Some of the top Amazon reviews of this picture praise Hollywood for making a war film about the Russian front. This was certainly the decisive battlefield in my opinion and has been underrepresented in Western film. Judging simply from Hollywood films, you'ld think the war was won when Rommel was thrown out of North Africa or when Tom Hanks landed on Omaha Beach. From my perspective, however, if this film is the best Hollywood can do to tell the story of the fighting on the Eastern front, they shouldn't bother. The basic premise of this film is a tale of two snipers hunting each other in the the ruins of Stalingrad. The Soviet sniper has killed many German officers, and the Germans has brought in a specialist from Berlin to counter him. Throw in a beautiful love interest, and you have the makings of a war melodrama. This film has so many flaws that my 2-star rating is generous. First, there are so many historical inaccuracies in this film that it has negative historical merit. That is, after watching this film, you'll know less about Stalingrad and the Eastern Front than before watching this film. Almost every bit of historical information in this film is wrong. A well made war movie should, in my opinion, try to retain as much historical accuracy as possible so that the viewer can both get a feel for the action and a learn something in the process. I'm not going to list everything that is wrong with this film (e.g. the Sniper Division?!?!?!?!?), but a five minute perusal of the Wikipedia entry on Stalingrad after watching this film will show you the gross inaccuracies. For a serious student of WWII, this film is an insult. Second, putting aside the historical inaccuracies, the story is overly melodramatic and simply dull. I didn't find the characters interesting, compelling, or believable. The director's attempts to portray the magnitude of the violence on the Eastern front were simply laughable. This film conveys none of the emotional impact of films such as Saving Private Ryan. This whole film feels like a video game. The love triangle aspect doesn't play out well, and the self-doubt of the characters gives the whole film an air of pretentiousness. It certainly does not make the characters more human, it makes them less interesting.

Bottom line - if you are an even somewhat serious student of WWII, I wouldn't waste my time watching this even as a rental. I strongly discourage anyone from actually buying this DVD, a waste of money. I give this film 2 stars because I've seen worse, but there isn't much here.

This has become one of my favorite movies with Jude Law. I wasn't sure I would enjoy a war movie, but found this story of the 2 snipers, with the backdrop of the Second WW in Stalingrad compelling. Jean-Jacques Annoud co-wrote, produced and directed this film released in 2001. Not your usual war movie, but focused on the main characters: Ed Harris as Major Konig the German officer brought to kill Zaitsev and their struggles to survive successful in eliminating the other; and it follows the relationship of political officer Danilov (Joseph Feinnes) and Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law) through many ups and downs of support, neglect, political wrangling, and later jealousy over the love interest played by Rachael Weisz. In the end Danilov sees the truth of the situation and how he used Zaitsev to serve his own purposes and questions the meaning of war. This movies deals more with the battle of wits between the snipers, and the rivalry between the 2 russians for the love of the woman, than the bigger picture of the Battle of Stalingrad. I thought it was well done; interesting; and is based on a true story.

Wow! Realism beyond compare in a great new war film about the WW II German invasion of Stalingrad. Two snipers pair off against one another -- high suspense and an incredible story.

There is also the expected love story sub-plot but not to the degree that the horror of this insurrection is in any way diminished.

The cinematography is astounding and the scenes are quite graphic. This is one to see, no doubt about it!

Terrible yet fascinating tale of the horrors of war. This represents the true and ugly view of war.

This dvd should be a good addition for those who collect 'sniper' movies. The story line developed within thick fabric of Russian defense of Stalingrad (during WWII) and made it more colorful than average 'sniper' movies. It's fun to watch.

I enjoyed this movie, and give it 4 stars for its scenery, props and acting.
However, you'll have to already know (i.e., have studied) the Eastern Front war in general and the Stalingrad battle in particular to understand the overall war picture. By that I mean in the movie the Soviets seem to go from almost certain defeat to victory without explanation. (The real explanation, by the way, was largely twofold - the Germans grossly over extended their supply lines, and the Russians very smartly fed just enough troops into Stalingrad to keep the Germans fixated on "winning" there until the Russians could organize their encircling counter-attack. None of this comes out in the movie).

The setting, scenes, uniforms & weapons, were accurately protrayed to a very good level of detail. Too bad the plot wasn't treated the same. It starts off as a broad heroic story, which then narrows to a conflict between Zaitsev and Koenig, with a love triangle of Zaitsev-Tanya-Danilov thrown in. Plot development is the film's weakest point in my opinion.

There are some inaccuracies, such as the locking of the Russian cattle-car troop trains - that was NOT the Soviet's practice! They left them open in case of air attack. Things like that scene are most likely the result of American (or more generally, western) inclinations to view the Communists as indifferent to life or as some sort of slave-labor-based society. Mismanagement aside, the Russians suffered terribly from the war.

Its a good movie - but don't take it as history. Zaitsev was a real person though and a real hero, as was Tanya. Major Koenig is now believed to be a propaganda invention.
For the real story of Stalingrad, I'd suggest reading the book "Enemy at the Gates" by William Craig - a very easy read.

Set during the fall of Stalingrad in World War two, "Enemy at the Gates" focuses on Vassili Zaitsev, a poor soldier who has a gift for sharp shooting. That gift comes to the attention of Commisar Danilov, who sees Zaitsev as a political propaganda coup for an ailing Russian military. The Germans call in a sniper of their own, a Major Konig, to deal with this sniper who is growing in fame.

The tension is thick in this movie, as the two snipers stalk each other. However, around them is the maelstrom of the Battle of Stalingrad. The stark realities of the Russian army are very realistic, with soldiers sharing a single weapon, living in horrid conditions, and suffering badly.

The attempts of the political officers to exploit Zaitsev for their own goals are also highlighted. Their sometimes cynical use of people to advance the glory of the Motherland is sometimes horrible to contemplate and view.

The movie is earthy and real, and the acting is excellent. Jude Law is great in the lead roll. I was very impressed with the cast of the movie.

Not an action filled gore-fest like We Were Soldiers (Widescreen Edition), it is certainly realistic in its depictions. It is a good movie with lots of tense moments. I enjoyed this movie a lot.

I love WWII movies. This one is a modern classic. Don't miss it!

