Enemy at the Gates

Rating:
Summary: Everything but the end . . .
Review: The weaponry, artillery, explosions, and wounds were all about as realistic as they can be. Extremely good acting, especialy by Ed Harris who plays the german major sent out to kill Vasilli. The setting was also unbelieveably accurate. The tactics used by the snipers were exact (except for the fact, due to time, that snipers sometimes will wait for days). The only thing different was the ending. Vasilli did not kill the German Major in the open. He actually saw a glint through a hole about four inches in diameter and shot through it and it happened to be who he was looking for. Otherwise an excellent movie. I would recomend it to anyone who likes a good suspenseful war movie.

Rating:
Summary: Grand but dull movie
Review: This movie could have been a great war epic if more attention had been given to the storyline. The sets and the war sequences are grand and one of the best in the recent times. The plot is bad and sometimes this movie is on the verge of called "boring". Jude Law could have been more expressive. If you watch this alone, you'll sleep.

Rating:
Summary: Getting to be more than enough of these.
Review: ENEMY AT THE GATES (2001, R= Strong Graphic War Violence, Brief Profanity, and Some Brief Sexual Content) The Cast: JUDE LAW, ED HARRIS, RACHEL WEISEZ and BOB HOSKINS. The Genre: ACTION/ROMANCE/WAR/DRAMA The Plot: In the European battles of WWII, the best sniper ever (Jude Law) is found by a newspaper reporter, who ends up turning the man into a celebrity soldier, who will give the country hope in winning the war. After the fact, another famous sniper (Harris) is on the trail of killing him off. BASED ON A TRUE STORY. What Works: Realistic depictions of the early stages in the European battles of WWII. Great performances and heart-pounding drama, as well as powerful directing top that all off. What Doesn't: The moments where yet another, but realistic, romance forms between JUDE LAW and RACHEL WEISEZ when using a historical event as a backdrop for it. As well as the sleepy moments in between battles that are supposed to be a major part of the film, but just boost up more of LAW's performance. Reality Check: The battles are very real, but the final battle in the end is out of purportion of what the actual events were like between the two snipers (Harris, Law). The Catch: Since there have been so many war films being produced lately, like THE THIN RED LINE, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, PEARL HARBOR, APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX- you may get tired of seeing another one. And this film does have some sex in it and strong, very graphic war violence- so kids should not see this film. OVERALL: "This film is great, but has its own portion of cliches that take away from what could've made it the best film of 2001. Yet the performances, directing and battles are powerful, which helps ENEMY AT THE GATES hold its domain in the 4 star area."

Rating:
Summary: a grate realistic war film
Review: I thought this movie was a grate action movie. And I loved the whole story and the plot as well. I say this is a must see movie, even if you are not a big war or violence fan. Which I am not, but it is well worth the blood because it makes a amazing story.

Rating:
Summary: Oh! No! Mr. Ed hope you took the money and ran...
Review: Just because you can do a thing does't mean you should. Which is too bad, because I like Ed Harris as a actor. But who's the hero here? The "glorious heros of the soviet union?" or the "evil" nazi out for revenge for his son's death? The nazis come off as cartoon characters and the the soviets? A hodge-podge of heavy english accents or very bad cartoon russian accents and acting that makes Borris Badinoff look good... You cannot produce goodness from the hearts of darkness and frankly that's what both sides were. The battle for stalingrad was a nasty brutish affair conducted by two of the most evil political systems this world has seen... Special effects, well golly gee whizzz and ho-hum. Just once I would like to see this computer generated crap done by someone who has actually been in a combat aircraft or fired a weapon and not gotten their ideas of "the real thing" from the digital mayhem of "Pearl Harbor". Save yer money and time and get The Longest Day or The War Lover or anything else but...

