Enemy at the Gates (2001) User Reviews

Everything that Pearl Harbor isn't

[Jonathan-13 · 8/10 · 3 August 2001]

Bursting into my Top Five war movies of all time is this film. A gritty and realistic portrayal of one of the worst battles in the history of war - the 1942-43 armwrestle for the city of Stalingrad.

Much has been made of the actors speaking in their native accents, but this seems a trivial complaint - the film is in English after all! More important is the masterful manner of speech of the actors - Bob Hoskins' gutteral exultations as Ukrainian potato farmer Nikita Krushchev; Joseph Fiennes' pompous and proud intonations as the political officer; Jude Law's common man for the peasant turned soldier; Ed Harris with the clipped and crisp tones of a German officer.

This is my pick for the best film of the year so far (August). It is truly a cinematic masterpiece, with horrific scenes of the violence of war, brilliant dialog and heart-wrenching tragedy. Expect to be moved.

A fascinating film about the strategy of two great snipers

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 8/10 · 20 September 2008]

In "Enemy at the Gates," the future of the greatest battle of World War II, would be decided between a young Russian sniper and an aristocratic sharpshooter from Germany sent to kill him… Jude Law and Ed Harris sit for hours waiting for the right moment… It was a duel set in the siege of Stalingrad… Stalingrad was one of the biggest and bloodiest battles of World War II, and in the midst of this huge battle, these two soldiers were hunting each other down…

The film opens with the harrowing transport of thousand of Russian soldiers across the Volga River to Stalingrad… The recruits were packed onto steamers, barges, whatever they could find to ferry them across the river… All that under a deluge of shells, bombs and explosions…

By the time Vassili arrives to Stalingrad, the Nazis have a distinct edge, and Soviet morale is at an all-time low…

Leading the Russians in their seemingly futile defense is Nikita Kruschev, played by Bob Hoskins… The Germans, at that time, were overrunning the place and the Russians were in an appalling state… It was the most awful battle of the war…

Joseph Fiennes plays Danilov, an idealistic Russian officer who passionately speaks about his belief in getting the troops to turn the grave situation in Stalingrad around… He finds the perfect inspiration in Vassili…

Rachel Weisz plays a young woman who volunteers to help in the war effort… She's literally protecting the people she grew up with… When she meets Vassili, he just has a natural intelligence, a natural instinct…

Jude Law is remarkable as the young sharpshooter Vassili Zaitsev who conveyed both humanity and intensity… There's such a fierce intelligence and liveliness in his eyes… He can also be very quiet and internal… Vassili found the complexity within the silence and stillness… In fact to be a sniper is very much about a man of action through stillness… Vassili represented the ultimate hero, the symbol of someone who could instill hope and belief in victory amongst the troops, because his skills as a sniper were unparalleled…

Ed Harris played Major Konig, the German sharpshooter sent to hunt down Vassili… He knows that Vassili was picking off German officers with some regularity, and was becoming a folk hero for the Russian soldiers as well as the Russian populace... He decided to eliminate him…

The casting of Ed Harris opposite Jude Law resulted in a striking visual link between their characters… They both have these unbelievably penetrating blue eyes… And director Jean-Jacques Annaud began to see the duel through their eyes… And one of the first shots of Ed Harris was a close-up of his blue eyes…

Annaud painted the tensions very clearly and concentrated purely on the eyes of the Jude Law and Harris and, of course, on their rifles and how they were hidden and what they were doing… Basically, the core of his camera is the duel of their eyes, duel of men, duel of snipers, therefore a confrontation of people that scan the surrounding buildings, and try to decipher what they see

brilliantly flawed ... is still brilliant

[A_Different_Drummer · 8/10 · 16 February 2017]

In the grand tradition of Old Hollywood, this international co-production seeks to frame the key battle of WW2 (the REAL key battle, not the ones from the John Wayne movies) as a morality tale involving a love triangle.

It is a bold idea, and beautifully executed.

In fact an argument could be made -- and I will make it -- that any flaws in the execution (it lags a bit here and there) are the result of the film-makers' "reach exceeding their grasp" and they attempted too much, more than one film could ever accomplish.

But what a film it is! You viewer feel as though you are there, making history. The four stars involved have, each of them, never given a bad performance in their careers and they surely maintain their records here.

Ed Harris in particular -- although he has less screen time -- will always to this reviewer seem a vastly under-rated actor. (This review written in 2017 where an older Harris still uses his charisma in a defining role for HBOs Westworld .... and nails it.) Recommended? Absolutely! In the Metacritic data that IMDb so helpfully provides I could not help but notice one reviewer commenting that, well, it sure isn't in the same class as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.

Which is the irony of doing film reviews. I have never not once thought of wanting to see SAVING PRIVATE RYAN again, but this film is one I like to revisit every few years. Magnificent.

A selective distortion of history

[sisko2374 · 18 March 2001]

"Enemy at the Gates" by William Craig was a great history of the Battle of Stalingrad as retold by living participants. "War of the Rats" was a powerful, moving dramatization of Zaitsev and the Soviet snipers who fought at Stalingrad, as well as the Germans who opposed them. I thought that the movie would be based on at least the novel. I was disgusted to find out that the producer/director/writers chose to throw both of these memorable books out the window and instead manufacture their own vision of the battle that provided absolutely no historical insight, replacing the great stories of the two books with warmed over putrid anti-communism.