[...]I watched the movie on TV recently without knowing beforehand whether the actual figures and plot were real or fictional.

The three central characters, two of whom at least were apparently real, make up the eternal triangle. The Russian sniper is the hero ( he was taught to shoot very accurately by his wolf-hunting grandfather: "put snow in your mouth so the wolf won't see your breath). He is made a hero by his would-be rival, the lovelorn Jewish Communist Party Commissar in charge of battle site propaganda. They are both in love with the lovely Jewish Soviet infantry heroine who plans to go and farm in Palestine if she survives the war.

The filmmakers, bending the truth, have made the sharp shooting activities of the particular hero a critical part of the whole Battle of Stalingrad. If the hero gets killed it will be a national tragedy, if not a disaster, For the Germans, if their sharpshooter is killed, who is shipped in from Berlin in a Pullman train specifically to wipe out the hero, it will be a humiliation. so much so the Nazi Major is told by General Paulus to remove his dog tags in case he falls. If you believe the film plot the duelling was apparently set up on purpose as part of the commissar's propaganda (I don't know if Danilov the commissar is real or fictional). Such a duel did take place but was probably not central to the Battle of Stalingrad (which was won in 1943 when the Russians surrounded the Germans who found themselves enclosed in the city and forced the whole army to surrender including the General). The victory is celebrated near the end of the film but it does not explain how the it came about, though no doubt the dogged resistance inside the city was very important.

The war action -particularly in the first half hour of the movie - is very graphic and exciting and more realistic than most war films. The romantic line , apparently real, between hero and heroine adds tone to what would otherwise be just another bang-bang movie for 100 minutes. I believe there is even a computer game based on the film that concentrates on the shooting gallery aspect. The film makers do successfully, if not entirely completely, put the Battle of Stalingrad in its perspective as arguably the turning in point in the European theatre of World War II, that drained Hitler's forces. But they do not explain that without the Russian victory at Stalingrad in 1943 the allied invasion of Normandy would have been impossible in 1944 and World War II would have been prolonged (assuming that America would have hesitated to us the atomic bomb it developed in 1945 against Europeans).

The action part of the movie is mainly focused on the Russian sharpshooter's duel with the elegant German sniper sent to cut him down. Action narrows from the opening mass battle scenes to a handful of Russian sharp shooters, who fall one by one to the cunning German ace and ends up with a one-on-one Western type gun duel. The sense of war is hell pervades the atmosphere of a ruined city in which fighting is from building to building. The Germans appear to have an air advantage and an ability to drop bombs with devastating impact but their tanks, confined by narrow alleys amid the ruins are not much help. I recently saw actual footage of the Battle in a German documentary on TV and the fountain featured early in the film also appears as it really was though not piled high with dead bodies. Not being a World War II expert I cannot quibble with the many minor historical mistakes that have been identified by purists but even if I were aware of them when I viewed the film it wouldn't have made much difference to my enjoyment. The cast all round is superb, especially the principal characters. My only complaint is the Hollywood type ending. The temporarily separated lovers meet in hospital before the final fade out In real life they both assumed each other were dead and didn't find the truth for many year afterwards. That would have been , in my opinion, a better ending than the fictional one contrived for no good reason by the filmmakers.Isn't it enough that both survived? Surely the assumption that American box offices need happy endings (if that was the reason for a dumb they lived happily ever after ending) is outdated?

For what it's worth, this film deserves more credit than it is frequently given. I think that most criticisms of the film stem from the reviewers entering the film with certain preconceived notions about how what the film was going to be, only to be let down. I don't blame the reviewers entirely. ENEMY AT THE GATES is a little unsure of what it wants to become. Should we make a film that accurately captures the battle of Stalingrad? Should we, instead, focus on the wonderful story of these two rival snipers? Or should we try and communicate an even more personal story about love and the evils of war? Unfortunately, ENEMY AT THE GATES tries to accomplish all three and, if judged by any single standard, ultimately fails.

Let me take them in turn. ENEMY AT THE GATES begins in a manner quite reminiscent of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. After a quick character development scene in which we see our young protagonist being taught how to stalk and snipe a wolf, we suddenly see him thrust amongst the Red Army, railed off to the shores of the Volga River, and thrown into the midst of a German siege. The opening is spectacular and moving. Thousands of Russian soldiers are being ferried across the Volga while German dive bombers and artillery decimate their numbers. As if that isn't bad enough, those wise enough to try and flee the fight are mercilessly gunned down by their own Russian commanders. While some have criticized this movie for historical accuracy, such things did occur. And just in case you think I'm trying to demonize the Russian commanders, ENEMY AT THE GATES provides these men with plenty of motivation. They are the ones who must answer to the high command, who demand victory at all costs. What would we do? Of course, this film is not perfectly historically accurate. From this point on, we do not get much story about the battle for Stalingrad. The ending of the film leaves the outcome of this battle completely mysterious. If you came looking for a movie purely about the battle and the Russian front, you came to the wrong place. While I think that the action scenes are skillfully handled, this is obviously not where the film's interest lies.

What is the interest? It is about the incredible struggle, based on true events, that occurred during the battle. For while both armies attack each other brutally, two men endlessly hunt each other, putting each other's skill to the ultimate test. Our protagonist, Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law), plays a Russian peasant who was taught by his grandfather how to shoot. An expert marksmen and natural talent, Zaitsev stalks the German army, proving his skill time and time again. Thanks to his friend Commisar Danilov (Joseph Fiennes), a political officer in charge of the military press, Zaitsev soon becomes an iconic hero of the Russian army--a symbol of communist dominance over fascist Germany. Germany begins to take notice and sends out their best sniper to hunt the young Russian down. Killing him would deal a symbolic death blow to Russia. Germany's marksmen is Major König (Ed Harris), an aristocratic deer hunter and the instructor at the sniper school in Berlin. As soon as König enters the picture, ENEMY AT THE GATES takes a dramatic turn. Suddenly, the film is about the rivalry of these two men. For me, this is the most interesting storyline in the film. Both Ed Harris and Jude Law have an intensity about them, often communicated only by turning the camera on their eyes, that is perfect for the silent nature of the sniping scenes. I could have watched a whole movie dedicated to only these two marksmen. The sniping scenes are expertly handled, the background sets of war-torn Stalingrad are amazingly detailed and completely set the tone, and the tension and suspense of these scenes is high.

