Enemy at the Gates Review

[CrapGame]

http://www.dailyradar.com/reviews/movie_review_332.html

[Frenchy]

Will that critic please tell us what he really thinks...man what a terrible review.

I'll read some others and see what they say about the movie.

------------------

Webmaster

http://www.trailblazersww2.org

http://www.vmfa251.org

[LuckyShot]

Here's the NY Times' take:

-------------------------------

March 16, 2001

'Enemy at the Gates': World War II From a Different Perspective

By A. O. SCOTT

Three years ago Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" was justly hailed as a breakthrough in war-movie realism, a harrowing immersion — particularly in its early battle scenes — in the brutal chaos of combat. But if Mr. Spielberg established a new standard for a venerable film genre, he also took a deliberate step backward, restoring to the war movie some of the grandeur and romance it had lost in the decades after Vietnam.

Anchoring his story to an unimpeachably good cause, he avoided the moral ambiguity and political queasiness of most Vietnam films and helped to inspire a swell of nostalgic sentiment for World War II. An enormous new memorial has been proposed in the middle of Washington, Tom Brokaw rules the best-seller lists, and movie studios are turning out big-budget World War II pictures like Michael Bay's forthcoming "Pearl Harbor" and Jean-Jacques Annaud's intermittently gripping "Enemy at the Gates," a long slog through the siege of Stalingrad that opens today.

In its attempt to set a story of individual love, valor and rivalry against the backdrop of a battle that lasted more than six months, claimed (by to some estimates) almost two million casualties and altered the course of the war, "Enemy at the Gates" deliberately solicits comparison to Mr. Spielberg's film. This is never more obvious than at the beginning, in which hundreds of newly arrived Russian soldiers try to cross the Volga into Stalingrad under heavy German fire.

The intensity of the bombardment, the cries of anguish and geysers of blood recall the Normandy landing in "Private Ryan." But in the middle of the effectively choreographed mayhem our attention is repeatedly drawn to the handsome blue-eyed face of a certain Russian soldier. Even under layers of muddy olive drab, weary and unshaven, this man is clearly something special. He's a movie star. He's Jude Law.

Mr. Law's effortlessly charismatic presence — his instinctive grace, his preternatural ability to seem at once clever and simple, steely and tenderhearted — signals early on that, for all its abundant gore and grit, this will be an old-fashioned, unashamedly hokey war picture.

Mr. Law plays Vasily Zaitsev, a real-life hero of the Soviet Union who became a crack shot hunting wolves as a boy in the Urals. After a disastrous assault on a German position, Vasily meets a Red Army political officer named Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) in a corpse-littered fountain and proceeds to pick off five Germans with five shots, from an impressive distance. Danilov, part of whose job is to print and circulate leaflets designed to boost the morale of the beleaguered citizens of Stalingrad, soon arranges Vasily's transfer to an elite sniper division, and news of the young man's feats of marksmanship make him something of a local celebrity.

Vasily's skill also turns "Enemy at the Gates" into a curious and oddly entertaining hybrid: Vasily's story resembles nothing so much as a baseball or boxing picture. He's like the Lou Gehrig of Stalingrad: a wholesome young man thrust half- unwittingly into the big time. Fan mail pours in; workers want to name their coal mine after him; the local shoeshine boy (Gabriel Marshall- Thomson) trails in Vasily's footsteps and memorizes his life story.

Danilov, at once Vasily's publicist and cornerman, burnishes his image (he makes the front page of Izvestia, which at least doesn't spin across the screen) and talks him through moments of self-doubt. But then the opposing team brings in a ringer, a legendary Nazi sniper named Major Konig (Ed Harris). He and Vasily conduct an elaborate cat-and-mouse game in the bombed-out architecture of the city.

The scenes in which they face each other, crouching in the rubble and hidden in heating ducts, tunnels and the aisles of a half-demolished department store, provide ample evidence of Mr. Annaud's dexterity and visual flair.

Although they're invisible to each other, the tense, almost physical intimacy that develops between the two sharpshooters is conveyed through eyeball-tight close-ups and carefully framed point-of-view shots. The director's unerring aim and cool concentration matches theirs, but it's a wonder anyone can concentrate at all amid all the noise. I don't mean the whistling bombs and pounding mortar fire but rather the keening strings, breathless angel choirs and tympanic rumblings of James Horner's characteristically abusive score.

