Customer Reviews

Enemy at the Gates (Widescreen)

5 star:		(80)
4 star:		(64)
3 star:		(41)
2 star:		(31)
1 star:		(29)

 

 

It is so gratifying to finally see a major motion picture made about the WWII Russian Front. After all, it was the Red Army that inflicted 80% of Germany's total casualties in the war, a fact that many Americans remain sadly ignorant of. It is high time we get past Cold War attitudes and pay tribute to the heroism of the Soviet Union in its bitter but ultimately triumphant struggle against Nazism. _Enemy at the Gates_ is a movie of epic proportions, featuring good overall performances by a solid cast as well as a spectacular cinematic recreation of the bombed-out city of Stalingrad.

Still, the movie tends to drag at times, and could have been much better. The love triangle subplot was more of a distraction than anything else, taking up time that could have been better used to tell more of the awesome story of the battle of Stalingrad as a whole. Rather than simply having the German commander state, "These snipers are demoralizing my people," it would have been nice to have actually "seen" a little bit more of how the actions of Zaitsev and the Soviet snipers wore down the vaunted German infantry. Regrettably, the duel between Zaitsev and Koenig seemed to be taking place in a separate reality than the war itself, almost giving the impression that both sides had an unwritten agreement to let the two rivals shoot it out without interference. Also, the abrupt ending gave no explanation as to how the Red Army, seemingly on the ropes throughout the movie, suddenly emerged victorious. It would not have taken much film time to explain how this came about: the tenacity of Stalingradï¿s defenders drew the mechanized German forces into costly city fighting, allowing the Red Armyï¿s powerful reserves massed to the north and south to punch through the weak Axis flanks and encircle the Germans. Saving Private Ryan succeeded in telling much of the story of the Normandy invasion in a way that neatly complimented the movieï¿s plot. I wish that Enemy at the Gates had made more of a similar effort.

I know that ï¿dramatic licenseï¿ is a fact of life with historical movies, but it is way overdone in this one. The opening sequence of the Volga crossing is powerful filmmaking and is mostly accurate up until Zaitsev and his fellow soldiers enter the city. The following part about only every other man receiving a weapon and being sent of in a suicide charge is purely the stuff of legend, though, more fitting of the WWI Russian Army or a Soviet punishment battalion. The reality was that the Red Army in Stalingrad fought mostly in small detachments armed with submachine guns rather than rifles, moving stealthily amongst the rubble and ambushing the Germans in brutal house-to-house fighting. This sort of close-quarter combat, where the front lines were often separated by less than 20 yards (or even a mere hallway or staircase), would have played out on screen just as well (better, in fact) as the ï¿charge of the Red hordeï¿ that is the stuff of popular imagination rather than true history. The conclusion of this scene is misleading, as well. The Soviets did shoot many deserters who attempted to flee the front lines, but this degree of harshness did not apply to survivors of a failed attack as shown in the film. The commanders of the Red Army were often brutal towards their men, but not quite that brutal. As for the way the sniper duel is finally brought to a close, with Koenig walking upright in plain view towards what he suspects is the spot where he has just shot Zaitsev dead, it is just ridiculous. Not even a rookie sniper would have made such a fatal error, much less an instructor.

The Soviet characters all share the names of actual people, but none are true to their real-world counterparts. Vassili Zaitsev was more of a natural leader than the movie gives him credit for, not just a shy boy from the Urals reluctantly pushed into the limelight. Danilov, the political officer, appears to have been crafted by the screenwriters almost solely in order to make a faddish intellectual statement about the pitfalls of Communist idealism. The real Danilov was shot (though not fatally) when he foolishly stood up to point out Major Koenigï¿s location to Zaitsev, not in an act of suicide. Tania Chernovaï¿s on-screen character was the furthest from reality, though. She was actually a short, temperamental blonde who had previously fought as a partisan in Byelorussia and the Ukraine. A veteran killer by the time she arrived in Stalingrad and possessing a single-minded hatred of the Germans, the real-life Tania could hardly have been more different from the sensitive student/soldier who never actually fires her rifle once throughout the whole film. Also, Chernova was likely Ukrainian, not Jewish (only worth noting because of the widespread myth that most Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis as liberators from Soviet rule). Ironically, the character that seemed truest to reality was Major Koenig, a shadowy figure who some historians claim might never have existed.

Though I used most of the space here to criticize this movie, I guess the fact that I bought the DVD means that I nonetheless enjoyed it. I probably would have rated it better were I not such a Russian history buff. Do yourself a favor and take the time to read both _Enemy at the Gates_, by William Craig (a very readable non-fiction account of the whole Stalingrad campaign) and _War of the Rats_, by David Robbins (a novelized version of the sniper duel that is both a better story and closer to historical fact than this movie was). My main regret is that the filmï¿s potential was largely squandered to make room for unneeded political rhetoric and melodrama. I only hope that its mediocre performance will not discourage film producers from backing other Russian Front projects in the future.

I was left with mixed feelings about this movie; I felt that a fairly good job was done at recreating the feel of Stalingrad during the seige--the chaos, desperation, brutality and inhumanity. War is shown for what it is: insanity and a useless waste of life. But on the other hand, the story was a bit lame with the romance and the jealousy and all that. And yes, the dialogue was pretty questionable, as well. Not the great film that I was led to believe that it was, but not all that bad, either.

1. Humanity: Stalingrad, with its torn buildings, dismal skyscapes, and eternal battles of gunfire, is almost more important than the sniper Vassily, the main protagonist. What does the landscape of the city tell you about the passions of men?