But, alas, ENEMY AT THE GATES does not simply decide to abandon an accurate portrayal of the battle for Stalingrad for a more focused piece on these two snipers. Instead, an infamous "love triangle" is introduced to the film to stir things up. I say "infamous" only because it seems to have ruined everyone's day if you read the reviews on this site. While I would agree that this "love triangle" is not the most interesting part of the film, I do think that it has some merit. For one thing, it provides Zeitsev with motivation towards the end of the film. In the beginning, he seems to have nothing to lose, fully aware that each day may be his last. He is fearless in his struggle against the Germans. But as he begins to fall in love with Tania Chernova (Rachel Weisz), suddenly he has something to lose. Furthermore, his love provides him ultimately with the confidence and determination to put an end to König, who has been seemingly invincible up until that point.

The really interesting question, I think, is why not just have a love interest? Why involve a love triangle with Commisar Danilov? Here, I think that the film shines, at least in conception if not in execution. The love triangle provides Commisar Danilov with his ever-increasing menace towards Zaitsev. It makes him abuse his power and become the kind of evil man he once feared. This, in turn, only heightens our love of the protagonist, as his natural goodness is depicted side-by-side with the evil of his friend. One thing that kept occurring to me as I watched this film was the question: Who is the bad guy? Is it the Germans? Is it Major König? Is it Danilov when he becomes enraged at his unrequited love for Tania? Is it Kruschev? Is it the Russian generals who shoot their own troops? It's hard to say! All that we know is that Vassili is good. Perhaps the filmmakers didn't want to glorify the Russians? The truth is that no one ends up very good in this film, besides our two lovers. War seems to bring out the worst in everyone, even Danilov. Perhaps that is what ENEMY AT THE GATES is trying to strive for with its inclusion of the love triangle. War is evil. And humans are only pawns in the game.

Ultimately, I enjoyed ENEMY AT THE GATES. In fact, I enjoyed it more the second time I watched it. You cannot really knock it for not being an accurate portrayal of the battle of Stalingrad. It is focused on two men in the middle of that battle. Every film must explore life's events through the eyes of a few characters. That's where the interest lies! Anything else would just be a third-person perspective on explosions and gunfire. While I wish the film could have focused even more on the sniping angle than it does, I believe it to be a respectable war film and one that is quite interesting.

"Enemy at the Gates" is a middling entry in the canon of World War II films. The battle sequences are fantastic, and the visual effects are awesome. However, the storytelling elements are weak. What was an interesting story from World War II is muddled up with an unneeded love triangle arc, and the scenes meant to be menacing turn out being rather dull. If that wasn't bad enough, none of the actors use accents that were true to the characters. All of the Russian characters have British accents, and Ed Harris' German sports an American accent. This has the affect of distancing the viewer from the story. James Horner's original score sounds too much like John Williams' music from "Schindler's List," which also ruins the momentum of the film.
The acting is alright. Jude Law has never impressed me as an actor, and his performance as Vassili shows he has little talent. Joseph Fiennes is a good actor, but is rather bland as Vassili's friend. Bob Hoskins is a fine actor, but is unimpressive and not menacing enough to pull off the role of Nikita Kruschev. Ed Harris also lacks the menace to pull off the character of Major Konig. The two standout performances in the film are Rachel Weiz as Tania, and Ron Perlman ("Hellboy") in a brief role as a Russian soldier.
Overall, "Enemy at the Gates" is a rather bland World War II epic. While the action is good, the story and acting is weak. I recommend seeing it once, and that's it.
Grade: C+

If you liked Windtalkers or Saving Private Ryan then this movie is just for you, mainly because like Saving Private Ryan, blood and gore, men, and guns hit the screen within five minutes. Now, There is a twist to the story which is between the battle a love story and friendship, but dont worry there are still a lot of good fighting scenes. Enemy At The Gates is about a new recruit going into the battle to defend the great city of Stalingrad. As he gets more and more expieriance as a Russian sniper he falls in love with a fellow woman sniper. And thats the bad part because when do you see a great war movie when the hero has the hots for a woman in battle? The only downfall to this great war film is the sex scene. Which just wasnt very realistic to the war. Other than that, this movie is great. But I will tell you right off the bat, its not a very safe childrens movie, i'm 14 and I was moved by the image and picture of this movie. My dad lets me watch most war movies and I have to say this one was easier to get through than Saving Private Ryan because there was less swearing, gore, killing, and overall, violence. But still there was enough gore and violence to fullfill all you war movie fans. I hope this review helped you in all ways. Thanks for reading.

Love the "seamless" vfx in this period film. I was greatly impressed with the set extensions. Really added to the film without drawing attention away.

Maybe oneof the best war movies ever made. This one has to be seen to appreciate what the Russian front at Stalingrad was like in WWII.

The movie is great but you do not carry the DVD in Full screen. I do not like to watch this movie on a wide screen format. I would love to have this movie in my library if it was in full screen format.

First off, the star rating for this movie is 3.625 stars. This is the averaged conclusion of four of us watching Enemy at the Gates ( we gave it a 4.0, 4.5, 3.0, and 3.0 stars, respectively).

"Well, I thought the acting was pretty darn good" (4.5).
"Good killing scenes" (4.0).
"I thought it was pretty realistic about war... dirty, grimy, and people die" (4.5).
"I thought the sniper scenes were very well done... you have to know your enemy, see your enemy" (4.0).

However:

"It had the "Saving Private Ryan" flavor, mixed with a love story, a story about friendship, and a clear example of the cruelty of war" (3.0).
"It was okay, I guess" (3.0).

Our conclusion? Entertaining and gritty. Not the best of war-themed movies, but John Wayne wasn't swaggering around either. The viewer won't have the best understanding of which aspects of this story were true and which were all Hollywood. The Russians were noble and the Germans were beasts. Remember the line about histories being written by the victors? There you go!

We appreciated the reality of war being presented as "... dirty, grimy, and people die." Certainly, in any war, there are stories of luck, of hope, and of love. We also know that the dirty, grimy, and people dying part predominates. The film is true in that regard. We'll leave the accuracy of the history to other reviewers.