The script, by Mr. Annaud and Alain Godard, is at times similarly overdone, a lurching mélange of the obvious and the implausible. Too many big sentimental speeches drain away the reservoirs of real emotion that accumulate in a few quiet, subtle moments. The suspense of Vasily's deadly competition with Konig is undercut by the love triangle that develops among Vasily, Danilov and Tanya (Rachel Weisz), a university-educated militia fighter eager to avenge the murder of her parents by the Nazis.

Tanya and Danilov are both Jewish, and the spectacled, anxious and possibly treacherous Danilov comes close to anti-Semitic caricature. Several times he expresses the view that he and Tanya are, owing to their background, more worthy of survival than the people around them. Perhaps this is a well-intentioned acknowledgment of specific and disproportionate suffering, but it also evokes some ugly, ancient prejudices. And surely there is something a bit unseemly in a World War II movie that puts the line "I'm following orders" in the mouth of a Jew.

The sexual rivalry between the openhearted Vasily and the neurotic Danilov resolves in a ludicrous moment of melodrama built around an astonishing speech in which Danilov concludes that because Tanya loves Vasily, Marxism is bunk. This is a crude moment, but otherwise the filmmakers succeed in finding an appropriate and tricky moral balance as they take sides in a fight between two dictatorships.

"Enemy at the Gates" does not minimize the heroism or the sacrifice of the Soviet people, but it harbors no illusions about the terrible cruelty of their rulers. Even as it rubs your face in a numbing, general slaughter, the film handles individual deaths with restraint, making them more dignified and more devastating by averting its gaze.

"Enemy at the Gates" has its deficiencies, but the first-rate cast is not among them. Bob Hoskins has a broad, entertaining turn as the porcine and profane Nikita Khrushchev, who arrives in Stalingrad to shake up the battered Soviet forces. The script gives him some howlers, but Mr. Hoskins howls them with great professionalism and panache.

Mr. Harris performs with his usual force and efficiency, allowing us a terrible glimpse at a monster who is also, somewhere behind those cold blue eyes, human. Mr. Law, in the tradition of Socialist Realism and Hollywood idol making, is at once larger than life and completely down to earth. In a relatively brief film career, he has yet to miss a target.

"Enemy at the Gates" is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). It has intense, nonstop graphic violence and one brief, not especially graphic sex scene.

ENEMY AT THE GATES

Directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud; written by Alain Godard and Mr. Annaud, inspired by the books "Enemy at the Gates" by William Craig and "Vendetta" by Derek Lambert; director of photography, Robert Fraisse; edited by Noelle Boisson and Humphrey Dixon; music by James Horner; production designer, Wolf Kroeger; produced by Mr. Annaud and John D. Schofield; released by Paramount Pictures. Running time: 133 minutes. This film is rated R.

WITH: Joseph Fiennes (Danilov), Jude Law (Vasily), Rachel Weisz (Tanya), Bob Hoskins (Khrushchev), Ed Harris (Major Konig), Ron Perlman (Koulikov), Eva Mattes (Mother Filipov) and Gabriel Marshall-Thomson (Sasha).

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company

[Atlas]

Do reviews really matter? We are all going to the movie. The question is: today or tomorrow. Please post your own review as soon as you are able.

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

Here is what I posted to usenet:

Saw it yesterday.

The movies is not that bad actually, if you treat it as a normal movie

with a love story on the background on WW2. If you do you recognize

that the battle scenes (not that many) are rather good for such a

movie and that the story itself is not complete bull**** like in many

"normal films".

It is actually a rather "rounded" film which has refreshingly free of

the usual Hollywood bull****, in fact it is a film with a convincing

lovestory and that is quite an accomplishment in today's movie

industry.

Or, to put it the other way round, Saving Private Ryan was in my

opinion intended to be a real war movie and failed at that, while this

film doesn't pretend to be something it isn't.

It is rather heavy on critique on the Soviet way of doing the war and

generally ignores the Nazis.

Equipment detailists will not be satisfied, eg they have German

railways locomotives (that didn't even had the track wide of Russia),

the Stukas flight curve follows some strange kind of physics not from

this world, but really no mistakes that would destroy the film for me.

The ending is definitivly patched up and not what was in mind when up

to the third-to-last minute was filmed, a happy end that is completely

unlogical after all has been prepared for the lone people ending.