2. Implications: This film tries to pay credence to both the Russians and the Germans, while trying to play at their faults as well. It appears, however, that the film is still in favor of the Allies, from the distasteful humor in Major Konig toward his work, the ominous rows of sleek black German battle tanks, and the hopeful dancing of the Russian soldiers who knew they were to die. How does this movie paint the German personality? Do you think it is a valid statement?

3. Evolution: Cinema has seen many, many WWII films. From the blood and dust of Saving Private Ryan, to the practical jokes and youthfulness of The Great Escape, WWII films showcase a museum of human feelings regarding the Second Great War. Where does Enemy at the Gates fit into this grand tradition? How does it compare?

4. Realism: It's obvious the film tries to be realistic. The bloody battles and lost friends and gloomy atmosphere only emphasize and accent this theme. Yet there is a certain glee in the gun-battles, as if it were a video-game being played out. This is perceived in the cycling of snarpshooters beside Vassily the inevitable conflict between Vassily and Konig, the kill count papers, and the soap-opera love triangle between Danilov, Vassily, and Tanya. Do these elements become shortcomings, or do they flourish the film in its cinematic quest?

5. Stageplay: One of the first surprises of the film is that the Russian actors have British accents, while the Germans have German accents and speak English. How does this affect the atmosphere of the film?

This film should have been great. Its clear that the director has a great eye for detail such as the the realistic Children's Fountain which matches the real life documentary footage of the battle. I can even overlook the fake CGI stukas which don't look quite real as well as the soldiers standing alongside the Panzerkampfwagen IV shooting their guns in a completely un-realistic fashion. At least the tank is not a Sherman with German markings which you so often see, so I was kind of impressed with that.

In fact I was pretty well captivated with this film ... until things started to descend into Buddy-Buddy-Movie hell where I was half expecting Zaitsev the sniper & his new chum the Political Commisar to start exchanging 'High Fives' & 'Home Alone' 'YES's. And add in a Hollywoodesque ubiquitous love triangle and I found the whole concept barely tolerable.

The dialogue is not the best I have heard, but the irritation factor is magnified by the Cockney accents which halted my suspension of disbelief.

The actors certainly try their best & if this film was the 'Rats of Tobruk' I'd be pretty pleased with their performance, but hampered by an appalling script & a clueless yet earnest director, they fall way short of expectations.

Its still worth checking out but to have repeated viewings is a asking a bit too much.

Wow! Who could have guessed that plucky little Vassili would get the drop on Hitler's top gun, spork the local hottie, make headlines, win medals, and even get a hug from Kruschev? Oh yeah, all the shots and explosions are because it happened during the Battle of Stalingrad. I give it three because there is a great deal of fabulous eye candy.

This is a gritty look at Stalingrad as best the wimpy, limp wristed liberals in the American public can stomach it. Russia was winning a war against Nazi aggression in eastern Europe long before America and England were anywhere but in Arab states who would adopt Hitler's philosophy of governmental murder after we departed.
The suffering, treachery and hellish life of a Russian soldier is well captured in this bleak and often depressing movie. The good guy fights for the bad guys, who are beating the montrously Satanic guys. Look if you dare. And thank a Russian later.

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.

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!!

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 have 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....

It's amazing how you can see a full-production, serious Hollywood film about World War II and not have it be about pain, nationalism, classism, xenophobia, primitive regression, freedom, social control-you know, the things war is about-but instead have it just be about a guy getting laid, his friend's envy over the fact, and the near (naturally near) loss of his betrothed to circumstances beyond his control. WWII...American high school...is this a disturbing mix up, or is it just me? (I'm not sure of the reasons for the conflation, but I suspect it might be because audiences really don't want a film about complicated issues and that film makers, with deadlines in one pile and bills in another, know this. It's a well oiled war machine, the film industry. But now I conflate!)

Jude Law plays super sniper and Soviet national hero Vassili Zaitsev and is amazing as always. Somehow I can loath a movie with Law in it and still like him and his character. In EATG, Zaitsev's relationships with others unfortunately become purely device driven: it's the stock Romantic Interest / Best Buddy / Arch Nemesis trio. Joseph Fiennes (Best Buddy) is Commisar Danilov, an erratic propaganda writer who becomes Vassili's biographer for the Soviet papers. As you'd half expect ahead of time, Danilov betrays his friend in the final act. But as if his motivations were never worth our time, Danilov then sacrifices his life so that Vassili can win his struggle with stone faced Ed Harris, who plays König (Arch Nemesis), a German Major sent by the furor to snipe the sniper. The subplot of Rachel Weisz as Tania Chernova (Romantic Interest), aside from a surprising, well acted public sex and probable deflowering scene, is so superficially presented it's hardly worth analysis.

I don't know. When I see a war flick like this-one that follows a single individual around-I always feel like I'm watching a movie about the concept of luck, and how interesting a theme can luck really make, even in a war picture? So even though (and because) it's trite to tears, it's fitting that Fiennes' final lines-just before by far the most stylized "shot" of many bullets to the head in this film-argue there're basic flaws in the communist dream: "some will always be lucky...lucky in life, lucky in love." Wow. War really makes you think, doesn't it?

It's impossible for me to give this movie any dramatic weight or credibility after a disappointing scene like that, even considering the (light) treatment of issues of intellectualism and war throughout: the refraining metaphor of the bullet to the brain; the underground library stocked with both Marx and Göethe; ever relevant questions of media, truth, and propaganda. (Most frustrating, the deconstructive fact that the obviously over embellished story is based on Soviet war literature to begin with makes the film makers seem oblivious to their own subject matter.) All this must have felt like representing the heavy tomes of 1940s Eurasian bloodshed over conquest and racism with a tangible moment for script writers Alain Godard and Jean-Jacques Annaud. But when the political struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie gets cast as little more than a booty call, the effect only seems unintentionally comedic.