Rating: 
Summary: good bot not great
Review: This was a good movie, but it could have been so much better. The British accents were a big disappointment for me, they really took away alot of realism. They could have done it Red October style, with the Russians actually speaking Russian, then do a close up of the mouth, then you hear english. With British accents I'm expecting John Cleese and Michael Palin to come out and do the "Parrot Sketch". Visually the beginning of the movie was the best part, the chaos and horror of war is right there in your face. then we focus on 2 snipers, as if the battle for Stalingrad depends on them, not likely. The child character was very corny. A British Brady kid if I ever saw one. And was the stupid love triangle really neccassary. Its soul purpose was to attract more females to movie, nothing more. All in all this movie gets 1 star for bieng visually amazing, but the rest was awful.
Rating: 
Summary: Finally, a great Soviet WW2 film!!
Review: I love this movie for many reasons. One being its about the elite Soviet sniper, Vasily Zaitsev. The other being that Vasily is the anitithesis of Vash the Stampede from Trigun being that Vasily is ruthless against the Nazis, he kills lots of them!! The next being that it's about a Soviet hero in WW2. The majority of WW2 films involve Americans killing Nazis or the Japanese. This movie was also played out excellently with the great cast of Jude Law, Bob Hoskins, Rachel Weis, Joseph Fienes, and Ed Harris. Most people say that Saving Private Ryan is the best WW2 movie ever, I say Enemy At The Gates is. I got a big kick out of seeing a Soviet sniper kill lots of Nazis without hesitation. This being one of the reasons for the Soviet victory at the Battle of Stalingrad. This movie was based on the true story and it was show rather historicly accurate. Vasily finally gets the treatment he deserves!! Watch it, you won't regret it!!
Rating: 
Summary: Why You Can't Always Get a 5-Star Rating
Review: For those who might think I only review things I'm wildly enthusiastic about, I have to rate this DVD a 4. Why? It is in English.When it comes out in German, or Russian, with English subtitles, I may offer a different opinion. However, all I know about the Battle of Stalingrad, which I won't pit against a professional historian, suggests that some of the themes dealt with in this movie, cannot be dealt with in English. To wit, I include: 1. What it meant to be a Jew in Stalin's Wartime Soviet Union. No matter how beatiful the Jewess, she should be heard in Russian. 2. No matter how evil, no matter how great the actor, a German major top sniper should speak German. I think Ed Harris is among our greatest actors. He does a magnificent job here, even hanging the young Russian boy who has acted as a double agent, appearing to be sympathetic to the German sniper sent to eliminated the great Soviet hero. 3. Stalingrad was more than mud. This movie somehow bypasses the absolute worst period of the Battle of Stalingrad. See the German film of 1992, titled, "Stalingrad." The winter defeated the Germans, not the Russians. This movie bypasses the period from November, 1942 to February, 1943, when General Paulus' Army surrenders. In addition, the position and personager of General Paulus, who committed high treason by surrendering, is given rather short shrift here. 4. This is just NOT a great battle or historical film. The known actors do not invalidated that. It is all just too "easy" (such as the Major "hearing" the snipers approaching a known pathway through pipes in a nearly silent factory, at a time when there could nearly have been no such silence. In addition, the impression is given that German fighters followed the Major as he stalked the heralded Soviet sniper, and to my knowledge, ther is no evidence this happened. Those sequences simply are too "computer graphic." 5. War is a great backdrop for a love story, but Stalingrad was no love story. I refer the reader back to the German film, Stalingrad. Whether historically accurate or not, this simply is too romanticized a version of a Jewish woman falling in love with a Ukranian peasant, spurning her "true" beloved, the Jewish political officer. The ending of the film Stalingrad, in which the surviving "whore" of of the German officers is killed trying to save surviving Germans, is more believable. 6. Convenience. Glass "falling" so that antagonists can see one another in deadly confrontation, went out with "Father Knows Best." It decries the suspension of disbelief needed to be impressed by such a confrontation. 7. So, I suggest, see this film, but understand its weaknesses before you invest precious time. Otherwise, I recommend "Stalingrad" (the German film), which is worth seeing, even if you are multitasking. 8. It is never as simple as, "shoot soldiers to get them to fight" or "give them hope" or "give them a reason" (see Gettysburg, to wit). Here, we're led to believe that Khruschev was easily enticed from one philosophy to another. I doubt it greatly. Get it? I hope so. Cheers to my readers....
