| 
 enlarge | Actors: Matthais Habich, Ed Harris, Bob Hoskins, Eva Mattes, Ron Perlman
Studio: Paramount
Category: DVD
List Price: $9.98
Buy Used: $0.94
You Save: $9.04 (91%)
New (72) Used (102) Collectible (2) from $0.94
Avg. Customer Rating:  375 reviews
Sales Rank: 3590
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
Condition: FORMAL RENTAL NO ARTWORK Guaranteed to play. Normal case wear with stickers, very slight scratches. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed.
|
| Customer Reviews:
 ENEMY AT THE GATES March 23, 2001
6 out of 11 found this review helpful
This movie was well done. The opening battle scene was almost identical to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Lots of legs and arms went flying and many people were killed. As one good sniper survives (Jude Law, he kills 5 enemies with one rifle from very far away. Another soldier hooks him up with the newspaper industry and the sniper man becomes famous with the people and is on the hunt for another excellent sharp shooter (Ed Harris- The Rock). This film lacks in the middle where I off-and-on fell asleep, even though a few people get shot with a loud bang. The ending really pulled it around as {Rachel Weiez- The Mummy 1 & 2) became the true love of the young good shooter and her kid brother is hanged, and there is a big battle. The ending is not accurate to the actual happenings of the true event, but it comes somewhat close. Ed Harris shoots the good sniper's friend, but thinks he killed the good sniper, his enemy. Then Harris goes out and of course they see eachother at the same time... and well you get it. This movie is good in acting, directing (considering it was made in Europe), and story. The beginning rocks, the middle is sleepy, the keeps your eyes open most of the time. See this movie on video.
 See it for what it is March 22, 2001
25 out of 34 found this review helpful
"Enemy at the Gates" has often been criticized for being unauthentic. Have we forgotten that this IS a movie? The writers and director HAVE taken creative license when it comes to language, casting, and history. The true story has been greatly altered, but if you wanted to have a history lesson, I'm sure the local university could help you out. We go to the movies for entertainment. And that's exactly what "Enemy at the Gates" is. A full 2+ hours of excellent filmmaking. There is truly something for everyone. The guys will love the graphic battle scenes. The ladies will love the romantic subplot and the unbelievably handsome leading men. If the actors aren't speaking Russian, or if you find it unbelievable that a couple can make love amond a bunch of grimy sleeping soldiers, then where's your imagination? This a beautiful story of bravery, perserverance, and humanity in the face of unspeakable horrors of war. The acting is superb. Jude Law once again proves that his beauty is surpassed only by his talent. Ed Harris was perfect as the ice-cold Nazi sniper Koenig sent to snuff out Law's Vassily Zaitsev. Rachel Weisz was believable as the female soldier with a personal vengance against the Nazis. She was beautiful enough to be a leading lady, but not at all done-up. She's as filthy as everyone else, rather than fully made-up as she crawls through the trenches. To be fair, however, the one weakness I found was that the love triangle tentatively set up between Danilov (Joseph Fiennes), Vassily and Tania was not terribly effective. There was simply not enough interaction between the characers, mainly Fiennes and Weisz, to warrant Fiennes anger when it is revealed that Vassily and Tania are lovers. The character of Danilov was such a nerdy twitt anyway, don't understand why Fiennes bothered with it. He is cut out for so much more. But that's the worst I can say about it. Worth every penny you spend if you go into it with an open mind. Appreciate the amazing cinematography, the solid acting, the beautiful story. Forget the little details that give away that this is NOT the real WWII. I for one am glad of that.
