A Good Premise with an Identity Crisis

Rating: 6/10 (8 July 2008)

Jude Law plays an elite Russian sniper locked in a duel with Major Konig, the legendary German sniper while hundreds of thousands of soldiers are fighting in the streets of Stalingrad for the future of the world. The action-packed Enemy at the Gates showcases the amazing skill of the sniper as well as one of the bloodiest, hardest fought, and inspiring battles in WWII.
Jude Law plays an expert sniper who is fraught with fear and doubt of his ability to live up to his expectations. Enemy at the Gates tackles the medley of feelings that plagues every soldier.
Jude Law plays an ordinary soldier who goes into battle expecting to die singlehandedly saves his own life and the fate of the mission. The Russian government makes him a symbol of bravery and hope to motivate their soldiers, but he starts to lose sight of what he's fighting for and nearly loses the will to live. Enemy at the Gates is an excellent critique of Communism and the lack of individualism of war.
Well, which is it? This movie fails to achieve any of these objectives, because it tried to do too much.
The movie doesn't follow through as an action flick because the climax is Jude Law shooting Konig from 20 feet when they are both standing in plain view. Needless to say, not a very difficult shot. The movie built up to this moment with both snipers having a series of intense duels where they repeatedly bluffed and set traps for each other. The movie did a great job of making you believe that all the insane sniper scenes were actually happening and that Law was overcoming a veteran sniper who didn't make mistakes, and then it had the most pathetic climax ever. Also, they didn't show ordinary soldiers fighting it out in the streets, even at the end, when the Russians were at risk of losing Stalingrad altogether.
The movie fails as a depiction of the soldier because it follows extraordinary soldiers and political officers. I don't think any of the normal soldiers even talk. The movie also makes you roll your eyes a few times. I don't think political officers get military style pep-talks from Kruschev. I don't think any soldier would tell somebody his girlfriend had died while he was trying to shoot. No soldier, no matter how much he doubted the nobility of his mission would fall asleep on the front line. I could go on.
The movie fails as a critique of Communism because it doesn't really have a message. It has a bunch of people talking about how they hate communism and it has Kruschev looking grumpy and ordering people killed, but it doesn't really spend much time with this idea. This movie, like way too many movies, creates a false feeling of a sophisticated message, as though it is necessary. All movies do not have to be complex or deep to be worth watching, and a movie can easily be complex or deep by examining the characters thoughts and feelings without trying to make a statement about war or the duality of man. The deep scenes are really out of place in this movie, and it almost seems like they are in just because the protagonist is fighting for the Russians.
I was really looking forward to seeing this movie, because it seemed like it had the type of actions scenes that would stay with you. You just start with everything that goes into sniping in a congested city. Then you take the kind of fighting that took place in Stalingrad, where every flowerpot is a strategic point and the sheer mass of the Russian army is up against the crude technology of the Germans. Instead, the action scenes petered out half way through. Annaud (the director) basically starts 3 movies and doesn't follow through with any of them. There are a few amazing scenes that are perfectly paced, but nothing strings them together and you are left wanting more out of this movie.