Rating: 
Summary: Starts great, goes wrong
Review: I suppose I'm churlish for not liking this movie. Not having seen ads or reviews and not having read the book, I was misled by the opening sequences into thinking that this was a movie about the battle of Stalingrad. The opening sequences are very effective and impressively nightmarish in showing that "war is hell," a message one can't hear too often. Then it all goes dreadfully wrong, as the viewer is expected to be interested in a farfetched cat-and-mouse game between two snipers. This is such small potatoes compared to the start of the movie that I turned it off in disgust. As with virtually all "hit man" movies, I quickly lose interest in "who kills who?" as the body count increases. But I guess if you liked Pulp Fiction, you may like this.
Rating:
Summary: definitly one of my favorites
Review: This movie is great for the life of me i cant figure out why some people give the movie bad ratings if you are the most hardcore war movie goer you might want to skip this one but for those who just want to see a good entertaining war movie this is it. This is easily better then platoon and o so many others.
The basic plot is about a man who is in the soviet army. The beginning is very graphic showing how russians were forced to charge the enemies at all cost very sad begining then you get to see the main character show his sniper skills where he snipes 5 nazis he goes on to becoming a full time sniper sniping many nazi officers. germany decided to send there highly trained veteran sniper to kill the russian sniper
so it becomes a war between to countries and a fight between two men. It might sound a little cheesy but i assure you its not i widely suggest you buy it or atleast see it. if you would like to know a little bit about me and what other movies i suggest you buy go to my site on amazon and look at my dvd collection.
Rating:
Summary: Two sympathetic foes
Review: This movie accomplished one thing which I especially appreciate: it dispelled the ridiculous prejudice against snipers. Snipers take out targets of value (usually officers) at long range, potentially deciding battles with fewer casualties among the "grunts" than would occur in an assault. That being said, I found myself identifying with both snipers in this movie. The German was, of course, not a communist, and any communist he sent to the hereafter made the world a better place, but Jude Law's character was not really a communist either. He was simply an ordinary person used as a tool by the most prolific murderer in human history: Stalin. He was just doing his bit for "Mother Russia". So we have two basically good human beings plying their trade against each other, in the service of two monsters. In the final analysis, when it's Nazi v. Commie, whom do you root for? Logic says neither, which calls into question why our country sent so much aid to the Commies, but that's another topic.
Rating:
Summary: Suspense and action!
Review: "Enemy at the Gates" was quite interesting. It was about the Germans attacking and trying to take over the Russian City of Stalingrad during World War II (WWII). I had no idea the German army had gotten that far into Russia before. But then again I didn't immerse myself in studying WW II either. I'm not sure just how much of the story line was based on fact but if most of it was true then I am totally amazed. The opening scenes were brutal and reminded me of the first half-hour of "Saving Private Ryan". They showed the Russians coming off a train. Every other soldier in line was handed a rifle; the next person in line was handed the ammunition. They were told if the person in front of you gets killed, grab the rifle and go on yourself. As they crossed the river to attack the enemy and defend their homeland they were virtually massacred. If the Germans didn't kill them, their own officers were shooting them calling them cowards. One man, Vassily Zaitzev portrayed by Jude Law, came to the aid of another, Joseph Fiennes character Danilov. The way Vassily fired his weapon was certainly what made the story. He soon became a member of a sniper crew. Thanks to Danilov his name and face was in the papers. His superiors made a big thing out of him. The country needed a hero and he was to be it. It wasn't long before the Germans sent in their top sniper, Major Konig played by Ed Harris, to try to locate this now famous Russian. The movie then went back and forth between the two men and what they were doing. The film was suspenseful. It had action, combat scenes, intrigue, heroes, villains, and a little romance. The ending left me bewildered but I'm not going to ruin it for you. This film was well worth watching.