The movie goer gets no insight into the complexities of why Soviet soldiers fought and defeated the Germans at Stalingrad. Instead we are given the impression that the only reason any Soviet soldiers fought there was due to the threat of being machine gunned by the Stalinist "blocking units". Then suddenly, one commissar has a brilliant idea to "create a hero who will be an example" and the whole battle turns on Vasily Zaitsev. None of the other real acts of heroism at Stalingrad are shown, such as the soldiers who held out for 53 days in "Pavlov's house".

Further, the main function of Zaitsev's publicity in the Red Army newspaper was to popularize sniper techniques. This was not shown. Nor the sniper school set up where snipers were "mass produced" to harrass the Germans. The heroic deeds and harrowing adventures of the real Tania Chernov are never mentioned. Her being blown out of the boat on the Volga, surviving the journey through the sewers, behind German lines, her responsibility for the loss of several fellow snipers and Zaitsev's anger with her for that, all would have made great scenes.

The tension and suspense of snipers hunting each other for days was completely missing as well as the long range aspect of these duels. The ludicrous scene at the end where Konig and Zaitsev confront each other "High Noon" style was absurd. No sniper would expose himself like that, let alone battle hardened troops by that point in the battle, even Germans.

The insipid speech by Commissar Danilov at the end about "there will always be rich and poor" was apparently thrown in to reassure the viewers that the director and producer do not sympathize with "Communism".

All in all, this movie was a travesty both as art and as history. It did a severe disservice to both. Soviet soldiers who fought and died at Stalingrad did not only do so out of fear of NKVD retaliation. Patriotism against a genocidal invader was a real part of it. And yes, many actually believed that they were fighting for a better future, that they were saving socialism. Why is it that Craig's book and Robbins novel can convey these complexities of the battle of Stalingrad while all we get from the movie is an insipid love triangle, rediculous "sniper tactics" and lots of good old fashioned anti-communism. You don't have to cover up the truth about the crimes of Stalinism to make an accurate portrayal of Russians in the battle of Stalingrad. But you don't have to churn out an anti-communist diatribe either. The truth will not be found in either. Certainly not in the sorry cinematic adaptation of "Enemy at the Gates". The only thing it has in common with the history is the title.

Easily the best thing that has come out all year...

[mentalcritic · 10/10 · 28 July 2001]

It would be all too easy to dismiss Enemy At The Gates as being an attempt to cash in on Saving Private Ryan's success, but in my opinion, it is a very worthy competitor. In fact, it is a better film. I say that primarily because I am sick to death of Americans using World War II as a basis for films that generally amount to little more than propaganda. Of course, Enemy At The Gates comes off as being somewhat fantastic due to its attempt to balance entertainment with historical fact, and it came as a surprise to me to learn that Sergeant Vassili Zaitsev was a real person (whose sniper rifle is still an exhibit in a Russian museum), but this makes it all the more entertaining to watch.

A lot of historians have it that the battle of Stalingrad was the most unpleasant one fought during the second World War, and this film's set design and cinematography capture that impeccably. When the Russians are battling the Nazis, you get the idea that if the Nazis didn't kill them, malnutrition, tetanus, scurvy, bubonic plague, or a million other things would. Jude Law and Joseph Fiennes lend authenticity to their roles that makes it even easier to follow them on their personal journey through hell, and Ed Harris is scarily convincing as a high-ranking Nazi. The real surprise here, however, is Rachel Weisz as Sergeant Tania Chernova, and the very heart and soul of the film. When she describes the reasons why she decided to take up a gun and battle the Germans, it all makes so much sense that you just want to buy the poor girl a beer and give her a good warm embrace. Not that such things would erase the scars that her character bears, but one would feel obligated to try.

Writer/Director Jean-Jacques Annaud, writer Alain Goddard, and cinematographer Robert Fraisse treat the subject matter with great care towards authenticity and entertainment value. It's very tricky to get these two things in proper sync, but they more than manage here. They also don't rely on any hokey photographic effects to tell the story, simply letting you see everything as clearly as possible, letting your imagination do the rest. Anyone who's read anything credible about the inhuman suffering the Russian soldiers endured during this battle will have no trouble filling in the gaps that the narrative leaves about their living conditions. The blood and gore shown during the battles is also very conducive to the atmosphere. Rather than just expecting you to believe that a solider gets his stomach spread all over half a kilometer of pavement by enemy bullets, they show you so you can get a feel for how bloodthirsty both sides in the confrontation were. Even the sex scene doesn't look out of place here.

