| 
 enlarge | Actors: Matthais Habich, Ed Harris, Bob Hoskins, Eva Mattes, Ron Perlman
Studio: Paramount
Category: DVD
List Price: $9.98
Buy Used: $1.24
You Save: $8.74 (88%)
New (69) Used (98) Collectible (1) from $1.24
Avg. Customer Rating:  376 reviews
Sales Rank: 3090
Format: Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, Dvd-video, Subtitled, Widescreen, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Subtitled)
Rating: R (Restricted)
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 131
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.4 x 0.5
MPN: 097363386247
ISBN: 0792172760
UPC: 097363386247
EAN: 9780792172765
ASIN: B00003CXRA
Theatrical Release Date: 2001
Release Date: August 14, 2001
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Customer Reviews:
 4 stars - but with a few caveats... September 3, 2007
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
I enjoyed this movie, and give it 4 stars for its scenery, props and acting.
However, you'll have to already know (i.e., have studied) the Eastern Front war in general and the Stalingrad battle in particular to understand the overall war picture. By that I mean in the movie the Soviets seem to go from almost certain defeat to victory without explanation. (The real explanation, by the way, was largely twofold - the Germans grossly over extended their supply lines, and the Russians very smartly fed just enough troops into Stalingrad to keep the Germans fixated on "winning" there until the Russians could organize their encircling counter-attack. None of this comes out in the movie).
The setting, scenes, uniforms & weapons, were accurately protrayed to a very good level of detail. Too bad the plot wasn't treated the same. It starts off as a broad heroic story, which then narrows to a conflict between Zaitsev and Koenig, with a love triangle of Zaitsev-Tanya-Danilov thrown in. Plot development is the film's weakest point in my opinion.
There are some inaccuracies, such as the locking of the Russian cattle-car troop trains - that was NOT the Soviet's practice! They left them open in case of air attack. Things like that scene are most likely the result of American (or more generally, western) inclinations to view the Communists as indifferent to life or as some sort of slave-labor-based society. Mismanagement aside, the Russians suffered terribly from the war.
Its a good movie - but don't take it as history. Zaitsev was a real person though and a real hero, as was Tanya. Major Koenig is now believed to be a propaganda invention.
For the real story of Stalingrad, I'd suggest reading the book "Enemy at the Gates" by William Craig - a very easy read.
 Cat and Mouse May 10, 2007
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
Set during the fall of Stalingrad in World War two, "Enemy at the Gates" focuses on Vassili Zaitsev, a poor soldier who has a gift for sharp shooting. That gift comes to the attention of Commisar Danilov, who sees Zaitsev as a political propaganda coup for an ailing Russian military. The Germans call in a sniper of their own, a Major Konig, to deal with this sniper who is growing in fame.
The tension is thick in this movie, as the two snipers stalk each other. However, around them is the maelstrom of the Battle of Stalingrad. The stark realities of the Russian army are very realistic, with soldiers sharing a single weapon, living in horrid conditions, and suffering badly.
The attempts of the political officers to exploit Zaitsev for their own goals are also highlighted. Their sometimes cynical use of people to advance the glory of the Motherland is sometimes horrible to contemplate and view.
The movie is earthy and real, and the acting is excellent. Jude Law is great in the lead roll. I was very impressed with the cast of the movie.
Not an action filled gore-fest like We Were Soldiers (Widescreen Edition), it is certainly realistic in its depictions. It is a good movie with lots of tense moments. I enjoyed this movie a lot.
 A classic war movie! April 2, 2007
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
I love WWII movies. This one is a modern classic. Don't miss it!
A Battle that was won by other means March 24, 2007
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
[...]I watched the movie on TV recently without knowing beforehand whether the actual figures and plot were real or fictional.
The three central characters, two of whom at least were apparently real, make up the eternal triangle. The Russian sniper is the hero ( he was taught to shoot very accurately by his wolf-hunting grandfather: "put snow in your mouth so the wolf won't see your breath). He is made a hero by his would-be rival, the lovelorn Jewish Communist Party Commissar in charge of battle site propaganda. They are both in love with the lovely Jewish Soviet infantry heroine who plans to go and farm in Palestine if she survives the war.