As for remarks on the other threads [usenet], the German sniper does not go

after the girlfriend, but after a little boy, a friend of the couple.

The film gets a little unlogical here, the German sniper's figure

looses its character, in fact this figure's development over the time

is probably the weakest point of the movie. Adding to this, over most

of the movie Ed Harris is forming a person that doesn't fit with his

last actions.

This and the surprising ending convince me that some idiots made

last-minute changes to an otherwise better movie. There are also

actions that are clearly intended to be picked up later, but never

are.

The movie is also not as bloddy as it was describen to be, much less

so than SPR.

[scooleen]

Washington Post Review:

I don't want this to come out the wrong way, but Ed Harris makes an excellent Nazi.

In "Enemy at the Gates," set during the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942, he's the immaculately dressed Major Koenig, a German patrician who proudly wears his Iron Cross, speaks only when it's essential and smokes his gold-tipped cigarettes with the clipped savoir-faire of any great James Bond villain.

He holds his cigarette at a stiff 90 degree angle, savoring the smoke that he has just inhaled, his thoughts tenaciously focused on his mission: to kill a certain, persistent Russian sniper. Koenig is a sniper himself, the best in Germany. This is going to be quite a matchup.

This Russian sniper (Jude Law), a peasant named Vassily Zaitsev, has been hiding in the ruins of Stalingrad, plugging Germans by the dozen. His kills have become a sort of celebrated score sheet for Stalin's public relations mill; Vassily is an instant celebrity, the savior of his people, a hero for all time. Hope like that can change the outcome of a battle.

Naturally, the Germans need such a figure dead. In "Enemy," it comes down to this: a single bullet in either sniper's brain is going to settle the Battle of Stalingrad and World War II, once and for all. Does it get more riveting than this?

There are other people involved in this chess game: a Russian apparatchik named Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) and his communist boss (Bob Hoskins), who are using Vassily's success for the people's dailies; Tania (Rachel Weisz), a Jewish sniper who wants to shoot the Germans who just executed her parents, and who's falling in love with Vassily; and the teenaged Sasha (Gabriel Thomson), whose fickle impulses (he's an informant for both sides) could be Vassily's undoing.

An ambitious war epic (many scenes of massive slaughter and the destruction of Stalingrad) featuring a quintessentially American actor (Harris) as a Nazi major, a trio of People magazine cover-Brits (Jude Law! Joseph Fiennes! Rachel Weisz!) as Russian soldiers, and all of this directed by the Frenchman (Jean-Jacques Annaud), who made "The Name of the Rose," well, it gives you pause, doesn't it, monsieur, mein Freund, mate, dude or comrade?

But as long as you focus on the central sniper-versus-sniper story – and not the dreadful mishmash of jarring accents or the film's unconvincing romantic subplot or any of the personal relationships – you'll enjoy it. Sure, that's a lot of things to ignore, but there's ample enough left to enjoy.

The movie, based on the real exploits of a Russian sniper during World War II, certainly keeps your attention locked and loaded. That's because, most of the time, we are watching Vassily and Major Koenig in deep, perpetual concentration. They are after one thing: the perfect shot. And they're using the massively broken and destroyed Stalingrad as their battle ground.

A downed Luftwaffe plane, kilometers of old rusty factory pipes, broken walls, a cast-iron stove, the littered bodies of soldiers – these are things to hide behind. These are the milestones along that painful crawl to the perfect vantage point.

This movie may seem to some like little more than boys' war games. But director Annaud, who wrote this with Alain Godard, knows how to milk the suspense. It's clear that Annaud has seen and appropriated some of the gruesome battle details used by Steven Spielberg in "Saving Private Ryan." If nothing else, you really understand the impact of a bullet in this movie. And you appreciate the compelling excitement of shooting to kill, before the other guy gets you first.

"Enemy at the Gates" (R, 131 minutes) – Contains graphic war violence, nudity and sexual scenes.

[Guest machineman]

Well, Ebert seems to like it:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/gates16f.html

But "We are all going to see it anyway" probably sums it up.

[Spook]

Originally posted by scooleen:

Washington Post Review:

Naturally, the Germans need such a figure dead. In "Enemy," it comes down to this: a single bullet in either sniper's brain is going to settle the Battle of Stalingrad and World War II, once and for all. Does it get more riveting than this?