To make a long story short, this is the first film I've seen in a long, long time that I haven't been able to come up with a list of criticisms for. It is simply excellent, and the 7.1 rating it is currently stuck with does not do it justice. It is easily superior to the likes of Platoon, the equal of more esoteric war films such as Three Kings, and it is miles above the likes of Saving Private Ryan and Pearl Harbour. Vassili Zaitsev would be very happy that his struggle has inspired such a commendable piece of art - it is exactly the sort of thing he and millions of others like him (on both sides of the planet) were fighting for.

compelling war movie

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 7 March 2015]

It's the fall of 1942. Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law) grew up hunting with his father in the woods. He, Tania (Rachel Weisz) and countless other untrained recruits are brought up to the front at Stalingrad. He and Commisar Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) survive a suicidal charge. Vassili kills 5 Germans in the aftermath and Danilov writes about him. Nikita Khrushchev (Bob Hoskins) seizes the opportunity to make him a star. Opposing him is the aristocratic German sniper Major König (Ed Harris).

The opening is an amazing opera of mass destruction. Then it's a matter of a chess game. It's a fascinating cat and mouse game in the ruins of the city. I'm glad that nobody decided to talk in a fake Russian accent. That would be too distracting. This is a rare good American war movie not about Americans.

A Taut, Gritty War Movie Screaming to Come Out of a Drekky Melodrama

[noralee · 6/10 · 22 December 2005]

I went to see "Enemy at the Gates" with my husband, as I knew it was about his favorite battle of his favorite war that he watched continually on the Military Channel. After having to endure a harangue the whole way to the screen about how we would be seeing the real battle that won the war, not that inconsequential D-Day that "Saving Private Ryan" made such a big deal about as the U.S. didn't come in until the Russians already had turned the tide, I asked could he please be quiet during the movie and refrain from commenting on inaccuracies, etc. until after.

But other than the clarification I needed between the Battle of Leningrad and the Siege of Stalingrad which I always mix up (whoops, I think I just did it again), and Hitler's and Stalin's fallacies as military leaders in relation to the symbolic importance of the Volga (and the movie could have used more strategic explanations), he and I pretty much agreed about the movie.

There's a taut, gritty war movie screaming to come out of a drekky melodrama. The best parts are the battles, of troops and individuals. The opening sequence of soldiers thrown from trains to boats to the front line is terrific and frightening.

The one-on-one between Ed Harris's Nazi sharpshooter and Jude Law's hunter (though he doesn't do working class too convincingly) is exciting.

The most captivating surprising is Bob Hoskins as Krushchev. He completely inhabits the character and brings him completely to blood and guts life - showing just what it takes to survive as a top man to Stalin.

There was also more potential in Joseph Fiennes' political officer as insight into propaganda that is only occasionally effective (after all, "Ryan" was similarly about a PR stunt).

I thankfully dozed off during most of the ridiculous sub-plot of the love triangle. There appears to be only a couple of women living in this city, and they sure do get in the way, as these few can themselves provide multi-lingual translations, sex, food, lousy child care and brave sharpshooting.

The music by James Horner is atrociously bombastic, wincibly so.

(originally written 3/31/2001)

An extrordinary work of raw skill and imagination.

[mhasheider · 10/10 · 21 August 2001]

A gut-wrenching and impressive hide-and-seek thriller that uses the bloody battle of Stalingrad (during the second World War) as the clever disguise here for a real battle of courage and determination. The film follows a young and highly talented Russian sniper from the Urals, Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law - "eXistenZ", "The Talented Mr. Ripley"), who gains national fame from the help of Danilov (Joesph Fiennes - "Shakespeare in Love"), a propoganda officer and his true love and fellow sniper, Tania (Rachael Weisz), who is also flirting with Danilov.

However, the Germans have an ace sniper of their own in Erwin Koning (Ed Harris - "Pollock"), a seasoned and out-spoken Major who comes to Stalingrad only to pick off Vassili. And before Koning leaves, his superior officer asks how he'll find Vassili. Koning says, " I'll fix it so he finds me."

The love triangle that director Jean-Jacques Annaud and co-writer Alain Godard put in the story shows that the pair took a chance and I'll give them credit for doing it. Plus, the love scene that Law and Weisz have is one of the strangest (no offense to either one) that I've seen.

The film's best moments come when Vassili tries to catch Koning off guard, but the problem is Koning is aware of what Vassili is capable of. I won't say how it's done, but the final confrontation is a genuine nail-bitter.

All of the performances here are powerhouse and that includes Bob Hoskins as Nikita Kruschev, a snarling and impatient man and Ron Perlman, who portrays Koulikov, a lieutenant whose teeth are all metal and serves as a guide for Vassili.

Robert Frassie ("Ronin") handles the movie's photography with care and the appearrence of Stalingrad itself reminded me heavily of the war-torn cities shown in Spielsburg's "Saving Private Ryan" and Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket". Also, James Horner conducts a tender and extremely mournful score that leaves a quiet yet important reminder of how awful war is.

"ENEMY AT THE GATES" is an extrodinary work of raw skill and imagination.

Takes a few wrong turns, but ends up effective for people in which it sounds interesting. Good performances. *** (out of four)

[Movie-12 · 7/10 · 14 April 2001]

ENEMY AT THE GATES / (2001) *** (out of four)

By Blake French:

"Enemy At The Gates" takes place in 1942 and details a cat and mouse chase between two snipers. The mouse is a young Russian named Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law), who arrives on the shores of the Volga River to defend Stalingrad, an important city in which the German's are attempting to capture. Zaitsev soon finds himself befriending a political officer named Danilov (Joseph Fiennes), who is impressed by the soldiers quick skills and decides to glorify him through the local press. Zaitsev becomes a political icon for the locals, giving them encouragement and increasing their hope for victory.

