This tense WW2 war movie about the Siege at Stalingrad gets High Marx from me. It was amazing, comrade.

Rating: 8/10 (4 April 2017)

This movie was a bang! A critical hit. If there ever going to be a film that could make the most die-hard of Americans, cheer for a Cold War foreign nation like the Soviet Union. It probably be, this movie, set in World War II. Directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud, the film tells the cat & mouse sniper duel between Red Army's Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law), and German Nazi - Major Erwin König (Ed Harris), during the backdrop of the Battle of Stalingrad. Without spoiling the movie, too much, for the most part, 'Enemy at the Gates' action scenes were intense, brutal and deadly. It did limited the scape of the battle to these two trying to hunt each other in nearly the same area, each day in somewhat a repetitive motion. So, you never truly get the scale on how large, the battle was. Although, I am glad, that they feature a sniper duel, I was still somewhat disappointed by the fact that the book, that the movie was based on, the non-fiction novel by author, William Craig, chronicling the entire Battle of Stalingrad with hundreds of survivors of the battle-both Russian and German soldiers and civilians like Ernst Von Paulus, Alexander Rado, Emil Metzger, Andrei Ivanoich Yeremenko & others, stitching their incredible experiences together for one giant piece, while this movie only focus on that one story about Vassili Zaitsev. In truth, the urban clash with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union troops in Stalingrad cost the lives of nearly two million men and women, in a course of 5 months, 1 weeks and 3 days. Yet, you really don't see much of their stories. Because of this, the film represented more like 'War of the Rats' by author, David L. Robbins rather than 'Enemy at the Gate'. Don't get me wrong, the film is still good, but the story could be, a little more epic. Despite that, 'Enemy at the Gates' has other problems that kinda hurt this film. One of them, is the large amount of historic inaccuracies. First off, there is no way that German or Soviet rifles of those calibers would create a small hole in someone's head and nothing more. It would blow their heads off. The film should had been bloodier than what we saw. Another is how they portray coward and spies, acting like there is hope for them, if they get caught, despite what we been told in the beginning of the film. In real-life, the commanders of both nations would kill the family of the spies, but killing the families of those who failed to bring victory. In truth, there was little hope for anybody caught as one. Another problem with the film, is the unnecessary love triangle between, Zaitsev, his lover, Tania Chernova (Rachel Weisz) and his friend, Commisar Danilov (Joseph Fiennes). Yes, I get that, Tania was Zaitsev's real life lover and this relationship, was indeed part of the book, but the audience couldn't get invested in it, while, real-life people were dying on the street, while, they selfish argument with each other, on who f*ck who. 1942's 'Casablanca' tells it best. It doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. It did really does take away, from how important, winning the war, was, from the rest of the movie. It wasn't needed, even if all three British actors did wonderfully, in their roles, even if they couldn't pull off a Russian accent. However, I wouldn't mind, Tania being more like the borderline Sociopathic Soldier with a mild infatuation with Zaitsev, rather than the lovesick Damsel in Distress that she is, in the movie. Zaystev is the only character in the movie, whom portrayal matches the more accurate ones documented in the book. The film takes considerable liberties with other characters like Nikita Khrushchev (Bob Hoskins) was slightly more over the top. It's safe to say, this movie isn't near Bob Hoskins's best role. Another problem of the film is the fact that there is no current available evidence that Zaitsev and König, ever face each other. There is also no evidence that Major Erwin König ever existed, despite the claim made by the Armed Forces Museum of Moscow to be in possession of his telescopic sight. Regardless if its fiction or not, I just glad, this movie isn't surface deep 'flag-waving' communist propaganda. After all, it's hard to market that, to American audiences. I just glad, the film is a little more complex than that. It does show both factions as brutal regimes, which they were. It's a lot better than the book that portray the Germans in a little too controversial, favorable light. The film also show the soul-searching, tragic consequences and inner turmoil of the combatants on both sides, making them, question their superiors and the reasons, on why they must fight. I like how the soldiers are just trying to survive a war or to avenge/protect loved ones, rather than, trying to seek to do bad things. Also, neither Vasily or König ever demonstrate any real conviction in respectively Stalinist or National-Socialist ideology. I also love how the film expose the exploits of propaganda, with Vasily. You see, how brain wash the people can be, with these two nations going at war. Regardless of what they portrayed, the movie bomb at the box office, when it came out in 2001. It does beg the question; why was this movie even made? The Soviet Union is gone, so Russian audiences isn't going to see it. Western culture are so engrained in hating anything Red & Foreign. So it most unlikely, it was made for them. So, who is this movie, for!? Despite that, I still like this movie for what it is. An intense cat & mouse thriller. While, it's not the best WW2 movie out there. It's far from being one of the worst