Enemy at the Gates (2001)

Here at IMDB's reviwers tons over if the story is accurate or not,war is which we known is worst thing,the siege from nazi at Stalingrad was bloody as hell in fire and ice,moreover every legend has a bit of true,the reds doesn't likes heroes,so according some sources they erased some facts,Annaud is a great director with a huge credibility along the way,the picture is well done,the sniper's story is a little fanciful,then looking for Private Ryan,Pearl Harbor and countless war movies propaganda that don't differ too much,both sides have their skeletons in the closet...for me a fine and interesting story which absorbs you during the picture!!Resume:First watch: 2018 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 9

The Cold War was an awkward time for the English-speaking film industry. Despite the industry's penchant for depicting World War Two, depicting Russians as the heroes in this epic conflict has always been a "no-no" given the political climate of the Cold War. When one considers the means through which the Soviet Union achieved its narrow but decisive victory over Nazi Germany, it feels more than a little distasteful to glorify the faction's role in the struggle. But it is historically dishonest to deny it as well. Enemy at the Gates is a good attempt by western filmmakers at capturing the story of the Battle of Stalingrad from the perspective of Vasily Zaitsev played by Jude Law. This character is loosely based on a famous legendary Soviet sniper with the same name.In the opening scene of the film, a rough Cossack father guides his son, a much younger Zaitsev, as he attempts to hunt a wolf in the cold Russian winter. Shortly thereafter, a much older Zaitsev is seen being transported by train to Stalingrad where he participates in a disastrous Soviet assault on a German position as patriotic music plays in the background. Zaitsev is eventually used as a propaganda figure by a political officer who discovers his talent for marksmanship. Zaitsev becomes a symbol of the epic Soviet struggle against the Nazi regime. The stark contrast between the beautiful background music and the carnage depicted on screen has certainly been used before. It is cliché, but it succeeds in adding some dramatic effect. Unfortunately, it is the only time when such embellishments succeed to that end in the film.Enemy at the Gates is a flawed film at its core. But the biggest flaw in the film lies in the historical inaccuracy. It's a shame too, because otherwise it could have been both a satisfying and thought- provoking war flick. The production value is certainly there. A deep investment was definitely made to capture the raw carnage of battle. But the historic embellishments in the film take away from the powerful effect of the true story. Why add so much Hollywood style flair when the true history of Stalingrad is gritty enough by itself. The embellishments were unnecessary and instead of augmenting the emotional effect of the film, butcher it.Any member of the audience with a keen understanding of the true history will find some of the historical inaccuracies in the film to be cringe-worthy. While everybody knows the Soviet Union won the Battle of Stalingrad, Enemy at the Gates portrays Soviet leadership as so blatantly incompetent, that after watching the film, one can't help but wonder, how? Perhaps this is why most western audiences still think World War Two was won in Western Europe. This is simply untrue. Soviet leadership was far more competent and German leadership was far more incompetent than they are portrayed in Enemy at the Gates. That doesn't do justice to the history.Enemy at the Gates tries to raise broader questions about topics such as loyalty, the role of class in Communism, and the pain of having to remember the faces of individual soldiers as a sniper. But the film only briefly touches on these larger topics. There is barely any depth. Perhaps the greatest scenes in the film are the tense battle of wits between Zaitsev and his German rival, a talented major who teaches at Nazi Germany's sniper school. Amidst all of this, the film attempts to weave a romantic narrative into the carnage that simply feels out of place. The female lead character, Tania Chernova, played by Rachel Weisz is interesting enough by herself. But barring one intensely erotic scene where Chernova and Zaitsev get intimate in a crowded barracks, her character's role in the entire film seems questionable at best and altogether out of place at worst. So perhaps Enemy at the Gates tries to do too many things at once. But it's still an enjoyable film. It's just not a profound or historical one.

When I saw this film years ago, I was obviously completely captured by it. Of course, I knew right away that it wasn't historically accurate and that his encounter with major Konig wasn't so dramatic but I didn't care much.I was also aware that the film was based on Vasilij's own "notes" (Notes of a Russian Sniper) but it took me some time before I found time to read this book. Coincidently, I've tried one of the sniper versions of Mosin Nagant shortly before that.When I finally read the book, I saw the ugliness of the film in all its horrendous monstrosity. No, Soviets didn't arm only a half of their troops. No, they didn't shoot at them when they retreated. Vasilij wasn't some grunt. He was well educated and used to be an office rat but he decided to give up his warm position and volunteered to go to Stalingrad instead so he could his grandpa's training to good use. His superiors recognized his talents immediately and made him a sniper and later on, an instructor. They respected his intelligence and encouraged him to do things his own way. He was never a propaganda puppet and was, in fact, more real than Chris Kyle. He was also a humble man and adapted well to life after the war. He continued in his studies and eventually became a professor.This film is yet another dark spot on Hollywood's resume.

I am not fan of war films. but Enmy at the Gate is real special. not a surprise for Jean Jacques Annaud. but an useful discover of the manner to present a delicate subject. sure, the love story, the friendship who becomes rivalry, the psychological battle between a simple peasant and a brilliant officer, the propaganda , the pink sacrifice of Danilov and the end are only ordinary, easy solutions for conquer large categories of public. but the revelation remains the performance of Jude Law, surely, too refined for a peasant for Ural but inspired for use the possibilities of a becoming star of propaganda, preserving his simple nature. the grace to build his Vasily Zaitsev is the basic virtue of film. the second good surprise is the Khrutchev of Bob Hoskins. sure, the Stalingrad is far by the sketch from this film. the Soviet regime, suggested in few traits, are profound different by the image from Enemy at the Gates. but it is not a documentary. and the title, who reminds Hannibal in front to Rome, has the gift to define the universal significance of the story.