The cat is an opposing sniper named Major Koenig (Ed Harris), a famous sharpshooter called upon to kill Zaitsev. Koulikov (Ron Perlman), another talented sniper, is assigned to help Zaitsev in killing Koenig before the Major takes a victory shot. To further complicate matters, Zaitsev falls in love with another soldier, Tania (Rachel Weisz), whose parents were killed by the enemies, and wants to redeem their honor.

"Enemy At The Gates" certainly paints a vivid, graphic depiction of war. The atmosphere is unsettling and bleak, the characters are almost always dirty and sleepless, the fighting scenes consist of brief, short, instantaneous shots, but the sequences are fast-paced, genuine, and disturbing. The city looks battered and tormented. The dialogue goes hand and hand with the character's actions; the plot is challenging and the movie is focused, about something solid. In the sequences where Koenig and Zaitsev challenge one another, the tension is very effective. The movie tends to realize that, and concentrates a great deal of effort in making those scenes suspenseful and taut.

Joseph Fiennes plays a meek, nervous character and does a good job at bringing him to life believably. Jude Law, whose last work in "The Talented Mr. Ripley" provides a tough act to follow, accomplishes great things with a determined and assiduous character. Ed Harris is the standout actor here, in a harrowing, steadfast, juicy performance. Rachel Weisz cannot do a whole lot with her character, however. She often feels strained and contrived.

"Enemy At The Gates" tries hard to express the subject of the media's influence in our culture. If the film, co-written and directed by Jean-Jaques Annaud ("Seven Years in Tibet"), would have stayed on that concept, it would have been a whole lot better. The romance between Zaitsev and Tania is kind of unnecessary, and I am not sure if the sex scene is obligatory or advances their relationship. This love side story lacks passion; a lot of it feels mechanical and routine. "Enemy At The Gates" is still a consistently intriguing war film-rare because it does not involve Americans. While we are never really concerned about the outcome of the actual war, nor do we entirely care about several aspects of the main characters, there are many good scenes of suspense, and the overall mood of the movie is effective. "Enemy at the Gates" is worth seeing if it sounds interesting to you.

Opening the gates of my mind

[alan_ashcroft · 9/10 · 28 March 2001]

At first glance I must admit I thought "Oh no!" not another war movie trying to cash in on the success that Saving Private Ryan had. However when I viewed this film it turned out to be a great surprise in my mind. Its the story of a man brought to fame in a form of propaganda to help the disintegrating Russian forces keep faith. The boy (Law) was obviously talented however nearly lost his own faith when poised against his greatest challenge, the prized German sniper. The story line throughout kept me glued to the screen leading up to a wonderful climax.

The wonder of friendship and love also have a great deal in the plot and realistically portrays both in those times of chaos and death. I urge any reader who is doubting this films credentials to swallow their pride and sit down to watch this film. You will not be disapointed in the least.

In saying this I would like to just add that I feel there could have been improvement in the accents as sometimes I was finding it hard to grasp that the Germans were fighting the Russians and not the English, but otherwise 10 out of 10.

Should Have Been Much Better

[ccthemovieman-1 · 6/10 · 3 May 2006]

This was a pretty solid World War II story but wasn'tas good as I hoped. It's still definitely worth a look and worth collecting if you like Word War II movies. Speaking of looks, this film got panned for its cinematography by some national reviewers because it was "too bland," but that was deliberate. It's a bland topography and a somber story.

To me, it was refreshing to see a modern-day war movie with little profanity. It was supposed to be a true-life account of a Russian and German sniper going after each other. With that premise, it sounded like a taut thriller.

Something was missing with this film, even though it had it's tense moments. Most of the story, not just the scenery, is drab and it takes a toll on the viewer after awhile. Perhaps it's the believability of the characters. There was no attempt by the filmmakers to have their actors sound plausible. For instance, Jude Law, Joseph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz all play Russians.....with a British accent! Ed Harris plays a German with an American accent! Come on! Everyone sounded so phony it took away from the story.

Tense war drama that centers the viewer in the German invasion of Stalingrad

[geopat2004 · 8/10 · 5 February 2005]

I simply want to weigh in with a very positive response to Enemy at the Gates. Taken as a historical drama rather than an attempt to flawlessly depict an historical incident, this is topnotch entertainment. "Enemy" portrays the conflict between a young Russian sniper played by Law and the German sniper (Harris) who is sent to kill him during the German attack on Stalingrad during WWII. Apart from a scene which awkwardly caricatures the Russian field commanders and the occasionally distracting accents, the film successfully immerses the viewer in this tense war drama. Appreciate it it for its tight focus, uncompromising realism, and fine characterizations by the main actors. Research the historical accuracy later, if you must, but don't let it spoil the film.

