|
| 
 enlarge | Actors: Matthais Habich, Ed Harris, Bob Hoskins, Eva Mattes, Ron Perlman
Studio: Paramount
Category: DVD
List Price: $9.98
Buy Used: $1.35
You Save: $8.63 (86%)
New (77) Used (115) Collectible (1) from $1.35
Avg. Customer Rating:  377 reviews
Sales Rank: 4188
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
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Duel in the rubble of a burning city January 24, 2005
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
The fortunes of the Second World War on the Eastern Front were played out both in a macrocosmic and a microcosmic way, the former being the German army versus the Soviet army, the latter being the personal duel of two opposing infantrymen in war-torn Stalingrad in the autumn of 1942.
Such is the setting for this movie, which deals with the brutality of the no-holds-barred war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, where no quarter was expected or given. Stalingrad was to be epitomized as the turning point of the war on the Eastern Front (and the graphic showing the map of Nazi-occupied Europe being "inked" over by a spreading swastika showed this memorably), yet the focus for this film was on four particular people: sniper Vassili Zaitzev (Jude Law), upon whose real-life experiences in Stalingrad the film is based, the political officer Danilov (Joseph Fiennes), their mutual love interest Tania (Rachel Weisz) and the German army sniper Major Konig (Ed Harris).
While the Germans do their level best to kill every Soviet army soldier in sight both on the ground and from the air, the Soviets have to kill the enemy as well as avoid being shot themselves for "cowardice". In one harrowing scene, shortly after Zaitzev lands ashore after being nearly killed while crossing the Volga in a flimsy passenger boat, soldiers fall back after an utterly ill-thought-out infantry attack involving both armed and unarmed soldiers against enemy positions, such was the desperation - and absurdity - behind the "tactics" intended to throw the enemy back, only to be mown down by fellow soldiers at the behest of fanatical "no-retreat" officers.
And yet even the German commander-in-chief (Matthias Habich) tells Konig upon first meeting him that his army "was not meant for this kind of fighting", a sign that defeat was already on the way - hence, the (unrealistic) idea that the killing of Zaitzev might somehow demoralize the Soviets to such an extent that they may lose heart in fighting for Stalingrad's survival. Certainly, Krushchev (played with vigor by Bob Hoskins), after hearing a report that the famed shepherd boy from the Urals had been killed, believed that with that memorable line to Danilov, "What are they [the Germans] supposed to do? Dangle his body in front of our men?!"
Many war movies, amongst them "The Blue Max" (1966), "Mosquito Squadron" (1968), "Zeppelin" (1971) and "The Pianist" (2002), inevitably involve principal male characters falling in love with female characters, yet such sub-plots usually are seen as doing more to damage, if not derail, the main story. In this case, it is the "cat-and-mouse" sniper duel between Zaitzev and Konig, with "moves" being played out according to information being passed on to both men by a boy named Sacha (Gabriel Marshall-Thompson), who believes in Zaitzev yet ultimately loses his life in a shocking way.
With the "love triangle" involving Zaitzev, Danilov and Tania, it is tempting to believe that it is totally unnecessary and might lead to many in the audience cringing to the point of frustration, given the amount of time devoted to it. Nevertheless, instead of putting Russia first, Danilov's interest in Tania and his jealousy betray his weak character, as he is prepared both to abandon his main propaganda tool and to betray his comrade by daring to report to the authorities Zaitzev's alleged "change of attitude", much to the shock of the woman who has to type his lies (although, curiously, this betrayal is never followed up). With friends like him, who needs enemies? Certainly not Zaitzev, who admitted to Danilov at one point that he was on the verge of cracking up, because he was being made to carry a burden that he would otherwise never have chosen had he realized what Danilov was getting him into. Only the manner of Sacha's death stiffens the Russian sniper's resolve to kill the German responsible.
As a war film, "Enemy at the Gates" has more going for it than some might suggest. As well as Robert Fraisse's photography of a city being bombarded and destroyed, the dark colors and constantly burning buildings creating the mood, Alain Godard and Jean-Jacques Annaud, both of whom had worked together on "The Name of the Rose" (1986), have produced a memorable movie dealing with one of the darkest chapters in world history with their meticulous attention to detail. Even the scene where Zaitzev tells Tania, "These people know they're going to die, so each night they come back is a celebration", shows just how characteristically the Russians viewed both their lives and the situation in general, as they battled to keep Stalingrad in their hands, which they eventually succeeded in doing after 180 days of the hardest fighting ever experienced by two opposing armies during what the Soviets termed the "Great Patriotic War".
Soviet hero at Stalingrad January 7, 2005
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
I am bit amused to read so many negative reviews about this movie which people complaints of historical inaccuracy and all that sort of nonsense. And these are probably the same people who praised movies like Braveheart, Elizabeth, Windtalkers and other numerous historical movies that have no concept of being historically accurate.
