http://www.movieheadlines.net/default.php3?reviewid=112

Good review. Gives some very good insight into the movie. I'm going to see it on Sunday. woohoo.

------------------
"Goddamn it, you'll never get the Purple Heart hiding in a foxhole! Follow me!"
- Captain Henry P. "Jim" Crowe (Guadalcanal, January 13, 1943)

Im going to try and see it Friday--I canna wait Captain..

Its good-romance and all, its good!!!!!!!!!

I think everyone would agree that the romance storyline was ill concieved, and there were a few other major areas of weakness. However, the film was held together by the great acting of Ed Harris, Jude Law and Joseph Fines. Thay did a good job despite the script, but I don't see any Oscar Nominations comin for EatG.

I also have a problem with the portrayal of the germans in Hollywood. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by now, but every german in WW2 is an "evil nazi"!

SPR looks better and better, especially when compared with many of the other WW2 film that are coming out nowadays.

[This message has been edited by Otto (edited 19 March 2001).]

yeah this was no SPR...but it was entertaining to watch. It may be awhile before a movie like SPR comes out again because the point of that movie was the war itself..and portraying realism.
The movie explained an EXTREMELY small amount of the actual battle for Stalingrad...and put too much emphasis on how this duel between 2 snipers would win the battle..when really...it had very little influence on the victors.
It was a sniper movie that was placed during the battle of Stalingrad...but does not go into much more detail than telling you that it's an important battle to be fought.
But nonetheless it was worth my paycheck to see it ...just don't expect to see anything like SPR.
just another quick note! A thing that always bothers me is...during battle sequences...the rifles really seem like they are firing rounds...but if a tanks or artillery fires...all it has is a flash of fire coming out of the barrel. The barrel doesn't get pushed in by the recoil..noticibly unrealistic to me. BUT anyway...it's good see it!

I thought it was great. My grandfather was not at Stalingrad but was a Kharkov and the begining scene with the city in flames brought to reality what my grandfather described. The other scenes around the city seemed realistic enough to me compared to SPR. Both films were great and I would watch them again and again.

------------------
"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war there is nothing sweet or fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."

What did you think about the last scene in which Zaitsev is standing by the train waiting for Koenigs to show himself?

In reality, no German Master sniper would have just waltzed into the open and just stood around waiting to get shot.

Other than that, I thought the whole movie was great. I also see no Oscar winning lines in this movie but, possibly in special effects.

Oh, I definitely agree with that. That and the romantic scene are two that stick out as totally unrealistic. I was very disappointed with the ending. They could have come up with something more dramatic.

------------------
"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war there is nothing sweet or fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."

I think in the book it said Konig was killed after he shot a Commissar. Supposedly Zaitsev shot Konigs right through his scope--ala Carlos Hathcock. Supposedly Konigs was in a pile of rubble undernearh a sheet of tim roofing when he killed the Commissar, and thats where he supposedly died. Also supposedly Konigs scope is on display in a Moscow Museum.

Personally, I think the whole "incident" was conjured up by the Russian Propaganda Machine, to boost morals, using a real Russian sniper to pose as an authentic hero. What gets me is, Why didnt the Commissars choose a female sniper to "build up" wouldnt that be a great propaganda coup? A female instead of a male. There were female snipers at Stalingrad who also had many more kills than Zaitsev did.

I personally am not aware of the true story but it would be a propaganda coup if the Soviets did that but more so if the Germans actually responded by sending in their top shot. I cannot see how one sniper can cause so much havoc in a large battle such as that. It would be bad for morale but who's to say that it was mutliple snipers doing the killing instead of one man?

------------------
"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war there is nothing sweet or fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."

Oh my gosh!! I LOVED this movie!! I know that everyone pretty much hails Saving Private Ryan..but I loved this one so much more. I really can't stomach a super violent movie ( I know war is violent but I just have dificulty watching it . ) and while this one did have it's moments I was able to look away for the most part.

What I loved most about it was the romance. It was sort of like a historical suspense chick-flick to me! And being a girl I was quite pleased.
I also found watching the scenes depicting the Russian army very interesting because I had no idea that the leaders would shoot people who retreated. It was pretty horrible.


To be honest I didn't walk away learning much more about the actual battle of Stalingrad but I LOVED the story anyway!! The Romance ahhhh a perfect movie for me!

Dear Nikki: I agree with you on SPR. I enjoyed the movie but not as much as U 571 and EATG.

I will tell you about an excellent suggestion for a war-romance movie. Watch: "A Time To Love And A Time To Die". This movie has John Gavin, as a German Corporal starting off somewhere on the Eastern Front.

He gets leave, and meets a gal-falls in love-etc.

This being a romance movie is also a great war movie. Me myself, I dislike romance movies mixed with war, but this one is excellent.

Other notable people in the film are: Keenan Wynn, Jock Mahoney, Don DeFore and a very young Jim Hutton billed as Dana Hutton. He is a German soldier with a big conscious. He dislikes what he sees and has to do.

This is the first postwar movie that portrayed Germans as people-not monsters. You get to see the other sides point of view for a change. This movie was released in 1955-56, and to actually make a movie portraying Germans as being mostly like US, was somewhat contraversial because of being not being so long after WW2 ended.

This movie is also in color, the uniforms are very accurate--the attitudes--mannerisms--etc. Give it a try--you will not be disappointed--I will guarentee that, or I will eat my left sandal--and im not looking forward to eating my sandal.

This movie is out on tape and you should be able to find it at a good rental shop or for a cheap price on-line.