Good Film But No Classic Epic

[Theo Robertson · 7/10 · 26 October 2002]

I liked ENEMY AT THE GATES , but its flaws are very obvious . First of all is Rachel Weisz who makes a very unconvincing Soviet heroine with a very distracting upper class English accent , I guess this is to make the film more marketable to a potential female audience along with the inclusion of a love triangle which is slightly unnecessary and underdeveloped ( Witness the scene where it looks like Danilov is going to have the hero arrested as an enemy of the state and this is never followed up ? ) and did we really need to have the inclusion of a sex scene ? These small problems spoil the film somewhat and stops it becoming a classic epic

Not to be negative I really did like this film for two reasons . First up is the portrayal of snipers . Once upon a time snipers were considered as being amongst an army`s bravest most competant warriors . This is still true today of course but media attention via such conflicts in Northern Ireland , the Balkans and the middle east and even recent events in America means " Sniper " is a word people associate with cold hearted murdering thugs and EATG rightly dispells this modern day myth. Secondly EATG shows us all something that is rarely seen to a western audience and that is the horror of the Eastern front during the Second world war . Hollywood would have us believe America won the second world war single handed but it was mainly the courage and sacrifice of the citizens of the USSR that was the major factor in the defeat of Hitler . The Soviet Union lost 30 million people during the war ( One in six of its citizens ) and just as many died through Stalin as through Hitler , something that is not forgotten by this film.

All in all a good film but one that is inferior to CROSS OF IRON a film that I absolutely adore and consider to be the best film to feature the second world war as its backdrop

Entertaining disinformation

[itpastorn · 5/10 · 29 November 2004]

It's the Battle of Stalingrad. Things are not going well for the Red Army. The film suggests that should they loose this battle they will also loose the war. But the soldiers and the officers only know defeat, they have no hope of victory.

Enter a political commas (Fiennes) who has witnessed superb shooting by the soldier Zaitsev (Law) - killing a bunch of German officers taking a shower very near the front line (sic!). Zaitsev is turned into a sniper and his exploits are front page news all over the Soviet Union. He and his comrades are so successful that the German army ceases to function properly, only a few hundred meters away from the river Volga and Victory.

This is the setting for this movie, and the sniper duel that follows between Zaitsev and his German counterpart Konig (Ed Harris) is good entertainment. The love affair between Zaitsev and the female soldier Tania (Weisz) does not add to the suspense, but is forgivable. Some people like romance in movies, and why not? It does not make the story any better though.

Some people seem to believe that this movie is historically mostly accurate. That is not correct. There was a battle in Stalingrad. It was a bloody mess. Zaitsev was a good sniper and he killed a lot of Germans. Almost everything else in this movie is fiction and/or unrealistic. It is impossible to get every detail right, but in this movie the main plot - the duel between Zaitsev and Konig - is pure fiction and Soviet propaganda. And the idea that Zaitsev sort of "won the battle" is also absurd. He was part of their delaying forces in the city. Operation Uranus - a pincer move with tanks - was what really won the battle.

Enjoy the movie if you like. The acting is good, the scenery and costumes are OK, visual effects mostly OK. Just do not think you are learning history or are seeing realistic military tactics.

So what really happened between Zaitsev and Koenig?

[g_slavov · 24 March 2001]

**CAUTION! SPOILERS! MIGHT GIVE AWAY SOME OF THE CONTENTS**

Remember what Dumas-father (of the "Three Musketeers") said about history being a hanger on which he put up his work for display? Movies are work of fiction; there is no law saying they have to be 100% accurate. But then, can even professional historians claim to be 100% accurate (and presumably they are paid to be exactly that)? Still, I cannot resist the temptation to join in the argument whether THE Duel really took place.

Some say it never took place, dismiss the story as propaganda, or question the identity of the German ace sharpshooter. I wasn't there (Duh!), but, contrary to some comments on this site, I know for certain Zaitsev was NOT silent on the matter. In memoirs published in Russian in 1971, Zaitsev DID leave a fairly detailed account of A Duel with a very skilled and experienced adversary. Note that, for both sides, enemy snipers were top-priority targets together with officers and machine-gunners. So, sniper duels were fairly common. By Zaitsev's own words, him and other fellow snipers had participated in (and survived) many such engagements. This particular German sniper he calls "Major Konings" and identifies him as the head of the German sniper school flown in from Berlin. This is, of course, to the best of his knowledge - based on intelligence (which could potentially be faulty) and the documents he picked off the body. So if the names don't match, might be people are talking different engagements, or different aliases of the same person.

Assuming this duel is THE ONE, the win for Zaitsev was a result of patience, persistence, the German's unwillingness to change an excellent position under a sheet of metal (authentic detail in the movie!), and most importantly, help from Zaitsev's team. Danilov did get shot (not mortally) the day before the actual duel, though not intentionally - just a little too eager to point the position of the German Major to Zaitsev. It was Zaitsev's teammate that baited "Konings" into shooting the day after, and, pretending to be hit, lured him enough to poke his head out of his hiding place.