Enemy at the Gates is based on the true Soviet hero but obviously it been fictionalized to meet the Hollywood's standards for entertainment and story. This is typical and not abnormal as some people thinks. Jude Law does an very good job in the lead role and he proves to be well supported by his supporting cast members like Joseph Fiennes, Rachel Wiesz and Ed Harris. Does it really matter if Ed Harris' German sniper ace really existed or not?? Does it matter that Mel Gibson wore kilts in Braveheart when real William Wallace never did?? Or Christ was nailed on the Latin cross in Passion of Christ when he was actually nailed on a Roman "T" cross? I guess not so when does historical inaccuracy doom any movie??
The movie was made with a singular view point of Jude Law's character. Fiennes' character was most uneven as he goes from overzealous promoter to jealous lover. The romance angle was not bad as Rachel Weisz provided an interesting character. Their love scene among the dirty sleeping soldiers in the bunker add a certain level of reality to their situation. Ed Harris provides an interesting and challenging foe as an ace German sniper whose ego regarded his duel with Vassili like a game. I thought the movie was pretty entertaining as both sides play their cat and mouse game as the story unfold. Interestingly, you never really know who's the mouse and who's playing the cat!
The DVD of Enemy at the Gates proves to be a pretty good set. The image quality is pretty good and the sound effects works well in Dolby Digital 5.1. There are also few extra features included in the DVD which may or may not enchane your viewing pleasure.
I thought this was one of the underrated World War II movies that came out in our recent years. It could just be that Soviet heroes are not popular Hollywood material (Harrison Ford's K-19 movie sunk at the box offices too).
 A Self-Righteous Waste of Time December 25, 2004
3 out of 12 found this review helpful
While I was excited to see Jude Law and Joseph Fiennes in the same movie, `Enemy at the Gates' still managed to disappoint me both in plot and acting. This movie is another in the series of easily predictable cookie cutter `war/love' films to come out of Hollywood. Peppered with irrelevant metaphors of wolves and donkeys, I found myself laughing at the moments that were supposed to be serious. For example, Danilov says, `What we need is a hero.' Khrushchev sarcastically replies, `Do you know any heroes?' Danilov answers, `I know one.' Please, this scene happens in every movie. Naturally after that conversation, the camera moves to the main character, who is also the `hero' previously talked about. As for the romance, it was completely unnecessary. The romance was so forced. There were no sparks between Jude Law and Rachel Weisz. The love scene in the barracks was completely unbelievable as well as unpassionate. First, I thought it was totally lame that they make the girl start it especially if we're supposed to believe that she's a virgin. Second, she looked as if she were in pain during the whole sex part and if they were really in love, he would act like he cared instead of pounding away. Third, like the guy walking through wouldn't notice, let's get realistic here.
I personally think that I may have enjoyed the movie if Tania character were a guy or not in the movie at all. The love was not only forced, but was completely unnecessary and took away from the movie instead of making it better. Her character was a complete stereotype the `smart strong independent coy tomboy.' How she was going to be involved was so obvious and bland. I was relieved when she got shot, I thought there was going to be a plot twist, but alas she miraculously bounced back to perfect health in some random hospital. It was clear that the love part of the movie was in it because it was part of this equation that supposedly equals `good epic film.' Visually, I got pretty tired of the shaking and moving camera during fight scenes and scenes with sniper stuff. I know that it was supposed to create confusion and discomfort like the characters feel, but it didn't work for me for over two hours. I did however, really like the fonts that they used on screen in the beginning and again in the credits in the end. I think those parts were visually well done. The favorite part of the movie was the part with the map and the Nazi regime looking like black blood infesting Europe. I thought that was a great visual representation of what was happening at that time. The only scene that had any positive impact on me was the beginning when all the soldiers were being forced out of the train to battle to fight and most likely die. That scene was pretty well done but the blood explosions in slow motion were a little too much. This movie was trying to be a riveting `epic film' geared toward everyone with war and explosions for guys and love and `hot guys' for girls. With all these supposedly promising ingredients the film didn't work because there was no chemistry between Fiennes and Law or between Law and Weisz. This is a hard thing to not have because they were trying to portray these dramatic roles that were very heavy and serious but instead the acting and `love' scenes made me laugh instead of identify with them.
Not only was I thoroughly unimpressed, I was disgusted. A total waste of 2 hours... DONT see it.
 A wonderful movie! Romance can blossom even in WAR!!! :) November 21, 2004
2 out of 6 found this review helpful
I regret missing Enemy at the Gates at the big screens i wish i had been shot by a sniper :) But i was fortunate enough to have watch it on DVD not once but many many times... its just a really wonderful film, no AMERICAN HEROES here but Heroes in general...
I totally and absolutely hate it when people are trying to compare Hollywood films with other Great FILMS... i see soo many people say oh enemy at the gates is another saving private ryan thats is totally wrong!!! and it goes to show that those people have absolutely no idea of what a good war film is... enemy at the gates can not be compared its simply the best war film ever made.
All aspect of the film is superbly and carefully crafted, with a brillant performances from the actors, a touch of romance and realistic battle scenes this is a film that will make you remember for a long time...
A great film speaks for itself...
***** 10/10 *****
 Has its good and bad points November 14, 2004
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
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.
|
|
|
Web Design, Maintenance, and Hosted by K9Sites.com | |