond a single mention that his son was killed at Stalingrad when the Germans first attacked. The Russian's motivation is based in Hollywood clichés. This introduces a love interest and a spunky kid spy, as though simply staying alive isn't motivation enough. Despite some good acting (Bob Hoskins is wonderful as Kruschev), the movie descends into nothing more than a bland Hollywood war story.
Rating:
Summary: Cool
Review: Rivals SVP in my opinion. OK it's a bit slower paced and Jude Law is no Tom Hanks (no I didn't said Jude was a bad actor!) but...well...it's great like any WWII movie except pearl harbor
Rating:
Summary: Very well-done but could do without the dull romance!
Review: Enemy at the gates was really well-done, but the romance got in the way a little. Though it was pretty brief, still it could of done without. Trust me, love and war don't mix. It was definitely worth seeing and I highly recommend it. The war scenes (Sharpshooter scenes in paticular) were incredible. It seemed pushing to the end each and every one of the main characters were taken down one by one. Anyway, I did enjoy this movie not as good as SPR but it still had its perks.
Rating:
Summary: Worth a look
Review: If you liked Saving Private Ryan, you will definitely enjoy this film. I enjoyed this movie immensely, except for the ending. I was a little disappointed in the ending. I thought they could have made it a little more glorified. The acting in it at points, was mediocre. Don't get me wrong, it's still a worth while movie to see. I would definitely recommend this movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Better than Batman.
Review: I watched Batman and Enemy at the Gates today, and thought EatTG is much better. It had a very clear focus, the mini-battle between the snipers entwined with the love triangle (much better than Pearl harbor's love story), and they set it up well against the grand yet brutle background of the crumbing Stalingrad, arguably the greatest battlefield in WWII. The movie gave viewer a very human view of the German Major Sniper, making it a battle not between bad and evil, but between people who all were very deeply injured by the war. That humnan aspect, I believe, gave much life to the story. (Spoiler!!!) When Jude Law killed that Major, I was very much relieved, but also felt sad, considering that the Major wasn't so bad a guy. I didn't like Batman, because I didn't feel compassion toward the "Bad guys", and naturally, also felt less for Batman, and cared even less about the plot. Overall, it was a very intense and humane battle, though only two or so people were involved, and only couple of shots fired. The love scene was also very cute, I thought, because though they did it in such a improper and dirty public place, it was still so touching, considering bombs were been droped night and day and corpse is all you could see, and very true, considering their age and that natural desire for body contact. Sweet ending also. :=)
Rating:
Summary: what we think and what is reality
Review: there is no dou't the the brits and americans helped win the war against the nazi's but the truth be told we the (brits and americans) faced only 34% of all german ground forces.
What you see in the movie "Enemy at the gates" is as real as it will get without facing the sheer hell of war. This movie is an A+ 5 star movie in its shear depiction of hell on earth.
I grant you the stupid love ... could have been left out, but the hunter verus hunter, the hunting of hunters, as they the hunters hunt each other is in a league by its self.
It is nice to see a WW2 movie that does not have americans in, as we ONLY helped win in europe
Rating:
Summary: Unfairly compared to S.P.R.
Review: I found Enemy at the Gates to be an impressive war movie. Unfortunately, I think this is one of those cases where people came into it expecting something on the level of Saving Private Ryan and were inevitably disappointed. To be fair the two movies are cut from entirely different molds. Unlike S.P.R., Enemy relies heavily on its gradually intensifying and emotional storyline, which to some may make the movie seem to drag, but is a breath of fresh air to those of us who appreciate good writing, character development, and convincing actors. I also found the films evolving romantic elements to be consistent with the rest of the movie, not overbearing it to the point of distraction (as in Pearl Harbor). Evenly dispersed throughout the movie are some impressive bombing and battle sequences, as well as some brillantly choreographed sniper encounters. Visually, the film conveys an appropriately harsh feel not unlike S.P.R.; even Rachel Weisz's character wears very little makeup (although she never once lacks for sensual energy). The bombing sequences are simply stunning, delivering in boatloads the take-you-there realism we have come to expect from today's special effects technologies. As with movies like The Thirteenth Floor (who suffered from the success of The Matrix), Enemy suffered at the box office from the recent success of a blockbuster in the same genre, S.P.R. But with the release of Pearl Harbor we were shown just how poorly a contemporary war movie could be. So with this in mind and judging by its high sales, it is no wonder then that Enemy at the Gates has gained a newfound puplic appreciation, an appreciation I most definitely share.
Rating: 
Summary: Harris Very Believable Nazi; Rest Unbelievable As Russians
Review: I've read that there is enormous pressure to make all films English language because the profits are so much higher. That is why many foreign countries find their directors now shooting English language films. This film is a case in point with Frenchman Jean Jacques Anaud making yet another English language film with an all English language cast. He ends up with very uneven results. Everyone who is playing a Russian is patently unbelievable. Ed Harris, however, shows that an English language actor can pull it off if he is so intensely into the character that nothing else matters, including his native tongue. He brilliantly, quietly and incisively portrays a Nazi officer who has been ordered to kill the Russian sniper (Jude Law), who has been embarrassing Hitler with all of his German kills. Harris seems to understand that less is more when playing this kind of role. The others tend to overact to compensate, almost always a mistake. We start with the Battle of Stalingrad in WWII and there meet Joseph Fiennes, a rather creepy Russian officer, who commandeers Jude Law's character into being the master sniper who the Germans are eager to bring to a halt. Along the way there is a romance between Law and Rachel Weisz and we even meet Bob Hoskins as Nikita Kruschev! Law is sexy, as usual, but he is so obviously an Englishman that he can't bring this character entirely home to us. The romance aspect isn't bad. If Harris hadn't been in this movie though with the main cat and mouse aspect, I would certainly have labelled it an outright failure. Perhaps I've seen too many actual Russian movies, with subtitles and Russian actors, which interfered with my credibility level in viewing this film. That would seem to be a barrier that Anaud must overcome though if he wishes to continue to attract me to his work. His best English language film was "The Lover" set in Vietnam when it was French Indochina and populated by the French. Perhaps he needs to keep some nexus with his French heritage intact in his films and not drift into cultures totally alien to him.
|