Other notes (mainly based on Zaitsev's memoirs mentioned above): 1. Zaitsev's family name derives from the Russian word for "hare"; another famous Stalingrad sniper was Medvedev, derived from the Russian word for "bear". Not surprisingly, snipers trained by Zaitsev were called "bunnies", by Medvedev - "cubs".

2. Zaitsev was short, stocky, blond and blue-eyed. He had no commanding physical presence and indeed started his military career as a clerk in the navy.

3. Before the war, Zaitsev's civilian occupation had been a hunter, not a shepherd. His father and mother were very much alive; however, he was his Grandpa's favorite and felt closet to him.

4. According to Zaitsev, their division crossed Volga at night, without being attacked and without casualties. Hi mentions being armed with a submachine gun (but then, this reality wouldn't look as dramatic in place of the corresponding movie scenes).

5. Zaitsev did use a teammate of his at least once to blind his opponent with reflected sunlight to escape from a tight spot.

6. It was actually Zaitsev himself who was wounded by a mortar round and met victory at Stalingrad in a hospital. Since his vision was impaired, he finished the war as a commander of an anti-aircraft battery - part of the army that participated in the taking of Berlin.

The futility of war, and what causes it.

[David-240 · 10/10 · 24 November 2001]

I really loved this film. It is one of the best movies about war - what it is like, and what causes it. I know some people find the love story hard to take, but it is there to illustrate how jealousy and envy can lead to irrational acts, hate, and even war.

At a time when the world is racing toward armed conflict yet again, this film is a timely reminder of the ultimate futility of war. The opening sequence is one of the most horrific I have ever seen - comparable to that incredible opening scene in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. But unlike "Ryan", this film does not become a flag-waving one-sided analysis of war. Instead we get an in depth, and very moving, look at the reality of being human in a war situation - whether male or female, German or Russian. And Jude Law, Joseph Fiennes, Rachel Weisz and Ed Harris all give superb performances. I was a bit hard-pressed, though, to believe Bob Hoskins as Krushchev.

Jean-Jacques Annaud is a remarkable director, with a strong visual style, and deserves to be recognised as one of the contemporary masters of cinema. Ten out of Ten.

Best Sex Scene Ever

[ctelrap · 8/10 · 25 February 2022]

When Jude Law and Rachel Weisz finally hook up its in a very crowded bunker full of sleeping soldiers so they have to keep their clothes on and be very quiet. Surprisingly erotic.

the settings of war is realistic...

[srx-57243 · 7/10 · 24 August 2023]

The settings were as grim as could possibly be made. This always makes for a good war movie. Whether or not the love story was true ...it doesn't matter. I am sure at one point during the Battle of Stalingrad, a male Russian Soldier and a female Russian soldier were together at the brink of death. The young boy going back and forth between the Germans and Russians is unfortunate however. Did he know fluent German and why would a high ranking German officer even communicate with him? The hanging scene at the end makes you feel empathy toward the Russians so it's effective. Bob Hoskins as Khrushchev is tremendous. His acting provides insight into the desperation of the invasion.

Hugely efficient war movie, with thorough authenticity

[Leofwine_draca · 8/10 · 7 July 2016]

This effective movie has a great, epic background over which to play the story - the battle of Stalingrad in World War II, which left the city in smouldering ruins and hundreds of soldiers (on both sides) dead. Like with most modern blockbusters, the budget is big (the biggest in Europe, it has been said), and there are plenty of authentic bombing raids and gun battles in this action-packed movie which only slightly drags towards the end. CGI fighters spit bombs down on to the ruined streets and the smoke from dozens of explosions fills the sky to great effect in some truly breath-taking battle sequences. The film doesn't shy away from the violence either, preferring to show in graphic detail the sight of bullets erupting through bodies and exploding heads, blood everywhere, particularly in a disturbingly realistic scene showing enemy fire peppering a group of soldiers huddled together on a boat.

Over this intense background plays a story that is in parts a thriller, a tragedy, and a romance. The various plot strands are mingled perfectly to make one smooth-running film as a whole with well-drawn characters you can really care about. In particular, Jude Law gives a convincing portrayal of an innocent farmer boy, initially terrified out of his life when he is thrown headlong into battle, and gradually turning into a war hero through the propaganda of his friend Danilov (an understated and effective turn from Joseph Fiennes).

The initial sequence in which Law proves his worth as a sniper is an excellently-shot piece of action. Into the story comes Rachel Weisz, as the love interest, a female Russian soldier, and there's even a love triangle thrown in there too for good measure between her, Law and Fiennes. However, most scenes are stolen by Ed Harris (looking very much like Anton Diffring) as Major Konig, a German war hero and top-notch sniper who engages in some tense and suspenseful cat-and-mouse games in the rubble of Stalingrad, sequences which are the best in the movie. Good support comes from a near-unrecognisable Bob Hoskins as Khrushchev, and Ron Perlman as a fellow sniper with a mouth full of metal teeth.

ENEMY AT THE GATES is a well-made and intelligent blockbuster, convincingly portraying the realism of the war, peppered with many memorable scenes such as the macabre image of a young boy hanging from ruins on the horizon. Although the outcome is to be expected, the journey there is an eventful and often surprising one and never less than watchable. A shame that all modern blockbusters aren't often as intelligently scripted or acted as this film is.