In spite of other reviews and critisms this movie is a classic to me and probably a lot closer to fact than most "Hollywood" war movies. Fully accurate or not, how refreshing to have a war hero without an ego. Was the intention to give a full history lesson or to focus on the intriguing game of cat and mouse of the opposing sharpshooters Vassily Zaitzev(Jude Law)and the German Major Konig (Ed Harris)with the battle for Stalingrad as the backdrop. If you want a history lesson get a documentry.Great performances all round.

A central statue display of Children dancing around a Maypole with a Crocodile leering at them while buildings burn after the bombing of a railroad yard in Stalingrad. That was the picture on the original cover of the famous book produced by William Craig that this film used as a resource. It makes an impression immediately as to what nightmares this battle was all about and the film does deliver that impression just as well. I was haunted by the stories in Mr. Craig's book when I first became acquainted with the work in 1980. You can feel the atmosphere in this film. It is very Stalinist in the deep browns, blacks and fiery red of war. As Al Stewart said in his famous song "Roads to Moscow": "and the pale sun of October whispers the Snow will soon be coming..and I wonder when I'll be home again and the morning answers 'never' and the evening sighs and the steely russian skies go on ...forever". So you can imagine how I felt as I sat in the audience for the first showing of this movie. When it was over, the audience sat there...in stunned silence at what had been shown and no one left the theatre as the credits rolled to the end. It was as if everyone could not quite take in all that was given in this movie. It did not fail in trying to tell the personal tales that Craig spoke about, but it tended to center on a few individuals (real people, in most cases, but somewhat romanticized) yet, it does convey a certain sense of the misery of fighting in the city. The director made a few changes in the fates of individuals, added a political officer in the mix to good effect and generally did a good job. A few scenes from the original have been CUT. One in the meeting with Nikita K of political officers where one wets his pants and another when Ed Harris (as Maj. Konig, an Oscar worthy performance!) is sitting in the train and the camera focuses on terribly wounded Germans in another train, stacked like cattle ready to head in the opposite direction, staring at him in a luxurious train car alone is a bit longer before he pulls the curtain down so that he don't have to look at them. The film decends into a personal duel between Harris and Jude Law playing the hero Vassily Zaitzev, two snipers of note. The film misses on other heroes like General Vassili Chuikov or Colonel Ivan Lyudnikov, a division commander who defended the Barrikady factory against the German Pioneer unit. 15 year old Sacha Fillipov was indeed hanged for espionage, but this too was romanticized for effect. I have nothing against it. It is still an effective picture. Not perfect for a History scholar but the film produces the intended result. The truth is that most Americans were unaware of the Russian fight at Stalingrad, only Harrison Salisbury, a reporter for the NY Times, wrote and reported during the war about Soviet fighting that later made for effective books that he wrote as an afterthought. It is still good and makes for an entertaining semi-historical lesson.

As you may have read, this movie covers events from the Battle of Stalingrad 1942, which was the turning point of the war against Nazi Germany. This was a brutal battle during a harsh winter and the casualties were horrific. Brutalities occurred from both sides fighting the battle, the Nazi's, which are well known, and the Soviets, the brutalities of which are alarmingly little known. Considering the library shelves full of the atrocities committed by the Soviets, there remains a dichotomy on the coverage committed by both of these totalitarian regimes. An acknowledgment of the nature of the Soviet Union will be when there's an equivalent Schindler's List Hollywood movie, heaped with loads of awards, and broadcast on network TV without commercial interruption. That day may be a long time off, or may never occur, so there only exist whatever rare movies occur on it. There are a few telling statements here and there, Bob Hoskins as Krushchev, the Communist political leader in the battle, asks another soldier what he thinks can be done to motivate the Soviet soldiers, and he replies threaten their families, to which Krushchev lets out a "pfthh, of course we already tried that!". This is a realistic comment on the mentality of the Russians who killed thousands of their own troops in disciplinary actions. There's a comment on the `political correctness' of the movie. It's the other way around, politically correct would be to say how great the Russians were in WWII. The fact that this Hollywood movie has been released and is un-politically correct is what's surprising, and is why you should view such a rarity.

There is a duel between two snipers in the movie, one German, one Russian. It's should have been more of a back story as opposed to being the plot. There's also a love interest. Apparently aspects of these events did occur, but you should consider this a fictional movie of course, although the historical background certainly isn't. It's not a great movie, because of the sniper and love interest are so-so done, but it's a good movie, and one of the few large screen Hollywood cinematic releases on the subject, is relatively short at a bit over two hours considering the subject matter, and is essential viewing for anyone interested in Stalingrad and the nature of the Soviet Union. If you have further interest, there are numerous documentaries that could and should be watched on the Battle for Stalingrad.

An excellent movie ! You really feel that you are there in Stanlingrand. Superb performance by Jude Law and Ed Harris. Unforgettable ! See it, Buy It, Own it !

The beginning is very well done, then the only interesting parts are the cat-and-mouse between Jude Law and Ed Harris. The rest of the film is bad, I'd say. Luckily, I recorded it from TV. It is now erased. (By the way, one of the Amazon reviewers who also disliked the film wrote that Bob Hoskins is American. He's from England.)

Honestly, the only line missing from this film is:

"Oy you, I shoot for the ruddy Soviets too! Get them Jerries, I will!"

The actual Soviet Stalingrad veterans were so offended by inaccuracies in the movie and the insulting way in which the movie portrays the Soviet army, that they asked the Russian Parliament to ban the film in Russia.

The acting is downright lousy as are the stupid and highly unnecessary British accents. The stupid British kid posing as a Russian spy, the stupid British guy posing as a Soviet sniper... Even Bob Hoskins (American) throws in the fake UK accent (So irritating!) But the ultimate laugh was when Ed Harris is mixing English and German together in his sentences. Just annoying altogether. They should have done this film in Soviet-era Russian and Third Reich German, as executed so well in "Downfall."

"Enemy At The Gates" bombed at theaters for a reason, and it is in the Amazon bargain bin for a reason: It's a stupid film.

Skip this one, and get "Downfall" instead. You will not be dissappointed with that film, I assure you.

Taken as a historical drama rather than an attempt to flawlessly depict a historical incident, this is topnotch entertainment. "Enemy At The Gates" 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.
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.