 Only Makes It To The Edge Of Town March 21, 2001
6 out of 9 found this review helpful
In war, during a prolonged battle-- the outcome of which will be pivotal to the efforts of both sides-- death becomes a fact of life and the decline of morale among the troops follows in it's wake. What better way, then, to bolster the spirits of those who must fight and die than by giving them a hero? For once established, even if he is killed, the hero will have served his purpose, for the martyr is just as potent in death as the hero is in life. In "Enemy At the Gates," directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud, the Russians and Germans, in September of 1942, have reached an impasse during the siege of Stalingrad. Casualties continue to mount on both sides and the Russians especially are beginning to feel the weight of what seems to be a futile effort, though this is the city that must not fall to the enemy at any cost. When Khrushchev (Bob Hoskins) arrives to take charge and solicits ideas from his officers as to how they may turn the tide of the battle, a young political officer in charge of propaganda, Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) steps forward and proffers a hero, a soldier from among the ranks he knows to be a marksman of exceptional ability. His name is Vasily Zaitsev (Jude Law), and with Danilov's newspaper touting his exploits, Vasily soon becomes the hero of the Russian people who rallies them to the cause. Quickly aware of the situation, however, the Germans waste no time in bringing in a sharpshooter of their own, Major Konig (Ed Harris), specifically for the purpose of hunting down and eliminating Zaitsev. And so, in the pitch of battle, the duel between the two becomes the focus of attention, the outcome of which will seemingly be viewed as victory or defeat by and for the armies of both sides. Early in the film, Annaud creates a sense of urgency and tension that promises to sweep you along to the climax, and the anticipation of an involving emotional experience at that point is high. Unfortunately, even as the siege reaches an impasse, so does the film. About half way through it all begins to sputter, and you begin to get the feeling that the promises made at the beginning will never be fulfilled. And you're right. Failing to elicit the necessary emotional involvement from the audience, it finally stalls altogether and by the time you get to the end it seems almost anticlimactic. Overall, the film suffers from it's own ambition; it attempts to be of a much larger scale and more profound than it really is. Annaud apparently intended to make a sweeping epic and an intimate, character driven film at the same time, but the formula for any success in the endeavor eluded him. By interjecting and concentrating on too many elements involving the relationships between the characters, he minimizes the importance of the duel itself, and thereby diminishes the impact of it--especially the outcome-- that greatly affects the success of the film. Distracting as well is the fact that all of the Russians have class-distinctive British accents, which makes their credibility a bit hard to swallow. The high point of the film would have to be Jude Law's performance as the sniper, Vasily Zaitsev. He manages enough emotional depth and lends a bearing to the character that make him believable, though there is one lapse near the end when during a particularly emotional scene he briefly slips into a such a "Cockney" dialect that it takes you out of the moment. That one exception aside, it's a solid performance. Ed Harris delivers a notable performance, as well, though far removed from the best work he's ever done. Though he affects a fairly stoic countenance, he never quite achieves the enigmatic quality that would've made a dramatic impact as a counterpoint to Zaitsev's more overt humanness. Rachel Weisz comports herself well as Tania, the woman who impacts the lives of Danilov and Vasily, but the role is far from challenging. There is some chemistry between her and Law, however, and their scenes together create what little emotional apex there is to the film. Surprisingly, the low point of the film is the performance given by Joseph Fiennes, a terrific actor who was so outstanding in "Shakespeare In Love." Any depth of character he achieves here, as Danilov, seems feigned, and his whole delivery is simply too melodramatic to be entirely effective. As the director, of course, Annaud is the one who must ultimately be held accountable for it. And it illustrates just how much impact the expertise (or lack thereof) of the director can have on a film, for even the best actors must rely on the instincts of their director, as well as their own, to keep them on task. The supporting cast includes Ron Perlman (Koulikov), Gabriel Thomson (Sasha) and Eva Mattes (Mother Filipov). Though based on a true story, and dealing with a significant historical event-- that being the battle of Stalingrad itself-- "Enemy At the Gates," simply does not deliver what could have been an engrossing cinematic experience. It's not a bad movie, by any means, and it certainly has it's moments; but in the final analysis, it's just another movie, and not a very memorable one at that.