Top German and Soviet snipers hunt each other amid the ruins of Stalingrad.

[NickMeron · 6/10 · 29 October 2005]

I enjoyed most of Enemy at the Gates, but was disappointed by the conclusion. SPOILER BELOW! The story of how Vasily Zaitsev became a national hero is told well against the backdrop of the gruesome Battle for Stalingrad. The apocryphal story of Heinz Thorvald / Major Koenig's hunt for Zaitsev is the focal point of the movie.

This plot device creates a number of unbelievable situations (e.g., three snipers being sent to clear a building, instead of a squad of regular infantry), but the storyteller manages to build suspense and keep it entertaining.

The three leads (Law, Harris, and Weizs) all turn in excellent performances, as do Joseph Fiennes as Danilov, and the boy playing Sasha. I found myself feeling sympathy for both Zaitsev and Koenig, unusual considering that they were both fighting for despicable regimes whose barbarity is depicted unsparingly. The film accurately shows the kind of hideous stuff that happens in war without any glorification or sentiment. Like the characters, you really would rather be somewhere else.

Anyone who has done any shooting will be bothered by certain technical flaws, i.e., hitting a horizontal cable at 100 meters is virtually impossible because the sniper would have to get the range exactly right. Even if he managed to aim on target, those type of sniper rifles do not group so tightly that you could hit a cable without a lucky shot. Also, Zaitsev's offhand shot at Koenig after he gets away from the stove would be unlikely to hit anything. But if it hit his hand, the bullet would break bone and sever a tendon, crippling his hand, before piercing the stock of the rifle entirely, with the remains of the bullet ripping a hole in Koenig's guts. If the metal frame of the rifle stopped it, it would still break ribs -- full sized rifle rounds have a lot of energy.

But the ending really disappointed. After Danilov is slain, if Zaitsev had managed a lucky shot into Koenig's blind, this would have preserved a sense of reality. But for Koenig, drawn as patient, methodical, never makes a mistake, to leave his hide and expose himself, and for Zaitsev to do the same and take him with an offhand shot at pistol range, was just beyond loony. Both characters violated who they were in the film. This was too Hollywood "High Noon" for a film depicting otherwise believable people.

Also Koenig, a regular Wehrmacht officer from an upper class family, not some Gestapo scumbag, would never hang Sasha for passing information that he fully expected him to give to the other side. At most he would take away his chocolate and tell him to get lost.

But Zaitsev got the girl at the end, so I could smile. "Enemy" was entertaining, but the conclusion did not match the quality of most of the film.

smart, gritty and fascinating

[planktonrules · 10/10 · 4 July 2005]

I had never heard about this movie when I first saw it on television, so I really had no idea what to expect. If the movie hadn't captured my interest, I'm sure I would have changed the channel after just a few minutes. However, the sheer intensity of the opening segment where hundreds of Russian soldiers were literally thrown into the German lines practically unarmed (and with "political officers" behind them threatening to shoot them if they slowed at all in their advance) fascinated me. In fact, I remember barely breathing and feeling VERY tense during this segment--now that's great film making! The scene slows after nearly all these Russian troops are needlessly wasted. Remaining alive in a bunker is a political officer (Joseph Fiennes--the KGB man who enforces Stalin's mad directives and insures proper communist thinking among the soldiers) and a common soldier (Jude Law). They are pinned down and seemingly about to die. Fiennes is about to take a chance at attacking a group of five Germans--hoping to take them by surprise. He's obviously nervous and, as a political officer, probably useless when it comes to actual fighting. He asks Law if he can shot. "A little" is his reply--and he takes the gun. Then, like a shadow, he methodically kills all five Germans--timing his shots with incoming artillery rounds to cover the gunshots. Fiennes is absolutely amazed with the marksmanship and from then on, makes Law's character a hero of the Great Patriotic Struggle.

All this occurs in the first half hour of the film. Where it goes from there and the showdown with Law and Ed Harris is something not to be missed. This is probably the most tension-filled and realistic war film I have ever seen. Great job done by all.

The bloody battle of Stalingrado between two nations became a conflict between two men well played by Jude Law and Ed Harris

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 1 September 2020]

The film is a love story and death set in 1942-1943 during the Battle of Stalingrad, into the six month battle that caused nearly 2,000,000 total casualties (wounded, killed, captured) for the two opponents, including hundreds of thousands of Russian civilians. Nikita Khrushchev (Bob Hoskins) arrives in Stalingrad to coordinate defense of the city and demands ideas from his subordinates on how to improve morale. Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) , a senior lieutenant, suggests that the people need "an example, but an example to follow" and give them hope.Danilov recommends Zaitzev. Soon after, Danilov begins publishing tales of Vasily's exploits in the army's newspaper that paint him as a national hero and propaganda icon. Vasily (Jude Law) is transferred to the sniper division and becomes friends with Danilov. Both also become romantically interested in Tania Chernova (Rachel Weisz) , a citizen of Stalingrad who has become a private in the local milit a.With the Soviet snipers taking an increasing toll on the German forces, German Major Erwin König (EdHarris) is deployed to Stalingrad to kill Vasily to crush Soviet morale. A renowned marksman and head of the German Army sniper school at Zossen, he lures Vasily into a trap and kills two of his fellow snipers, but Vasily manages to escape, but the confrontation goes on and on. Some Men Are Born To Be Heroes.A single bullet can change history.A hero never chooses his destiny. His destiny chooses him.