For those of you who want a shoot-em-up war movie... this is right up your alley (as it is mine!). But historically, it's incredibly inaccurate.
Put your feet on the coffee table, crack a beer, open a bag of potato chips, and lose yourself in a really good war movie. Beautiful set design for a blasted out Stalingrad, great costuming, and wonderful makeup. I wonder how long it took them to get clean after their filming in all the dirt and debris
However, this movie is about as historically accurate as John Wayne's "Flying Tigers"
I would HIGHLY recommend reading the books, "Enemy At The Gates" by William Craig, and "War of the Rats" by David Robbins. These are the REAL stories of the battle of Stalingrad. The incredible suffering of both Soviet and German armies, and what it meant to be a Soviet conscript in the Red Army and thrown into the "Kessel" which was Stalingrad. (AKA "Der hexen kessel" The witches' cauldron). Both Soviet resolve and the famous Russian winter ganged up on the German and some Italian forces to create a truly exquisite hell on earth, and the nearly totally destroyed city of Stalingrad itself gave wonderful and equal cover to both forces. There is no more savage warfare than urban fighting.
The movie is the story of the dual between the Soviet and German snipers and does indeed make for a great flick. But the true story is quite different. In the book, "Enemy At The Gates", the dual took up a whole two or three pages... it was a mere trifle in the total battle.
Jude Law's character, Vassili Zaitsev, was probably not a "superb" marksman since most urban sniping is at 100 yards or less (usually a lot less). The Moisen-Nagant is a good rifle, but it was still a field-grade, as-issued rifle. What Zaitsev was REALLY good at, where he really shined, was in hiding and concealment. Tania Chernova was blond and, in addition to being a very successful sniper in her own right, did some explosives work.
The real person (named in the movie) Sacha Fillipov was indeed hanged, but not by the German sniper. He was rounded up by a German army squad and hanged, not from a water tower, but from a tree along with three or four other Russian youths. He was not a little kid as in the movie, but was fifteen or sixteen.
Another little tidbit... the German major was not killed standing up in a train yard, but while he was in his cover under steel plates. Snipers DO NOT break cover... ever... and offer themselves up as fodder by walking out into the open. While there may be other snipers (counter-snipers) operating in the area, it's just plain suicide. (Trust me on this... I know of which I speak).
The whole movie is riddled with little details that are not factual. It either portrays incidences which did not happen, omits incidences which did, or portrays actual incidences incorrectly... very incorrectly.
Bottom line.... Forget all about the history books, and just relax and enjoy the movie... It's a good one!!! (That is, if you can overlook Russians speaking with British accents). To tell the truth, I'm watching it again as I'm writing this.
And, thank God, at least it's not a movie loaded with obscenities! I was in the military and I know what it's really like, but this is one inaccuracy I approve of.

And Rachel Weisz should ABSOLUTELY get an Oscar for her performance in the only sex scene in the movie. If she doesn't light your fire in this sequence, you have a real problem!!

Five stars for a good "fictionalized" war movie... but it's only a one star movie for historical accuracy.

Let me start off by saying that I'm not a war movie buff, like the other reviewers here seem to be. I never really watched all of "Platoon" and I still feel that the first fifteen intense, minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" is what actually saves it from being completely boring and just plain middling for the rest of it. But, getting back to "Enemy at the Gates", I really don't like war movies and American war films in particular, are almost always one-sided. This movie however, covers a portion of the war that is almost never told, the Russian front and particularly the battle for Stalingrad. This movie deserves major props for tackling a part of the war that Hollywood refused to acknowledge (instead creating yet another anti-war film or worse yet, an imitation John Wayne piece of [...] like "We Were Soldiers") and script writers avoided at all costs in an effort to create another "Full Metal Jacket" for American consumption. This movie's realism isn't about what war really looks like, in the way "Private Ryan" was (although, I think you'd be hard pressed to say that the beginning of "Enemy" is any less powerful or chaotic than "Private Ryan's" was)this movie actually focuse's on story, not war and on people and the choices they make during one. This movie is just that...a movie... so, if you're expecting complete, historical, accuracy from this film, than you're probably better off watched yet another, dreary, documentary on the A&E channel! "Enemy" is great because you're dealing with the creation of and separating the differences between idols and heroes based on their faith, beliefs and their values. This movie also paralells boxing, with Vasilli, as a young almost-protege', with natural skill on his way up and Major Konig is like an aged champion who knows he must face the young contender at some point. In the process, Vasilli sees the champion/Konig in action first hand and is awed by his already incredible skill, making him become a little kid again, unsure if he can even beat him now. To top off that comparison, Bob Hoskins as Krushchev, is incredible and (probably not far off from what the real man was like in real-life)he should have gotten an Oscar for his role as Krushchev (let's face it, he was better in this than "Roger Rabbit"!). He in fact, plays the role almost like that of a Don King-like fight promoter, who's interest in Vasilli is to promote a "fight of the century" between the "Russian" and "the German" as propaganda for the Russian side. There is a part where Konig, begins to take an almost fatherly interest in Vasilli (and you get the sense that they both admire one another like a protege') asking "why he didn't learn to shoot from his father" and we also learn about Konig's son's death, I would have liked to have seen this storyline followed more and expounded upon. One even wonders if they're would have been a father/son or a teacher/student relationship between them had there been no war. As for the love interest,... completely believeable! I don't know of any man or woman, who hasn't been in love with someone...who was in love with someone else. Where, no matter what you do (logic, reason, change of clothes, etc.) nothing can change the fact that that person just doesn't feel that way about you. If you can't understand that, than you're just missing something and I don't mean just about this movie! But seriously, you feel for everyone in this film and I think that's what really makes this film work so well. Except Sasha, I was actually very happy when the Major finally killed him off. First, I don't like any little boy with a girls name (except Sue of course) and this kid just tried too hard to look and be adorable! I thought he was a real piece of sh@# to begin with and he would just grow up and become an adult like that. So when he did meet his untimely end, I actually had a nice, big, smile on my face. When he met his end, I didn't particularly care at all..."serves him right" I thought. Sasha, makes the little girl from "War of the Worlds" seem downright loveable! Another thing about this movie, for anyone who doubts the love story or interest in this film. I know a lot of women who have seen this film and they all tell me that the sex scene between Rachel Weitz and Jude Law is one of the hottest scenes they've ever seen and I've heard quite a few say that it's even one of their favorites! If you want your girl to think you have a heart and... intelligence...than rent this film for her and you'll get plenty of lov'in! Besides that, she'll (temporarily at least), think you're smart and courageous like Vasilli and the sex scene will keep her happy and... better yet...you won't get bored! Grreat Move and an even greater movie because of it! Rent it for both you and Her!