I will probably watch this film in due time, through rental if not by the theater, and make my own judgements as to what is good or bad about the film.

The above review, however, gets a big "thumbs-down" from me in its spouting off of bull**** hyberbole that the whole Battle of Stalingrad (let alone all of WWII) hinged on a sniper's duel.

[David Aitken]

Just got home from watching it. It's a bit fanciful, with a romance and such, but Rachel Weisz is believeable as a Russian, and it's good to see female soldiers in the fighting without any fuss. It's more of a drama than a documentary, but it stays on track. Go see it.

David

[Wolfpack]

Originally posted by Martin Cracauer:

Here is what I posted to usenet:

Saw it yesterday.

The movies is not that bad actually, if you treat it as a normal movie

with a love story on the background on WW2. If you do you recognize

that the battle scenes (not that many) are rather good for such a

movie and that the story itself is not complete bull**** like in many

"normal films".

It is actually a rather "rounded" film which has refreshingly free of

the usual Hollywood bull****, in fact it is a film with a convincing

lovestory and that is quite an accomplishment in today's movie

industry.

lol...yeah, the "usual hollywood bull****" has been replaced by typical Soviet propaganda bull****. I'll go see the movie, but also keep in mind that this is pretty much based on Soviet propaganda and not any real historical action. I'm sure there was a crack russian sniper in Stalingrad, probably more than one. But to imagine that his actions decided the battle? That's like saying to the Soviet troops that had held parts of the city for months, "Good job, but now let's get to the really important part". I mean, if this was so crucial, why didn't they just evacuate the city and let these two duel to decide the winner? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the bit about the Germans bringing out their best sniper to hunt him down is pretty much BS too. I think the Germans had a bit more to worry about than one sniper in the general context of the battle.

------------------

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

[Maximus]

Just a little nitpick here in some of your wordings in your reviews. Why use the word "Nazi" when describing German soldiers? That's like saying that all Americans are Republican now that we have a Republican President.

------------------

For your dream car click here.

For a Close Encounter click here.

Hey look! I can see my house!

And for all you Hamster Lovers out there, check this out! Kitty, this one's for you!

[Sgt Steiner]

Hi all

Just seen this movie here are a few pros & cons as I see them

Pros

Excellent sets evocing good atmosphere of Stalingrad.

Well done battle/action scenes as per above

Some nice touches such as PzIIIs & Sd251s

Overall general feeling of destruction of the city and grim conditions of soldiers

Tense sniper scenes throughout

Top notch acting across the board

Cons

T34/85s in 1942 (unavoidable perhaps and a minor nit pick)

Stereotyped Russians especially Political Officers

Somewhat unbelievable/incredulous use of Sasha character

Some dire dialogue.

..........

Overall more pros than cons for me and I felt I had good value for money. Not a classic (lacked emotional impact of SPR for instance) but a damn fine War Movie lets hope it does well and we see a few more.

Cheers

Gary Barr

------------------

Sgt Steiner

Belfast

NI UK

[Wolfcub]

i cant see this movie im only 13 oh well ill have to wait till it comes out on video

[M. Bates]

Originally posted by Maximus:

Just a little nitpick here in some of your wordings in your reviews. Why use the word "Nazi" when describing German soldiers? That's like saying that all Americans are Republican now that we have a Republican President.

But he might be S.S. (Ed Harris' character, not George Bush).

[Guest Mikey D]

The reviewers Ebert & what's-his-name (Siskel's replacement) both loved the movie without reservation. Me, I'm waiting to see it.

I've got a brother-in-law collecter who owns a WWII Russian sniper rifle, and the cross-hairs rifle view shown in the preview clip looked exactly like the view through the russkie scope!

[Guest Madmatt]

Lets not wade into the SS vs. Nazi vs. German soldier debate here please. It's old territory anyway.

I am going to go see this tonight and will post my critque on CMHQ later this weekend.

Madmatt

------------------

If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ!

Combat Mission HQ

Host of the Combat Mission WebRing

[BK6583]

Just a quickie comment. I too fall in the category of 'I'll go see it no matter the reviews'. I read the book many years ago but bought the paperback version at a airport bookstore before flying home today. In it there's a picture of Chuikov and Zaitsev (sp). I know this is Hollywood, but the Zaitsev in this picture is literally a boy who looks years away from his first shave!