The movie follows a World War II soldier transferred by boat crossing the river Volga , where ultimately finds himself fighting in the famous Battle of Stalingrad. The story follows soldiers from both sides as they fight to survive while saving the lives of their loves, and struggle with retaining their humanity in the face of certain death and the unspeakable horrors of war. It displays a good cast giving nice interpretations , including Jude Law as Zaytsev, Rachel Weisz as Tania Chernova, and Ed Harris as König, with Joseph Fiennes, Bob Hoskins, Ron Perlman, Eva Mattes, Gabriel Marshall Thomson, and Matthias Habich .The screenwriter studied diaries of the participants of the Battle of Stalingrad and also used museum archives, documents and recorded stories of its participants. It contains a rousing and evocative musical score by James Horner . It packs a colorful and adequate cinematograhy by Robert Fraisse whose shooting took place in Germany and the crossing of the Volga River was done on the Altdöberner See, a man-made lake near the village of Pritzen, in the south of Brandenburg. A derelict factory in the village of Rüdersdorf was used to recreate the ruins of Stalingrad's tractor factory. The massive outdoor set of Stalingrad's Red Square was built at Krampnitz, near Potsdam. The film was well directed, co-written and produced by Jean-Jacques Annaud, based on William Craig's 1973 non-fiction book Enemy at the Gates: The Battle for Stalingrad.The magnificent filmmaker Annaud creates yet another picture excellently directed and stunningly produced . Annaud directed particular films with almost no human dialogue such as ¨Quest for fire¨ and was an expert on animal movies as proved in ¨The bear¨ , ¨Running Free¨ about horses and ¨Two brothers¨ dealing with tigers . His most successful pictures were ¨The lover¨ , ¨Enemy of the gates¨,¨Seven years in Tibet¨ and of course ¨The name of the rose¨.

Other films about this battle are as follows : Stalingrad: Dogs, Do You Want to Live Forever? a 1959 West German film, directed by Frank Wisbar with Joachim Hansen as Wisse , Wilhelm Borchert as Friedrich Paulus , Wolfgang Preiss as Linkmann , Carl Lange as General von Seydlitz , Horst Frank as Feldwebel Böse , Peter Carsten as Obergefreiter and Sonja Ziemann .Stalingrad (1993) by Director Joseph Vilsmaier with Dominique Horwitz as Obergefreiter Fritz Reiser , Thomas Kretschmann as Leutnant Hans von Witzland , Jochen Nickel as Unteroffizier Manfred "Rollo" Rohleder , Sebastian Rudolph .Stalingrad (2013) with Pyotr Fyodorov as Capt. Gromov , Alexey Barabash , Andrey Smolyakov , Sergey Bondarchuk Jr.

Sniper Warfare at its finest

[DanTheMan2150AD · 8/10 · 7 August 2023]

An exercise in the brutality within the bloody ruins of Stalingrad, Enemy at the Gates is a taut and highly atmospheric game of cat and mouse between Major König and legendary sniper, Vasily Zaitsev. Gripping from the get-go with its barbaric depiction of its opposing armies coming to blows, with not one step back, Director Jean-Jacques Annaud delivers a film that simultaneously has you squirming in your seat and right on the edge. The handheld and sweeping camera motions only help to heighten the sense of fear and scale Stalingrad itself possess, with James Horner's hauntingly unnerving and beautiful score to compliment it. All this with the addition of a great cast consisting of Jude Law, Ed Harris, Bob Hoskins and a criminally underused Ron Perlman, Enemy at the Gates is a top-notch depiction of sniper warfare and the power of propaganda. You just have to forgive a few historical inaccuracies, British-speaking Soviets, American-speaking Nazis and the pointless addition of a Hollywood love triangle that really drag the picture down.

It's better than I remembered it being

[connornoiles · 7/10 · 17 December 2021]

The film has a truly amazing opening, and it remains interesting whenever it focus's on the sniper conflict.. Skip most of the romance, unless you like that kinda thing. Stay on the interesting parts..

A gross misrepresentation of the historical facts

[jmek052 · 1/10 · 11 April 2004]

This movie is so much about Hollywood propagating stereotypes and an ideological agenda and too little about portraying the true History behind the story. The Germans as usual are monsters and child killers and the Russians are controlled by a brutal communist ideology. The movie missed the true historic dimension of the tragedy that Stalingrad was, the horrific losses of life on both sides and how human lives are worth nothing during a war. The part that I found the most untruthful was the killing of the boy by the German sniper. In order for this story to be true we will have to believe that a 12 year old Russian kid in Stalinist Russia was capable of speaking perfect German and Russian to communicate with his enemies and move back and forth between the two sides unless of course both combatants spoke English during the war. So much for Hollywood and historical facts. Chepe (jmek052)