If you're a war-movie buff like me, you've seen just about all of them: Saving Private Ryan, Hart's War, Windtalkers, Men of Honor, A Few Good Men, We Were Soldiers, U-571--for time and interest' sake, I'll stop there, even though I could rattle titles off for pages and pages to come.

Enemy at the Gates has joined the ranks of these unforgettable war films, which set themselves apart from other films in the genre because men in spit-polished shoes at shoot-'em-ups is not all that is required. A compelling story has to be the very foundation of the film, there has to be at least a meager amount of activity going on outside of the battle, to serve as a distraction from the chaotic and war-torn events.

Enemy at the Gates has the upper-hand to begin with, boasting a powerful concoction of your better actors--Jude Law (The Aviator), Ed Harris (A History of Violence), Joseph Fiennes (The Great Raid), Rachel Weisz (The Constant Gardener) and Bob Hoskins (Mrs. Henderson Presents). Its nail biting twists and turns will arrest your attention throughout this solidly-written script by Jean-Jacques Annaud (Seven Years in Tibet) and Alain Godard (Two Brothers), with more than a few unexpected surprises. To keep the ladies immersed until the end of the 131-minute movie, it even has a little romantic sub-plot, which potentially turns out to be the bewitching undoing of the lead character.

The battle takes place during World War II in Stalingrad, Russia, with sharpshooter Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law) almost single-handedly bagging the bodies as promptly as they arrive. Things eventually start to look grim for the Russian troops when the Germans move inward, and Commander Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) devise a "brilliant" plan to boost the hope of the civilians with propaganda-laden newspapers.

Day after day, the underground newspaper reports on the finest soldiers and their number of kills, with the poster-boy Vassili's mug shot on the front page. But it wasn't all work and no play for Vassili. He drudged on like any soldier at war, and even had a little time for a sweet romance with a neighboring soldier, Tania (Rachel Weisz). But the citizens of the Iron Curtain weren't the only ones reading the tabloid. The German army had been following the heroic efforts of the Russians and had a hero of their own to trumpet, courtesy of Major Koenig (Ed Harris), a highly-focused soldier who obviously worked his way to the top by being the best at what he did as a marksman. He was sent in to counter the efforts of Russia's finest, whatever the cost, and pulled every trick out of his arsenal to ensure Vassili's defeat, which quickly turns into a game of cat-and-mouse.

The performances in this motion picture were stunning to watch. Jude Law's character starts to develop early on in the film and continues until the curtain comes down and the lights go up, it'll linger with you. And veteran Ed Harris as Major Koenig dazzles with mystique, and an almost expressionless face that speaks loudly (not to mention how charming he looks in a uniform). The location wasn't too shabby either; the scenic mood feeling raw with muted colors, taking you back half a century with the help of Cinematographer Robert Fraisse (Hotel Rwanda).

Enemy at the Gates is no enemy of mine. It'll shake you loose of the slop-stitch handiwork that you have become accustomed to, and raise the bar for craftsmanship in quality movie-making.

"Enemy at the Gates" is a work of historical fiction, directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud who also wrote the screenplay along with Alain Godard. The setting is the battle of Stalingrad which was the turning point in World War II. The story is about a duel between two snipers: Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law), a Russian soldier who goes from a foot solider without a rifle, to a state hero, and Major Konig (Ed Harris), an aristocratic German officer who is sent to kill Zaitsev. This film premiered at the Berlin International Film Festival on February 7th of 2001.

The base story is true, but the account is fictionalized to make a more standard movie. The movie at the start has a broad focus, concentrating on the battle at the start of the film. During this part of the movie we do see the main characters, but they are not identified. The movie then narrows its focus to the main characters, starting with the meeting of Commisar Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) and Zaitsev, where Zaitsev's marksmanship saves the two of them, as he eliminates some German officers and their guards. The result is that Danilov decides to promote Zaitsev as a hero in his writing, as well as himself in the eyes of Khrushchev (Bob Hoskins).

The relationship between Danilov and Zaitsev is complicated by a love triangle, as Danilov and Zaitsev compete for Tania Chernova (Rachel Weisz), who becomes a soldier herself, as she joins the fight against the Germans. Another side story includes that of Sacha Filipov (Gabriel Thomson) and his mother (Eva Mattes) who are Tania's neighbors. Sacha sells information to the Major Konig, but also tips off Danilov so that he can help Zaitsev prevail.

This is not a perfect movie by any means. The horrors of living in Stalingrad during this battle are not really shown, especially the starvation aspect, which would have well served the sub-plot where Sacha is selling information to Major Konig. Once the story narrows to the main characters, the battle disappears for the most part, reappearing only when needed. Finally, the fictionalized story isn't really anything new, there are no chances taken, and there are no real surprises.

This DVD has 5.1 surround sound, and is widescreen enhanced for 16:9 televisions. There is a behind-the-scenes featurette and cast and crew interviews. It also contains some additional scenes, which were not used in the movie.

Despite some weaknesses, I do find this movie to be very entertaining, and overall I would definitely recommend this DVD. The performances by the main characters are all solid, and there are no major flaws or mistakes. It is true that the story is not 100% accurate historically, but if that is what you are looking for then you really ought to be looking at books on the subject, or perhaps some documentaries and not a movie made primarily for entertainment.

I'm not that familiar with the true account of the famed Russian sniper, Vassili Zaitsev so I can't comment on how accurately the script of his accomplishments is portrayed, but as one fairly familiar with the German attack on Stalingrad, ENEMY AT THE GATES is a fair adaptation of the events that occurred there during the 1942 Eastern Front campaign. I do know that Zaitsev did in fact, score 182 kills with his Nosin-Nagant model 1891/30 rifle and did in fact kill the German Major Kulikov, who had been tracking him for 5 days prior to the German withdrawal of Stalingrad.