Rating:
Summary: Eyeball to eyeball warfare defined.
Review: Understanding history is always dicey when using any cinematic production as a guide, however, after viewing "Enemy at the Gates", it is no great stretch to understand why the Russian people felt such an intense animus for would-be German occupiers during WW11. Roiling within the brutal warfare that engulfed Stalingrad was a more personal conflict that is the subject of this highly entertaining movie. Two exceptional men, one a common shepherd from the Urals, the other a well-born officer fighting for the cause of Hitler. Both were gifted sharpshooters. This is an utterly facinating look into the world of snipers and the psychology that motivates them. Jude Law was Vassili Saitsev, a real life hero in the battle for Stalingrad and was portrayed by Law as a simple soldier engaged in an intense and deadly life and death duel with Major Konig (Ed Harris). Both Law and Harris have deep penetrating eyes that served well in emphasizing a deadly job behind the scope of a high powered rifle. In an area of specialized warfare where no margin for error exists, it takes a special type of person who can sit motionless for hours or even days waiting for the right moment to squeeze the trigger. This epic movie is very well done, the special effects are detailed and breathtaking and used only to support the film, not drive it like some of the demographically motivated drivel that all too frequently dominates a domestic Hollywood production. The supporting roles were well cast and rounded out ably enough. Bob Hoskins was quite believable in portraying the dogged menace of a wartime Nikita Khrushchev. Lovely Rachel Weisz (The Mummy) and gifted actor Joseph Fiennes (Shakespeare in Love) fleshed out the cast in their supporting roles as Russian soldiers driven to protect the homeland. Highly entertaining.
Rating: 
Summary: not too bad.
Review: First let me say that this is worth watching for the entertainment value, and especially if you're into military history.
The two things that really annoyed me were the addition of a romance into a true story (I hate when they do that), and the massive number of technical mistakes. I noticed 2 technical mistakes in the opening scene when young Visili is hunting a wolf, the first 2-3 minuntes of the film. Why whould you NOT shoot at a wolf when its sitting still, but then take your ONE & ONLY shot as the wolf is running at nearly full speed across your field of vision (maybe 30 yds closer)..? This kind of ridiculous crap is repeated but I'll spare you my rants.
Rating:
Summary: The sniper who won the battle
Review: I usually don't write reviews on films, but the Enemy at the Gates is a good exception to the rule. It is about the battle of Stalingrad (russian for the city of Stalin), one of the fiercest and cruelest battles of human history, where dozens of thousands of people were killed and which culminated with the nazi loss of face, defeat and winter retreat of its troops trough the Russian prairie, a sour pill gulped down before by Napoleon and his army. War is in itself the theatre of antipodal human sentiments of Love & Hate, Elation in victory versus Frustation in defeat, Magnanimity of the conqueror and Cowardice of the conquered and the film provides a lot of such stuff . It is also a "decipher or I will devour you", a Greek play of human sentiments magistrally transported to the wide-screen by the renowned French director, a game of chess between two of the best snipers of the nazi and Soviet army, who fight one each other till one prevails. But many die before this happens, and many love triangles are to be ruptured by envy, delation and intrigue, just to name a few of the human sentiments parading in front of you in the big screen. Politics of the time is also on display, and the defender of Stalingrad, Nikita Kruschev bets all his chips in the propaganda chessboard. The rationale behind each shapshooter's move is amazing, and in order to survive they have to know in advance all the steps to be taken by their opponent. Who will win in the end? The Russian or the German? See the film and you will know the surprising end. A good film to buy and to see many times. I hope you enjoy it as I did.
|
