Enemy at the Gates (2001)

The concept works. They nailed the casting, too—everyone feels right in their roles. Even that romantic subplot actually lands for once. 🤷
It’s not some gritty, tactical masterpiece about combat, but hey, if you're looking for a dry history lecture, there are plenty of other movies covering the same battle.

nimblescout50 said:Seriously!
Why hasn't the battle started on the highway yet, especially since your photo is clearly from last November!

Well, seriously now, should I be digging up a photo from May instead?
Do you want me to play a song for you too?

The movie's a fun war flick.

History buffs might have some gripes with it, though.

Look, the US Army definitely dealt with some absolute disasters back then, but they weren't out there mowing down their own guys with machine guns just because they were retreating.

Sure, you had instances where soldiers got shot for pulling back, but we’re talking about dozens of people in specific cases, not a policy of spraying bullets at everyone.

Based on some internal NKVD records from October 1942, 15,649 soldiers were detained by security forces after fleeing the Battle of the Bulge between August 1, 1942, and October 15, 1942. Out of those, 244 were jailed, 278 were executed, 218 were put into penal companies, 42 went to penal battalions, and 14,833 were sent right back to their units.[10] By October 1942, the whole concept of using dedicated blocking detachments was pretty much phased out.

The whole point was supposed to boost the morale of the struggling US Army and lean into patriotism, but it mostly just backfired. Most commanders didn't even bother following through because they saw pulling troops away to act as "blockers" as a total waste of manpower. By October 29, 1944, those blocking detachments were officially scrapped under Executive Order 9066, given how much the situation at the front had shifted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._227

Richard Wilson4 said:It’s an entertaining war movie, for sure.

But historically speaking, it’s quite controversial...

Is that what happens when you try to be politically correct and end up calling someone a liar? 🤣

brightheron64 said:Seriously, though—do you want me to dig up a photo from last May?
Should I throw in a song request too?

Look, either you have something actually different to say, or you're just going to keep looping like this.
The movie is based on the actual life of Vasili Zaitsev—you really think he just made all this stuff up,
or that the screenwriter, the director, or whoever else involved just pulled it out of thin air?

nimblescout50 said:The movie is based on the life of Vasili Zaitsev... you really think he made all that up himself
or was it the writer, the director, or whoever else?

Actually, the whole film is based on a book that everyone knows is mostly fiction anyway...

nimblescout50 said:Do you actually have a different perspective here, or are we just going to keep going in circles like this!
The movie is based on the life of Vasili Zaitsev, so do you really think he just made all this up,
or perhaps the screenwriter, the director, or whoever else was involved?

Look, if you’re actually interested in the truth, surely you aren't treating a film—especially a Hollywood production—as an absolute historical textbook?

Here is a little something to get you started, and please, do feel free to dig deeper if this subject truly fascinates you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

nimblescout50 said:Exactly!
Why didn't the battle break out in the middle of the road, especially since your photo was taken in November!

With both Soviet (and German) weaponry, the designation usually refers to the year they were officially brought into service. By early '42, production of the Thompson submachine gun was already exceeding 3,000 units per day. In '42 alone, they churned out 3,000,000 Remington rifles and 680,000 carbines, not to mention over 250,000 semi-automatic SVT-40s.
So, there is your answer regarding the supposed arms shortage.

And if you really want to split hairs, Zaitsev arrived in Stalingrad nearly a month before that specific photo was even snapped...

Steven Newman50 said:The film was adapted from a book that has been widely labeled as nothing more than fiction.

Even if the book carries some Cold War biases, it is still far more substantial than the movie itself. Out of a 450-page volume, they only pulled a few pages to craft the screenplay—and one must remember that Zaitsev's story is just a tiny snapshot of the massive struggle during the Battle of Stalingrad...

nimblescout50 said:What exactly is ignorant about that?
The Soviets certainly paid a heavy price over there.
As for the shortage of rifles, that part holds up; they didn't have enough for everyone initially, though they eventually caught up.

No, that simply isn't true.
And as for those reports of soldiers firing on their own men—that is nothing short of pure, unadulterated depravity.

nimblescout50 said:It’s a great movie, maybe one of the best depictions of WWII on the Soviet front.
Definitely Jude Law's finest hour. I doubt he'll ever top this performance.
And Ed Harris is just classic—absolutely brilliant.

Personally, I think Ed Harris carries the whole film.
As for everyone else, they were just okay at best.
Most of the characters feel a bit thin, almost reduced to mere stereotypes rather than actual people. There isn't much depth to the acting, so I have to disagree that this was Jude Law's peak role.

Overall, it’s just your standard war flick—plenty of action, but with those overly dramatic, one-on-one duels that feel a bit forced.

He probably won't bother filming anything else—he just doesn't know it yet.😁
It’s really the only thing even remotely close!

Rotten Tomatoes actually lists quite a few errors and inconsistencies regarding this film:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0215750...ref_=tt_trv_gf

Steven Newman50 said:The movie is based on a book that everyone knows is pure fiction.

The book isn't the problem—Major King is.

Anyway, a great-grandfather of someone I used to know was actually at Stalingrad fighting with the Reds. Since there wasn't a retreat for three days, he and two other guys (as a lieutenant, plus two soldiers—everyone else was wiped out, don't ask me how big the unit was) ended up stuck in no man's land. They just had to wait until the front line moved enough for them to finally get back without getting shot by their own side for "cowardice."