Enemy at the Gates

Yes, the plot of this movie is fiction. Zietzev arrived in Staligrad an accomplished sniper with a well-equipped Siberian division, for instance. However, there are a number of reviews attacking the believability of this fiction that are quite off.

First: Front line romance. It happened in the Red Army, and not rarely. The Soviet Union went so far as to lift the ban on abortions for service women (if they so chose) so they could continue to fight. While the love story is certainly not the best written ever (Two men see one woman who sees them back. DING - love triangle.), it doesn't detract from the realism of the story.

Second: Snipers navigating wound the city undetected by the enemy. Hundreds of snipers on both sides did. Granted, as a sniper you were MUCH more likey to die than your comrades, but but the ones who survived did so by getting close to the enemy and getting away. In Stalingrad, there weren't any "lines" for them to go through either. People from both sides would often assume an area to be secure only to find themselves surrounded, on the "front line" or being the lines. One night, while celebrating for having fought their way to within sight of the Volga (and assuming the battle to be won) some 200 german soldiers were picked off by Soviet fire from the surrounding buildings. You could get through (like Zietzev), or you could get unexpectedly killed (like his first kills).

The movie is definitely historical fiction, but it's fiction that is very true to the truth of the events.

This film's best moments come in the beginning, with a horrific battle scene, in which the utter inumanity of both sides is made clear.

To their own officers the Russian soldiers are cannon fodder, no more. As they go in to face the Germans their officer shouts (possibly the only training they have had): "The man with the rifle shoots. When the man with the rifle dies, the man behind picks up the rifle. The man with the rifle shoots. When the man with the rifle dies... " and so on, over and over. Soldiers who panic are shot by their own officers. The only way out for these soldiers is death, and it is a terrible way to die.

The film first focuses on a young Russian soldier, a peasant who has developed a marksman's eye shooting wolves on his grandfather's farm. Though wounded, he is able to kill a number of German officers. In doing so he gains the friendship of a young Commissar, who uses him as a propaganda weapon, to give the Russian side hope and a symbol, in a war they have so far been losing. The scenes between Jude Law as the marksman, and Ralph Fiennes as the Commissar work well, showing the knife-edge of cynicism and service involved in such deals. And Bob Hoskins is superb as Nikita Kruschev, sent by Stalin to stiffen resolve at the front. Hoskins plays Kruschev as an amiable thug, with a certain charm to go with his utter ruthlessness, which is perhaps not far wrong.

The film actually works best when dealing with a grand scale and a larger canvas. When it narrows down to deal with a (slightly contrived) duel between the Russian sniper and a German expert brought in to kill him, it loses some of its power. It does the sniper duel extremely well, and it is an entertainng and intelligently presented duel. But it personalises a conflict which was above all an impersonal one. The fate of individuals in a bloody conflict could still have been presented, without this loss of the large picture.

On the other hand, the love story was well presented and credible; life does go on, even in a city reduced to rubble, still being defended though hardly one brick or stone stood upon another.

Jerry Hopkins' score is also worth singling out: often a pastiche of Prokoffiev, and in particular (and quite appropriately) _Alexander Nefsky_, it manages an impressive grandeur in the larger set-pieces, as well as considerable lyricism in the more personal scenes.

This could have been a classic film; it is not quite that. It is, however, a very good film, well and intelligently made, and interesting even for its flaws. Recommended.

Cheers!

Laon


love in thie film?   July 18, 2001
Bossalover (Michigan, USA)
0 out of 5 found this review helpful

It was nice. Jude Law is a good actor and he is cool. However I felt that love was expressed very shallowly in this film. They rather should have focused on one subject. They might have thought that the espisode of romance could enhance the story and also catch the attention of audienct. However for me, love should be treated more neatly and there is no need to put that long love scene in this film. If they had space for that scene. they would have been able to make the romance part deeper but putting another scenes. On the other hand, Ed Harris was really good in this film. His eyes, as those of Jude Law have good effect in this film, made the scenes more tense than battle scene. The main story is nice.


Empty at the gates.   July 17, 2001
5 out of 9 found this review helpful

Curiously unaffecting story involving the Battle of Stalingrad as a backdrop. In the forefront, there are two super-snipers gunning for each other: Vassily, a Russian serf marksman played by Jude Law, and a Nazi aristocrat played by Ed Harris. Apparently the filmmakers believe this plotline suffices as a symbol for the entire Battle (they are mistaken), and they assume such a plotline is inherently interesting (they are mistaken). The Battle of Stalingrad is a mind-boggingly complicated period during the War, and as such would suit a mini-series better than a 2 1/2-hour movie. In the meantime, the oversimplifications of *Enemy at the Gates* should probably insult a smart viewer's intelligence. Which is not to say that there's nothing worthwhile here: Bob Hoskins is funny as then-Party ...Nikita Khrushchev. The opening invasion, though less gut-wrenching than *Saving Private Ryan*'s examination of D-Day, is from a purely visual standpoint more stunning and comprehensive -- a truly great bit of moviemaking. Also, the shootouts between the two snipers are often staged brilliantly. Director Jean-Jacques Annaud clearly has a fine eye and feel for action. But shouldn't a movie about a subject as important as this be more than just another action picture featuring hot, young, marketable stars? Finally, Annaud might also have overcome his fondness for obscuring the photography with camera filters: the movie fairly swims in a blue-gray murk.


GREAT WAR MOVIE   July 15, 2001
WALT MCCORD Jr (APO, AE United States)
2 out of 6 found this review helpful

This movie is a great, suspense movie. The Moive has two snipers who are hunting eachother. If you know anything about snipers the one thing they fear the most is a another SNIPER. It takes place in WWII and has great actions sceens and GREAT affects in the movie. I would recommend this movie to anybody who likes war movies, or great action movies. This movie will keep you on your toes, and it also has one sumwhat of a love sceen in it!! The one thing i like it the detail in the movie, and how good the affects are, I watched this movie on a surround sound, and when the snipers took there shots it was like you were there with them as there spoters! THIS IS A GREAT MOVIE!!