Anomie at the Gates March 21, 2001
6 out of 10 found this review helpful
Where is reality here? Filmmakers can take certain license where moviegoers have some knowledge of the facts (e.g., The Right Stuff, or even Zulu). Where fans are typically entirely in the dark, Enemy is a wonderful example of how easily filmmakers can revert to Gunga Din and other shopworn Circa 1930's templates. Facts: (1) Sasha was 15 when he was hanged for espionage - he never met Chernova or Zaitsev. (2) Zaitsev's "career" was over by the end of August 1942. Its end had nothing to do with "Danilov" (a fictional character) or his jealousy - simply put, Zaitsev's propaganda value deteriorated because he wasn't the #1 Soviet sniper any more, because he was beginning to be viewed as comically irrelevant, because the Red Army and its Allies started making real news of their own, and because Zaitsev was shot in the face and temporarily blinded. (3) Konig, or Konings, may or may not have existed. His "son", his gold-tipped ciggies, and his relationship with poor Sasha were all made up. (4) Chernova and Zaitsev WERE lovers, but she was also a sniper, and, after recovering from her grievous abdominal wound, never saw Zaitsev again. Zaitsev married and realized his dream, verbalized in the film, of managing a factory - why that was brought up and dropped is a bit of dopy editing. The Red Army was clearly not on the verge of throwing in the towel at the beginning of November 1942 - they were in the midst of preparing the offensive against the Germans, Hungarians, Rumanians and Italians that would turn the tide of the war. Oh, well....you get my point.
 A Movie That Never Takes Off March 20, 2001
14 out of 23 found this review helpful
So at last they made a World War Two movie which actually involves other countries apart from the American and British armies.I was so looking forward to this film yet I have to say I came away a bit dissappointed with it. They say the battle of Stalingrad was one of the main turning points of the war.While all war is surely horrific-many historians have claimed that this long battle was one of the worst ever fought.Having read Anthony Beevoirs book I can well believe it.So to make a film on this was obviously going to be a very ambitious project and ultimately I think Jean-Jacques Annaud fails to capture the full horror.The film sets are terrific and some of the battle scenes are very realistic.The re-creation of Stalingrad was also very impressive. The film falls down because it tries to protray that a duel between two snipers would have a very telling effect on the whole outcome of the battle.The Russian sniper,Zaitsev,played by Jude Law has become a hero to the Russian troops.His fortunes are so important that they dictate the morale of the Russian soldiers.The German's are anxious to eliminate him so they send over their top marksman Koenig,played by Ed Harris to do the job.At first the duels and close shaves between these two characters are quite interesting and tense.After a while it all becomes pretty boring and you don't really care what happens to either of the characters. They then throw in a few sub-plots of love,jealousy,suspicion etc.These come about when Rachel Weisz who plays a Russian sniper-yet you never see her use a gun once-falls in love with Zaitsev.This enrages Joseph Fiennes who is also in love with her himself.The thing is he created the myth surrounding Zaitsev and it is this myth that first attracts Weisz.Added to this you have the pressure Fiennes is under from the soon to be banging his shoe on a U.N. table Nikita Kruschev-who I have to say is almost (Undeliberately) comically played by Bob Hoskins. With all of these subplots I think it underplays the whole scenario as to what happened in this battle.Rarely do you see widespread horrors that all historians claim there was.The citizens of the city seem to be able to get on with their normal lives and have no problems getting food or keeping warm or even having electricity!The battles themselves seem to have very small numbers and would not be on the grand scale used by Spielberg in the Private Ryan film.The detailed recreation of the city is quite amazing though-the rubble on the streets,the derilict buildings and the mud everywhere feel is quite impressive. Another negative aspect to the film I believe is the dialogue.It never really flows at all and makes all the interaction between the characters quite stilted.Instead of having the usual American accents all the characters seem to have substituted them for British ones-Laws cockney accent being particularly ridiculous.So all in all I don't think this movie ever really flows at all.It has it's high points and moments of drama but overall I was a bit dissappointed in it.
|
|
|