Battle of Stalingrad or rather cat-and-mouse game of snipers?

Rating: 6/10 (18 February 2007)

I have to admit one thing at the beginning: I am not a fan of films on WWII because of the exceptionally brutal history piece when the human suffering reached its top and the dignity of human being seemed ruined. I was encouraged to see ENEMY AT THE GATES by my friend who told me "It's a masterpiece". After the first viewing, I could not notice any aspects of "a masterpiece"; later, however, I could find some strong points, which finally did not change much in my opinion.
ENEMY AT THE GATES tells the story of Stalingrad from a particularly subjective point of view. As a result, it causes some serious historical travesty (which has already been discussed in other comments) in spite of the fact that at the beginning, it interestingly presents the map of that time, which would indicate that it's gonna be a serious historical work. However, it is not the only film that does that travesty and, therefore, I would rather concentrate on its cinematic values than focus on it as a history lesson. Let me look at it as a film only.
CRUCIAL ERROR: The movie lasts for 2 hours. It is true that it keeps your attention. It more or less accurately shows the atmosphere that must have been in the ruined Stalingrad then. It does show the misery of war and the loss of human feelings that war promotes: "The one with the rifle shoots". Moreover, it contains quite an interesting story of the main characters. Yet, its crucial error is that it MOSTLY concentrates on snipers' cat-and-mouse game (as it has wisely been called in the plot outline) between Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law) and Major Koenig (Ed Harris). That is Stalingrad, that's meant to symbolize the battle. Koenig is the enemy at the gates since he is a German. That not only results in serious misunderstanding but it also has its consequences in the lack of character development combined with clichés. We have many characters and yet, they are mostly names and faces, not more. There is no insight into their feelings, emotions, tragedies. There is one little exception: the character of a young boy Sacha (Gabriel Thomson) is interesting. His tragic story is a true tearjerker. Nevertheless, even this is centered on Vassili. Therefore, the film should not be titled ENEMY AT THE GATES but VASSILI-A HEROIC SNIPER. Finally, one sniper (Koenig) dies in a very illogical scene... Was that realistic to try to shoot so many times and once believe that it's the perfect shot...
REALISM and REFLECTIONS: I admit that the film is quite realistic in general. There are unforgettable moments like the one on the boat or bombarding. It also contains profound thoughts. Consider, for instance, the last words of Danilov (Joseph Fiennes), Vassili's friend "There are always rich and poor, rich in gifts, poor in gifts..." I also loved the idea the director presents the blindness of communist regime. You watch the film and after 20 minutes you get totally upset-and you ask yourself: "Did they really do such things to their own people? But this blindness and fanaticism is wonderfully conveyed by Chrushchev (Bob Hoskins) "so worried" about Russians s...... their pants. If you decide to see this film, pay attention to the moment Vassili is at Chrushchev and a big picture of Stalin ("Boss") is hanging on the wall... Good scene!
LOVE STORY: The character of Vassili is not only developed in terms of sniper skills but also in terms of male-female relationship. Vassili is after Tania (Rachel Weisz) an intelligent Jewish girl whom he gets to know in the house of Sacha. The way their love is expressed as a growing feeling is good. That feeling seems to win at the end. However, their performances make it unnatural. Neither Jude Law nor Rachel Weisz are appealing as a pair. I have rarely seen a movie where there is hardly any chemistry between the couple as here. Maybe, some people will not agree with me but that is what I think and I had to say it. The moment of their love scene is foremost lust and nothing more.
TECHNICAL POINT: From the technical point of view, the movie is not bad. There are impressive shots of crowds of people, there are very good shots of snipers' fight (but too long as aforementioned). There are also SOME good performances. Generally, if there was no love plot, I liked Jude Law as Vassili. I can forgive him the British accent which does not suit to the Russian character. I also liked Joseph Fiennes as Danilov and Ed Harris as cold, elegant and brutal Koenig. Yet, there are two people who really do great jobs: Bob Hoskins as Chrushchev and Gabriel Thomson as Sacha. There is a FEELING in these performances. Hoskins, no wonder, since he is a very good actor considering his many roles. But Thomson, a young boy who acts like a professional, is a real surprise. They raise the value of the film.
I rate the film 7/10 because of some factors like performances, the justice it partly does to communism and its blindness. Yet, as I said before, it's far from masterpiece. If you really like WWII movies, I recommend you to see ENEMY AT THE GATES and evaluate for yourself (perhaps compare to other movies). However, if you are someone who cannot stand bombarding, shooting, blood, cruelty, helplessness - stay away! Although the end is not that dramatic, the movie is overall very upsetting.
The film attempts to answer the question: Were there no humans then? Was it only war which did that? Supposedly, not only war. The world was governed by comrades whose only sacred duty was to serve the power of the totalitarian regime that once lasted under the name of Soviet Union.