Enemy at the Gates (2001)

Is the enemy already at the gates?
It’s actually my first time seeing Ed Harris cast as the villain.🙂 It’s an absolute must-watch if you haven't caught it yet!

The whole vibe was a massive inspiration for Call of Duty 🙂

IMDb

Honestly, I thought it was a pretty lackluster movie... just my two cents.

It felt totally pointless, kind of like watching a mediocre snack commercial. 🙄

Great movie, even better game👍

Enemy at the Gates is honestly pretty bad.
It just feels fake.
Way too many clichés.
Doesn't really go deep or make you think.
Too much unnecessary romance.
Focuses on looking good instead of the psychology.
The sets look way too polished for a war movie.
It isn't even truly anti-war.
The main guy is just too idealized.
They had to make him a Jew just to make him the hero!

The movie isn't bad, but calling it a masterpiece is a stretch.

Here are some clips and the trailer for the German film "Stalingrad"

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...&search=Search

I'm really digging the theme of this movie🙂

It’s like there’s this weird mix of Call of Duty and bits of Day of the Dead or even Band of Brothers baked right into it... I don't know, man, this game is just a total trip.

The action sequences? Man, they were killer. Especially those sniper duels—just pure, heart-pounding tension. If the whole movie had just focused on that, it would’ve been an absolute masterpiece...

But then you get to that romantic subplot... honestly, it felt totally unnecessary. It was kind of a drag and really killed the momentum. It felt like those annoying commercial breaks you get on network TV during a football game.

Jude Law and Ed Harris 👍

Solid movie—honestly, maybe one of the best depictions of WW2 on the Eastern Front out there.
Definitely the best thing Jude Law has ever done. It’s hard to see him top this kind of performance anytime soon.
And Ed Harris? Just classic, great work as usual.

nimblescout50 said:It's a good movie, maybe one of the best depictions of WW2 in the Soviet Union.
.

If I may be so bold, how many war movies have you actually sat through?
This particular film is an exercise in pure, unadulterated pathos—an unrealistic, propaganda-laden mess in its most egregious form. They essentially took a brilliant premise and completely butchered it, driven by a desperate need for moralizing lectures and mindless, Rambo-style action sequences during what should have been one of the most harrowing and fascinating battles of WW2.

To put it bluntly, this garbage of a film shares nothing with the actual battle except for the names of the locations, the people, and the timeline. It is little more than a high-budget action flick, and a rather subpar one at that.

Instead of inventing things out of thin air, they really ought to have just read a book about Stalingrad and filmed the reality. There is certainly no shortage of compelling historical events to draw from (for instance, why didn't they cover Pavlov's house?), but instead, they felt the inexplicable urge to mash together the Napoleonic Wars and the Battle of Stalingrad.👎

David Richardson67 said:It’s a high-budget production, but honestly? It's pretty bad.

Look, as an action flick, it actually holds up quite well. But if you're looking for a gritty, historical war movie... yeah, not really.

The whole thing about those two rival snipers is basically made up! In the book the movie was based on, *Zaitsev Didn't Know Who He Was Messing With*, they claim Wendell Schmidt was later identified as a sniper school instructor in Germany (whatever that school was supposed to be)...

But hey, official records totally debunk that. There wasn't even a sniper with that last name in the US Army, and there aren't any other official documents from the Soviet Union side that back up this whole Zaitsev story about him facing off against another veteran sniper.

I guess legends just grow when people are still alive to tell them, so there was plenty of room for myths and tall tales. Plus, the movie doesn't even have much of an anti-war message; it mostly just celebrates heroes pulling off impossible missions...

Still, if you watch it purely as fiction and pure entertainment—which is how you should probably approach it—it does its job! Just wish it didn't lean so hard into the cheesy romance and melodrama, which drags the rating down a bit...

If you're looking for a recommendation, I think nimblescout50's take on the Battle of Iwo Jima is much more compelling, especially since it focuses on Lyudmila Pavlichenko, who was essentially the female version of Vassily Zaitsev...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4084744/

It’s a decent enough watch for those who have absolutely no grasp of history. But for the small minority who actually know their stuff? It’s nothing short of an insult to one's intelligence.

David Richardson67 said:Mind if I ask how many war movies you’ve actually sat through?
This movie is just... it's pathetic, really. It's unrealistic, propaganda-heavy junk at its absolute worst. They had a solid concept, but they completely butchered it because they couldn't resist the urge to lecture the audience with moralizing nonsense and turning one of the most brutal, fascinating battles of WWII into some mindless action spectacle.

In short, this garbage doesn't have much more connection to the actual battle than just using the right names for places, people, and the timeframe. It's just a high-budget action flick—and a pretty bad one at that.

Instead of making up their own fever dreams, they should have just read up on what happened near Stalingrad and filmed that. There’s plenty of compelling history out there—I mean, why didn't they cover Pavlov's house?—but instead, they felt the need to mash together the Napoleonic Wars and the fight near Stalingrad.👎

Not from that specific battlefield, no.
The propaganda in the film isn't even that heavy; in reality, things were probably much worse.
I wouldn't know what else to throw into the mix if the story stays focused strictly on snipers.
To make it about something bigger, you'd have to build the plot around an entirely different foundation.

I watched an incredible movie the other day
It was that one about the fighting near Stalingrad from 1993, I think
Between that and Die Hard—man, those are some of my all-time favorites

Look, this is an action war movie, and I suppose one shouldn't really expect absolute historical accuracy or total realism from a production like this. It isn't exactly a documentary, after all.

mistyotter35 said:Look, this is an action war movie. You aren't exactly supposed to expect perfect historical accuracy or gritty realism from a flick like this. It isn't some documentary.

Oh, really? So portraying the Soviet Union as nothing more than a bunch of mindless savages is just a minor "historical inaccuracy" to you?
I imagine Joseph Goebbels would have absolutely loved this film.

What’s even considered "ignorant" here?
I mean, look—the Soviets took massive casualties over there. It wasn't some minor skirmish.
And that whole thing about them lacking rifles? That was actually true—they just didn't have enough gear for everyone at first, though they eventually managed to get back on their feet later on.

nimblescout50 said:What exactly is ignorant about that?
I mean, the Soviets took massive casualties over there...
And the bit about the rifles is true—they didn't have enough for everyone at first, and things only really stabilized later on.

Really? Well, Hitler thought the exact same thing, especially when he was looking at the tank situation.

They actually had much more practical gear on hand, like the PPSh-41 submachine gun...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...ember_1942.jpg

By the way, if you want a great visual breakdown of the infantry weapons used during Stalingrad, check this out:
http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Stalingrad_(2013)

Seriously!
Why hasn't the battle actually hit the streets yet? Besides, that photo of yours is from last November!