The story begins when a beleaguered Russian army, on the brink of disaster, and desperately in need of a moral boost. A Russian propagandist (Fiennes) introduces the high command to the story of Zaitsev (Law), a Russian sniper from the Urals wilderness who had successfully killed over a dozen German officers. A local propaganda campaign began and with Zaitsev's elevated stature among the local populace, he draws the ire of the German high command, who send their best sniper, Major Konig (Harris) (I don't know why they chose not to use Kulikov's real name) to engage in a thrilling cat-and-mouse chase between the two warriors. Rachel Weisz adds what is likely a fictionalized romance to the film, and Bob Hoskins gives a brilliant portrayal of a middle aged Nikita Krushchev.

Most notable in this film is the presentation to the western world of the events of the Eastern Front during World War II. An epic saga, for the most part, overlooked by film makers. The peasant army of Russia in the 1930's and 40's was, for the most part, illiterate. Therefore, when compared to the war in the west and in the Pacific, only a fraction of personal accounts have been written on this theater of operations. It's good to see what appears to be a fairly accurate portrayal of that sector of the war.

The acting in this film is above average. The filming itself is great with realistic battle scenes and ensuing chaos that was apparent during the Battle of Stalingrad. The horrors of war are graffic in this movie, so parents should be advised.

This movie would have got five stars from me but there is one reason why I didnt rate it five out of five is simply because Hollywood is being hollywood adding some romance in the picture not that seeing Rachel Wiesz is a bad thing because it is not I just think that leaving it out would have made for a better picture

This movie takes you to Stalingrad the Nazis last stand and hope to fight off the Russians starting on a boatt getting shot at by planes above heading to the docks to recive a gun or ammo the Russian military werent to financially well off and could not afford a gun for every soldier so one soldier got a gun and the other a clip of ammo
The whole plot of the movie is a Russian Sniper is born and begins killing to many Nazi officers so the Nazis send their best Sniper to take him out
A classic and somewhat historically accurate grudge match there really was a Russian Sniper Vaceli something i foget how to spell the last name his weapon is on display in a musem somewhere most likely in Russia and this really did happen a Nazi Sniper and Russian where out hunting one another
This is recomended defenitly rent it if you want but I would flat out buy it

Based on a true story and handsomely presented, ENEMY AT THE GATES is a rousing World War II action flick chronicling the Battle of Stalingrad as seen through the eyes of Russian soldier Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law,) a young Russian soldier ferried over to the besieged city at the height of battle who soon proves himself a peerless sniper. In fact, before long Vassili Zaitsev has picked off so many high-ranking officers the Germans call upon their own champion, Maj. König (Ed Harris,) to take the precocious young sniper down.

This movie is the story of their cat-and-mouse hunt for each other through the piling rubble of Stalingrad. The plot is adorned with a love-triangle involving Vassili, a fellow soldier named Tania Chernova (Rachel Weisz) and a propaganda agent, Commisar Danilov, played by Joseph Fiennes. Nikita Krushchev (Bob Hoskins) arrives at one point to bully and bluster, drink vodka, resent Stalin, and generally chew a bit of carpet. Thankfully none of these side streets prove too distracting. Even when Danilov tells Vassili the fate of Stalingrad, upon which falls the fate of the war, will be determined by which sniper is able to outwit the other, seems a little less forced than it should.

The half-destroyed city is beautifully recreated and photographed. The pacing allows for us to spend tense moments with Law and Harris, doing not much more than looking through a gun-sight, without growing bored. This movie also seems wonderfully edited. Battles, action characters in movement, are hard to keep track of while maintaining the proper mood and tension, but we never get lost or disentangled from what's going on. Law is very good as the young shootist who must convince himself he not overmatched, and Harris, in a role that calls for little more than one note, is pitch perfect. One of the better war movies to come down the pike in a while.

Given the importance of the Russians in WWII, I really like it when a good movie comes out about them. I especially enjoyed finding out more about how the crossing of the Volga looked from the Russian side. Yes, it was historically inaccurate to have it occur in the daytime, but it made for a more exciting movie. I found the love scene between Zaitzev and Chernova very erotic.

At least three films are needed to describe World War II values; this one is a Russian view, 'Stalingrad' is the German reaction and 'Saving Private Ryan' is for the Americans.

In each case, lots of men die. 'Ryan' is typically American, stumbling into hell and then showing incredible courage in the belief that despite the bumbling of superiors they will make it a better place. 'Stalingrad' is typically Nazi, based on the heartless assumption that human lives do not matter for any reason. 'Enemy' expresses the "soul" of the Russian people, incredibly decent, humane and resourceful despite the total depravities of their communist rulers.

It's a simple story. The film opens with masses of Russians being driven into withering German machinegun fire at Stalingrad. Many of those Russian serfs are without weapons, because their commanders know the unarmed soldiers will be able to use the weapons of those who are the first to be killed. Gradually, the commissars realize they must treat common soldiers with some decency if they are to avoid defeat. So, to show the Red Army that it is possible to defeat the Germans, a skilled sniper is elevated to be a popular hero of the people. It's based on actual events, like the other two films.

All three are visually stunning, a graphic reminder of the brutal impact of war. The acting is superb; the plots, in each case, have an authentic tone. Purists will have a delight debating picayune details in each film, perhaps never realizing that life and war includes incongruities as well as logic. If you've been there, you already know anything is possible.

Instead, watch this film because of how it depicts the character of the Russians, a people who rose far above their communist masters to win a tremendous victory. It should be remembered the Russians faced and defeated 80 percent of the Nazi military. The ordinary Russian is resourceful, brave, decent and loyal to a fault to Mother Russia; Stalin is portrayed as an absolute tyrant who ruled only by extreme terror, while Krushchev is presented as the ruthless commisar who slowly learns to listen to the advice of others.

As in most literature, the central characters are larger-than-life stereotypes. In 'Enemy', the Russian sniper and his girlfriend become people anyone would genuinely like to know and invite home for a barbecue; Krushchev is the boss to definitely avoid, while the German sniper is a prime candidate for lethal injection.