[PeterNZer]

I quite liked it.. Hmm, but i dunno.. didn't really move me anywhere or take me anywhere. Half way through I thought I should have bought some coke and popcorn.. perhaps i got bored. Well, I did with the love story.

Ed Harris was great.

PeterNZ

------------------

- Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf -

Der Kessel scenario design group

Combat Vision movies

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

Originally posted by Maximus:

Just a little nitpick here in some of your wordings in your reviews. Why use the word "Nazi" when describing German soldiers?

Because I meant precisely what I said. I didn't mean the film ignores the Germans or German soldiers, it ignores the Nazi ideology and what it did to the German soldiers. On the other hand, it shows what the Soviet early way of fighting in WW2 did to the Soviet soldiers, although it does not show atrocities committed by the Soviet soldiers of behalf of themself.

Martin

[von Lucke]

Saw it today (one of the advantages of working nights):

Liked the first hour or so, when the movie is concentrating on setting up the place and characters --- but then it bogs. Could have done with some tighter editing, scenes drag on and there are some that really serve no purpose. The romantic triangle aspect of the movie is way too over-blown.

The German sniper's character is underwritten, and then goes completely against our impression of him at the end. Only thing I can figure here is that the writers wanted to show that Germans: Bad, Russians: Good. Otherwise, Koenig would have been too sympathetic to die. That's another thing; why Major Koenig? Why change his name from Col. Thorwald? Everybody else uses their "real" names --- even Danilov.

As someone else has pointed out, the ending scenes look like they where tacked on to please a wider audience. All it's gonna do is annoy them.

Over-all, an average movie.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

I saw it tonight. It's not great, but it's pretty good. The battle scenes were pretty good, and they explosions were realistic. The Pz III's looked pretty good, although I think there was something strange about the turret bustle -- but that's just a nit. The love story was sort of stuck on, but it wasn't really bad; just sort of unnecessary. I thought that Ed Harris was a pretty good Nazi, evil and sort of noble at the same time. Jude Law was a pretty good Zaitsev, and Bob Hoskins was a good Khruschev, too.

There were a couple of interesting touches -- one is that the fountain where Danilov met Z. had the sculpture of the dancing girls and alligators from the cover of the (hardback) "Enemy." Also, I particularly liked when, after a squad of Germans fired their SMGs at a bunch of Russians, the squad leader said, "Feuer einstellen!"

Once again, cool battle scenes, and nothing even semi-important was unrealistic (other than the love story). In fact, there were lots of nice touches like the soviet marines with their ammo bandoliers.

It's been a while since I read the book, but I thought that the major's name in the book was König. There's no way that this film is sov. propaganda, though.

[Los]

I saw it and liked it very much despite the twisting of actual events at the end. Great Sniper action, top notch. People make a big deal about the romance but this film statered out and remained throughout a war (sniper) movie with the love scene being ancillary. At least we got to see her ass! And as far as this mfilm making the Russians out to be good guys, well they made them out to be as bad as the Germans. Go see it, or else you won't be able to come on here and impress everyone about your WW2 knowledge by sharpshooting the flick!

Los

[infohawk]

I preferred the movie stalingrad...

[Crank_GS]

Just got back from the theater - I think it's a good movie. I enjoyed it a lot.

On a side note: I have searched through the web, but could not find a photo of Vasili Zaitsev. Can anyone point one out to me? Thianks in advance

------------------

Capt. Byron Crank, US Army

[Freak]

I just saw the film. I like it. It wasnt great but its worth it for a movie ww2 buff and movie buff alike. The fighting scenes are great. I liked how they showed the russian generals treating the russian soldiers so poorly at the begining of the film. They literaly threw them at the germans trying to overun the germans obviously unsuccesful. I had only heard about stuff like that so seeing that happen made me think twice about russia and its country in wwII time and now as a matter of fact. It was entertaining. There was the ususal hollywood like speaches by generals or specific characters that somehow seemed to alter the war, but thats to be expected. Overall a keeper. I will get this on DVD. Ed Harris stole the show IMO. Though they made his character do things that didnt seem to coincide with his overall character direction towards the end. It was still good. Oh and I dont know how authentic those german uniforms were, but man they looked pretty good.

[This message has been edited by Freak (edited 03-17-2001).]