Rating:
Summary: Not completely accurate, but very good
Review: I enjoy historic movies, but can never understand one thing. If you are going to go through all the trouble of recreating a historic drama, than why not make it accurate? Vassili was not a dashing handsome young man. He was a rather portly, squinty eyed looking little devil. This should not take away from his supreme skill during the battle of Stalingrad (now St. Petersburg) where he demoralized the Nazis with his sniping abilities. The final confrontation when Vassili did cap the German sniper was not portrayed anything like the actual historic event. Vassili actually tricked him with a glove on a stick. As a movie though it is VERY good. The opening scene when the inexperienced Russians are thrown against the Nazi War Machine is every bit as good as 'Saving Private Ryan's' opening D-Day scene. There is a love triangle too in this flick, I thought it unneccesary, but it kept the movie flowing between hunting/hunted scenes. There actually was a female Russian sniper who scored 300 kills. The Russians actually employed hundreds of snipers in Stalingrad because guerilla warfare was the only way they could save their city. Anyone who wasn't assigned sniper duty, was issused a rifle that only had two settings, safe and fully automatic. I recommend this movie to anyone who wants to see a World War II movie without the over-whelming American patriotic, chest thumping, overly sentimental team USA #1 forever theme. After all it was a WORLD war and the US didn't fight it by itself, and all the heros were not American.

Rating:
Summary: There must be a God...
Review: Yes, it must have taken Divine Intervention to get a major movie producer to gamble on Nazi's vs. Communists. And where better to face them off than in Stalingrad? The movie admirably portrays two men, being used as pawns by their own repective totalitarian regimes, to win in a deadly sniper duel. The duel is essenitally a microcosm for the epic battle of Stalingrad, where close to a million souls died to claim possession to about 20 square miles of rubble. The German wartime arrogance and Russian wartime patriotism are well done in this film. Personally, I think Ed Harris' chemistry with young Sasha was Oscar caliber...though I'm sure that nobody in Hollywood will ever notice.

Rating:
Summary: Schematic war romance
Review: The setting is Stalingrad, 1942, as ill-equipped and ill-trained Russian soldiers face off against superior Nazi forces who leave their Russian enemies out-classed and out-gunned. Enter Vassily Zaietseff (Jude Law), a Russian shepherd promoted, on the strength of his superlative marksmanship, to an elite sniper by his compatriot Danilov (Joseph Fiennes). The story contains elements of rivalry, treachery, friendship, patriotism and sacrifice amidst the collapsing ruins of Stalingrad, as well as romance, once Zaietseff and Danilov find themselves competeing for the love of Tanya (Rachel Weisz), a dedicated and devoted fellow soldier and romantic interest. As Zaietseff's fame spreads as an expert sniper and Russian national hero (on account of his masterful assasinations of high-ranking Nazi officers), a German agent and veteran sniper, Konig (Ed Harris) is sent to make short work of the young and potentially dangerous Zaietseff. The most intimate encounter of the film takes place between the ageing, but lethal, Konig and Zaietseff as they attempt to dispatch each other across the Russain warzone. Moreover, their relationship is characterised by a high level of involvement and cunningly judged moments of violence and suspense. The opening reel (a charge of poorly-armed Russian infantry falling before the Nazis) owes a great deal to "Saving Private Ryan", though this film lacks the immediacy of Spielberg's now great war epic. Eventually, however, the ending is far too schematic and disappointing, even by Hollywood standards.

Rating:
Summary: This is not "Come and See"
Review: Jean Jacques Annaud's 'Enemy at the Gates' comes on like the nasty younger brother to Speilberg's 'Saving Private Ryan'. In Speilberg's vision, war is the final option by which Democracy can overcome Tyranny. In 'Enemy at the Gates' war is the meat grinder into which Tyranny casts its constituents.

The beginning of 'Enemy at the Gates' (EatG) deliberately echoes 'Saving Private Ryan' (SPR) but is the exact antithesis to it. In SPR, American GIs storm ashore on the beaches of Normandy. Subjected to murderous German fire (graphically depicted), the American's rely on leadership, firepower and clever tactics from experienced veterans to get them off the beach.

The experience of war for the Russian conscripts of EatG is somewhat different. Arriving on the east bank of the Volga in locked cattle trucks, their first view of Stalingrad is that of hell. They are subjected to continuous air and artillery attack as they cross the Stygian Volga in flimsy boats with little or no protection. Those who try to escape into the river are summarily shot by the Commissars. Upon reaching the city itself, half the conscripts are handed rifles ' the others are told to pick them up weapons as their comrades fall ' and are sent straight into battle with no planning or leaders against a well armed and prepared foe. Slaughter ensues and the NKVD mercilessly shoots down the survivors that try and retreat to their own lines.

Welcome to Stalingrad.