But this together with gripping action and sustained suspense -- any fool knows it will end with a dead German and the good Russian alive somewhere with his girlfriend -- but getting there is a is a beautiful chess game in which pawns, knights, bishops and queens fall until only one king is left alive. Like most stories, the history may not always be as clear as some would like; but then, is 'The Illiad' or the Bible accurate history? Hardly. Instead, the truly great works of literature and film are more of an impressive study of character and morals.

In that, it ranks with the best films of World War II.

Buy this, then get 'Stalingrad' and 'Saving Private Ryan'. The subtleties within each will be appreciated once all three have been viewed.

I really liked this movie. Jude law was spectacular- as well as all the other actors. The authenticity of the story made the movie. I highly recommend it

I was "temping" at Sovietski Collection Imports when a huge order arrived for WWll era uniforms and props. They were to outfit an upcoming film about the snipers of the Battle of Stalingrad! Not a documentary, but a full length Major Motion Picture! I could hardly contain my excitement waiting for its debut; it was gonna be so awesome...!
It could have been, but alas, it wasn't. Anyone remember the Aesop's fable wherein a farmer permits a fox, closely pursued by hunters, to hide in his barn? Then the farmer loudly tells the hunters he has seen no fox, all the while winking and gesturing toward the barn. The hunters depart, not getting the message. As the fox takes her leave, the farmer berates her for showing no gratitude. "I would be more grateful," she replies, "if only your body language had been as helpful as your words." Likewise, "Enemy at the Gates" gets a star of gratitude for recognizing the enormous Soviet contribution to the Victory, and for its portrayal of sympathetic Russian and Ukrainian heroes based on real people. But, like Aesop's fox, I'm unimpressed by its overall body language.
OK, I didn't expect strict historical accuracy from Jean-Jacques Annaud. After all, he had previously given us that ludicrously un-natural "nature" film of a male bear nurturing an orphan cub! One expects Hollywood fantasy to pervade even "realistic" movies. The fact that EATG's famous duel likely never occured does not detract from the overall story. Silly melodrama, banal dialogue, distracting accents, and unbelievable actions, to a greater degree, do. But I could have overlooked those. I could even forgive the unrealistic suspensions of fighting which occur each time the snipers take to the streets. Because EATG gives us the immensely interesting Stalingrad setting, complete with long overdue Eastern Front heroes for us to root for! But wait... all is not what it seems. Unfortunately, its overwhelming amount of heavyhanded russophobic propaganda suggests that the producers' fear, like that of Aesop's farmer, was being pegged an "enemy collaborator." And unlike the hunters in the fable, the audience can't possibly miss the (wink, nudge) "message."
I could cite dozens of examples, but here are just a few, crafted to create a politically-correct counterbalance of Russian incompetance and callousness: #1. That unforgetable Volga crossing; those sluggishly moving boats under unopposed Stuka fire! In reality, most crossings were done at night, under cover of darkness and Soviet air defense forces (PVO). #2. Those human waves of unarmed cannonfodder hurling themselves against German fortifications, shadowed by NKVD gunners itching to mow down any retreat! In fact, depicted here are a penal battalion and blocking troops, not a typical Red Army engagement. This scene is especially dishonest, because in Stalingrad, highly effective ten-man squads, well armed with machine guns and other weapons, engaged in urban guerrilla combat. The setting was more likely a ruined house or factory than an open town square! #3. Those CGI formations of German bombers brazenly razing the city -- and no Russian planes in sight! In fact, Stalingrad was where Soviet aviation finally gained air superiority over the Luftwaffe. Fighter pilots of the PVO guarded installations and strategic locations. "Free Hunters" of the Soviet air force (VVS) patrolled the city, seeking targets of opportunity. Some of these pilots, such as the female ACE Lilya Litvyak, became as legendary as the famous sniper Vasiliy Zaitsev.
Which brings me to EATG's main characters. Zaitsev, while played charmingly by Hollywood heartthrob Jude Law, was actually a strict, self-confident leader, not a shy farmboy. He did have a frontline affair with one of his female snipers. (One of the film's redeeming features is its recognition of the million-plus Soviet women combatants.) We never see Weiss's character fire her weapon. However, Tanya Chernova was already a partisan and sniper before meeting Zaitsev, and scored some 81 kills in her short war-career. The young Ukrainian was obsessed with avenging her family -- to the point of disregarding Zaitsev's training. After she initiated one premature firefight, resulting in the deaths of her comrades, Zaitsev slapped her across the face in rage. So much for the tender Hollywood romance! Nor did he return for her following her wounding and recovery. When asked why, he coldly replied he didn't want a woman whose injuries prevented her from bearing children! The political officer Danilov is misrepresented in the film, an embarrassing, contrived character whose purpose is to provide Zaitsev a romantic rival. For most of the movie, the character is the producers' main vehicle for disseminating their russophobic sentiment. At the end, Danilov's tearful anti-communist epiphany and lovesick sacrifice are not only unconvincing but nauseating. Equally hamhanded, politically-correct anti-commie dialogue was scripted for Ron Perlman's completely wasted character. Also irritating was the film's portrayal of Sasha, the too-adorable chocolate-loving child martyr. The real Sasha, who met the same fate as the celluloid urchin, was a partisan already in his late teens. And the less said about the outrageously over-the-top performance of Bob Hoskins as Nikita Khruschev, the better!
All in all, this film promised so much greatness and delivered so much b.s. I'm sorry to say so. But the truth is this: I would be embarrassed to sit through this offensive mess with any of my Russian friends. The German film "Stalingrad" gives a much more accurate and serious impression of the turning-point battle. William Craig's book, which inspired the title and some of the scenes of EATG, is worth reading. David L. Robbins' historical fiction "War of the Rats" will appeal to those interested in snipers, although it has way too much emphasis on the Zaitsev/Chernova love affair (and even portrays Tanya as an American). My recommendation for anyone who would like to experience a truly realistic novel of the Battle of Stalingrad, by a writer who was on site: find a translated copy of Konstantin Simonov's "Days and Nights." And get ready for a harrowing read!

Enemy at the Gates is an excellent movie. It is far from an action movie - more like a drama with guns, an awesome sniper movie. Never before have I seen into the mind of a sniper in a movie as in depth as I did in this movie. The beginning of the movie (going into war) was more shocking to me than the opening of Saving Private Ryan. Two thumbs up to Rachel Weisz and Jude Law!