The filmmakers, bending the truth, have made the sharp shooting activities of the particular hero a critical part of the whole Battle of Stalingrad. If the hero gets killed it will be a national tragedy, if not a disaster, For the Germans, if their sharpshooter is killed, who is shipped in from Berlin in a Pullman train specifically to wipe out the hero, it will be a humiliation. so much so the Nazi Major is told by General Paulus to remove his dog tags in case he falls. If you believe the film plot the duelling was apparently set up on purpose as part of the commissar's propaganda (I don't know if Danilov the commissar is real or fictional). Such a duel did take place but was probably not central to the Battle of Stalingrad (which was won in 1943 when the Russians surrounded the Germans who found themselves enclosed in the city and forced the whole army to surrender including the General). The victory is celebrated near the end of the film but it does not explain how the it came about, though no doubt the dogged resistance inside the city was very important.
The war action -particularly in the first half hour of the movie - is very graphic and exciting and more realistic than most war films. The romantic line , apparently real, between hero and heroine adds tone to what would otherwise be just another bang-bang movie for 100 minutes. I believe there is even a computer game based on the film that concentrates on the shooting gallery aspect. The film makers do successfully, if not entirely completely, put the Battle of Stalingrad in its perspective as arguably the turning in point in the European theatre of World War II, that drained Hitler's forces. But they do not explain that without the Russian victory at Stalingrad in 1943 the allied invasion of Normandy would have been impossible in 1944 and World War II would have been prolonged (assuming that America would have hesitated to us the atomic bomb it developed in 1945 against Europeans).
The action part of the movie is mainly focused on the Russian sharpshooter's duel with the elegant German sniper sent to cut him down. Action narrows from the opening mass battle scenes to a handful of Russian sharp shooters, who fall one by one to the cunning German ace and ends up with a one-on-one Western type gun duel. The sense of war is hell pervades the atmosphere of a ruined city in which fighting is from building to building. The Germans appear to have an air advantage and an ability to drop bombs with devastating impact but their tanks, confined by narrow alleys amid the ruins are not much help. I recently saw actual footage of the Battle in a German documentary on TV and the fountain featured early in the film also appears as it really was though not piled high with dead bodies. Not being a World War II expert I cannot quibble with the many minor historical mistakes that have been identified by purists but even if I were aware of them when I viewed the film it wouldn't have made much difference to my enjoyment. The cast all round is superb, especially the principal characters. My only complaint is the Hollywood type ending. The temporarily separated lovers meet in hospital before the final fade out In real life they both assumed each other were dead and didn't find the truth for many year afterwards. That would have been , in my opinion, a better ending than the fictional one contrived for no good reason by the filmmakers.Isn't it enough that both survived? Surely the assumption that American box offices need happy endings (if that was the reason for a dumb they lived happily ever after ending) is outdated?
An Engrossing Story of Two Man Hunters: Deserves More Credit Than it Receives March 14, 2007
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
For what it's worth, this film deserves more credit than it is frequently given. I think that most criticisms of the film stem from the reviewers entering the film with certain preconceived notions about how what the film was going to be, only to be let down. I don't blame the reviewers entirely. ENEMY AT THE GATES is a little unsure of what it wants to become. Should we make a film that accurately captures the battle of Stalingrad? Should we, instead, focus on the wonderful story of these two rival snipers? Or should we try and communicate an even more personal story about love and the evils of war? Unfortunately, ENEMY AT THE GATES tries to accomplish all three and, if judged by any single standard, ultimately fails.
Let me take them in turn. ENEMY AT THE GATES begins in a manner quite reminiscent of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. After a quick character development scene in which we see our young protagonist being taught how to stalk and snipe a wolf, we suddenly see him thrust amongst the Red Army, railed off to the shores of the Volga River, and thrown into the midst of a German siege. The opening is spectacular and moving. Thousands of Russian soldiers are being ferried across the Volga while German dive bombers and artillery decimate their numbers. As if that isn't bad enough, those wise enough to try and flee the fight are mercilessly gunned down by their own Russian commanders. While some have criticized this movie for historical accuracy, such things did occur. And just in case you think I'm trying to demonize the Russian commanders, ENEMY AT THE GATES provides these men with plenty of motivation. They are the ones who must answer to the high command, who demand victory at all costs. What would we do? Of course, this film is not perfectly historically accurate. From this point on, we do not get much story about the battle for Stalingrad. The ending of the film leaves the outcome of this battle completely mysterious. If you came looking for a movie purely about the battle and the Russian front, you came to the wrong place. While I think that the action scenes are skillfully handled, this is obviously not where the film's interest lies.