So begins a film of such potential and promise that it is hugely disappointing when it falls flat on its face. The story revolves around the exploits of Noble Sniper Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law). According to legend, Zaitsev was such a threat to German morale that they sent the head of the German Sniper School, Major Konig (Ed Harris) to deal with him. So far so good. Add love interest in the form of Tania Chernova (Rachel Weisz) and a triangle with Commissar/friend Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) and the potential was there for an adult love story (and I don't mean the XXX variety) set against a truly epic backdrop.

And what a backdrop! The recreation of the devastated city is truly awesome. Cold, yet burning, strewn with corpses and piled with rubble, the city itself becomes the most powerful character on the screen.

So what went wrong?

Well the actual script for a start. Basically, no relationship is developed between Fiennes and Weisz. This turns the 'love triangle' into a toothless dramatic device as the conflict between the two men is ascribed a political motive. There is no progression in the relationships between the characters ' they just seem to turn on and off as the vagaries of the script dictate. Also the Mrs Filipov character is meaningless ' she serves only to act as a mother for Sasha, a character that could just as well have been an orphan. By doing this she just sucks up screen time that could have been better used elsewhere.

Nothing serves to tie the events together into a convincing narrative, which, considering that the most important battle of the Second World War is taking place, exhibits extreme laziness on the part of the script writer and the director. No overall impression of the battle is produced, so there is no sense of urgency in the Soviet position. A string of battles take place but the viewer is in no place to put the pieces together, to watch as the German stranglehold on the city tightens. As the film progresses, the individual characters seem oddly divorced from everything else that's happening. Passing references are made to some significant landmarks, such as the Tractor Factory, the Chemical Works and the Department Store but the average viewer has no idea where these locations are and why they are important.

And to think it could all have been simply handled by placing the Danilov and/or Chernova characters in the 62nd Army headquarters makes the sloppy handling all the more mysterious.

Which brings us to the overall ambivalent treatment of the historical setting. No, I'm not complaining about irrelevant technical details such as when certain tanks were manufactured. But their is an overall disregard for the historical context of the setting. Using this film as a sole point of reference would leave you to believe that the Soviets were capable only of staging mass human wave attacks during the middle of the day and partying in the bunkers at night. In reality, it was the Soviet expertise in infiltration and night attacks that overcame the German superiority in air and artillery. Also, according to the film, the battle was managed by Kruschev (played excellently played Bob Hoskins) from a luxurious headquarters on the Eastern side Volga. No mention is made of Chuikov, the 62nd Army commander responsible for the defence of the city whose headquarters on the West bank of the Volga was frequently under direct German fire. The final Soviet victory is not attributed to any particular event either. One day, the Germans surrender. Why? There is not even a passing mention of the Soviet counter offensive that surrounded the German 6th Army in Stalingrad (this is doubly surprising as, in the film's timeframe, the German's were surrounded BEFORE the final showdown between Zaitsev and Konig).

One is also forced to wonder whether the German financing of the film was a consideration in the depiction of German forces, who are portrayed in much more even-handed light than is the Soviet Army.

So ultimately, the film fails. The true story of the battle of Stalingrad is so dramatic that if the film had followed the historical tension closely, a much more gripping film would have been the result. As it is we are left with a spectacular looking film (there has got to be an Oscar in there somewhere for set design) with some masterful moments and some relevant comments on the nature of tyranny and war. If only it had had a script'

It really only deserves 2.5 stars but for the magnificent set and the subject matter.

Watch it if you want, just make sure you watch Klimov's "Come and See"

Rating:
Summary: An exciting game of Cat and Mouse
Review: I thought this was a great movie. It has great special effects, Action, and pretty good acting. It is basically a cat and mouse game after a Russian soldier, played by Jude Law, does his heroic duty by getting out of a lose/lose situation, and is published in the army newspaper, and branded a hero. This is all and good until a General from Berlin, played by Ed Harris, who is nothing short of brilliant, finds out, and is sent to kill (Jude Laws) character.

Great acting all around by Rachel Wiess (The Mummy, Mummy Returns), Joseph Fiennes (Shakespeare in love) also.

It tries to copy Saving Private Ryan in some ways, but this one stands on its own, with a pretty good storyline and character development.

Special Features are pretty good, nice menus, some behind the scenes featurettes, and trailers. I would rent it before purchessing, just to make sure its to your liking...