This movie is fast becoming one of my all-time favorites. It blows away SPR by a longshot.

If you wish to know more about Stalingrad, get the movie by the same name with English subtitles if you do not know German--you will learn something from it. Also there are World At War Documentaries you can rent and they have an episode or two just on Stalingrad.

Hope to hear you saw and liked the movis soon--. <

hmmm definitely a movie to skip by the sound of it.

I hate movies where hollywood nazis are depicted, as well as some silly romance. If i read about things mentioned above here, then my neckhairs stand to attention.

I prefer the hardcore war stuff. Call me simple, call me whatever, but war was raw, hard, disgusting, cruel and sickening and thats the way it should be filmed.

My personal top 5 :

1. Cross of Iron
2. A Bridge too far
3. Saving Private Ryan
4. Das Boot
5. sink the Bismarck!



------------------
*** We shall not retreat, nor shall we surrender. If we cannot stay here alive, we shall stay here dead***

Despite the bad reviews the film a received here, especially by me, I think the film is absolutely worth the money to see in theaters. It's just that we are all extremely critical of WW2 film around here.

Well, I did go and see the movie, and I have to say that I enjoyed it for the most part. It kind of pisses me off that this could have been such an amazing movie.. if they didn't have the love story. SPR excelled because it had realistic in-between scenes, like them preparing for battle, or talking about home. A Love story? C'mon! And that was really romantic, doing it in front of a bunch of other soldiers.

This is an excellent sniper movie. Seriously, the sniping scenes are amazing. The best scene is Vasily's moment of glory picking off the entire German officers club during the shelling (at the start).

The ending was something else that was annoying. Seriously.. that was dumb. If the filmmakers actually stuck to the original story of the sniper battle, it probably would've gotten an oscar. And when Konig goes out in the open, and then is confronted by Zaitsev.. the suspense is great.. and then a letdown. He just shoots him. The ending sucked. There should've been some dialogue between the two if you are going to put them that close. Just Ed Harris saying "Congratulations comrade. You have put up hell of a fight" or something would've been enough, then he shoots his head off.

Well, My recommendation: Wait for the DVD.

------------------
"Goddamn it, you'll never get the Purple Heart hiding in a foxhole! Follow me!"
- Captain Henry P. "Jim" Crowe (Guadalcanal, January 13, 1943)

Mart: give it a chance, it IS a good movie.

Is there any difference between this movie and the other WWII movies, or is it just the same as all the rest? I havn't seen it yet, been very busy but am hoping to go this weekend. I hear it's good, I would just like to know if there's a difference between this movie and another one like Saving Private Ryan or U-571.

There are lots of differences between EATG/SPR/U 571.

All were good movies. All had good special effects. All had accurate equipment.

I just prefer U-Boat and Eastern Front over all the others because of my research and personal experiances with the men who fought there.

I can say this with certainty: If you like WW2, go see Enemy at the Gates in the theater. Many great scenes will only be done justice on the massive screen with that huge surround sound. I also think it's good to simply support the WW2 film genre: if WW2 films consistently do well, producers will consistently make them.

Well I just saw the movie friday and I was a little dissapointed. I mean I enjoyed watching the big scenes with all the Russians charging and all, but some of the movie was dissapointing. The ending I thought could have been better (but I'm not going to say anything else about it). I thought it was interesting how one sniper can make such a difference in a battle. But it was very cool seeing it on the big screen and being able to watch the battle of Stalingrad stake place right before you.

I havent been this disapointed by a war move since U-571.

I had such high hopes for this film. I knew it wasnt going to be that historically accurate because of the sniper duel, but I wasnt expecting it to be this bad.

- It oversimplified the Russian war effort and overglorified the Russian soldier. These guys were worse then the Germans in most cases, especally during '44-'45, and here they are portrayed as the helpless, brutalized victims when Bolschevism and Stalinism were the real causes. The story about Jude's parents beng killed outside the city after being captured made me want to leave the theater right there. Not only were they catagorizing the average landser as a Nazi pig, but now a story was concockted about how her sweet parents were killed outside the city.

-The 20 minute sex scene made me want to vomit. There were wounded soldiers right next to them bleeding from the head, and here she is doing his dirty work for him. Absolutely disgusting.

-I loved the scene where the little kid was hung, by now every uneducated American in the theater (I wont speak for you Europeans) is catagorizing the German soldier as scum, and this just did wonders to show the American public what wasnt happening with the common Gefreiters.

-Maybe next time someone decides to glorify the Russian war effort and portray them as the 'good guys' they can make a film about what happened in Berlin for three days after the city fell.

This movie was garbage.

[This message has been edited by Gibson (edited 29 March 2001).]

I agree. That love scene seemed to drag on forever! Where did that fit into the greater scheme of things??? Anyways, I think the Cold War has been over (or is supposed to have been) for a while now, and we're going to start seeing more films that are a little more sympathetic to the Russians. The common US moviegoer has come a long way since "Red Dawn" in 1985.

However, the Germans will forever be branded as bumbling, evil, power hungry bad guys.

Dear Erich, I agree about your remarks on Hollywood will always protray the Germans as all evil, bumbling oafs etc, which is way I stress that movie "A Time To Love And A Time To Die"

I hope someone on this forum will watch it besides me, it is one of THE BEST WW2 movies I have ever seen. Also coming from the collectors point of view, the uniforms are perfect as they WERE the real thing, which is unusual for a movie.

[This message has been edited by C.Evans (edited 30 March 2001).]