What is the interest? It is about the incredible struggle, based on true events, that occurred during the battle. For while both armies attack each other brutally, two men endlessly hunt each other, putting each other's skill to the ultimate test. Our protagonist, Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law), plays a Russian peasant who was taught by his grandfather how to shoot. An expert marksmen and natural talent, Zaitsev stalks the German army, proving his skill time and time again. Thanks to his friend Commisar Danilov (Joseph Fiennes), a political officer in charge of the military press, Zaitsev soon becomes an iconic hero of the Russian army--a symbol of communist dominance over fascist Germany. Germany begins to take notice and sends out their best sniper to hunt the young Russian down. Killing him would deal a symbolic death blow to Russia. Germany's marksmen is Major König (Ed Harris), an aristocratic deer hunter and the instructor at the sniper school in Berlin. As soon as König enters the picture, ENEMY AT THE GATES takes a dramatic turn. Suddenly, the film is about the rivalry of these two men. For me, this is the most interesting storyline in the film. Both Ed Harris and Jude Law have an intensity about them, often communicated only by turning the camera on their eyes, that is perfect for the silent nature of the sniping scenes. I could have watched a whole movie dedicated to only these two marksmen. The sniping scenes are expertly handled, the background sets of war-torn Stalingrad are amazingly detailed and completely set the tone, and the tension and suspense of these scenes is high.
But, alas, ENEMY AT THE GATES does not simply decide to abandon an accurate portrayal of the battle for Stalingrad for a more focused piece on these two snipers. Instead, an infamous "love triangle" is introduced to the film to stir things up. I say "infamous" only because it seems to have ruined everyone's day if you read the reviews on this site. While I would agree that this "love triangle" is not the most interesting part of the film, I do think that it has some merit. For one thing, it provides Zeitsev with motivation towards the end of the film. In the beginning, he seems to have nothing to lose, fully aware that each day may be his last. He is fearless in his struggle against the Germans. But as he begins to fall in love with Tania Chernova (Rachel Weisz), suddenly he has something to lose. Furthermore, his love provides him ultimately with the confidence and determination to put an end to König, who has been seemingly invincible up until that point.
The really interesting question, I think, is why not just have a love interest? Why involve a love triangle with Commisar Danilov? Here, I think that the film shines, at least in conception if not in execution. The love triangle provides Commisar Danilov with his ever-increasing menace towards Zaitsev. It makes him abuse his power and become the kind of evil man he once feared. This, in turn, only heightens our love of the protagonist, as his natural goodness is depicted side-by-side with the evil of his friend. One thing that kept occurring to me as I watched this film was the question: Who is the bad guy? Is it the Germans? Is it Major König? Is it Danilov when he becomes enraged at his unrequited love for Tania? Is it Kruschev? Is it the Russian generals who shoot their own troops? It's hard to say! All that we know is that Vassili is good. Perhaps the filmmakers didn't want to glorify the Russians? The truth is that no one ends up very good in this film, besides our two lovers. War seems to bring out the worst in everyone, even Danilov. Perhaps that is what ENEMY AT THE GATES is trying to strive for with its inclusion of the love triangle. War is evil. And humans are only pawns in the game.
Ultimately, I enjoyed ENEMY AT THE GATES. In fact, I enjoyed it more the second time I watched it. You cannot really knock it for not being an accurate portrayal of the battle of Stalingrad. It is focused on two men in the middle of that battle. Every film must explore life's events through the eyes of a few characters. That's where the interest lies! Anything else would just be a third-person perspective on explosions and gunfire. While I wish the film could have focused even more on the sniping angle than it does, I believe it to be a respectable war film and one that is quite interesting.
|
|
|