The film is not worthy of the name

Rating: 4/10 (4 May 2006)

The creators of this film took one of the best books ever written about the Battle of Stalingrad and butchered it beyond recognition. Sure, the first twenty minutes were excellent, but the rest of the film was a waste of time. Yes, Zaitsev was a real person and the romance did occur, but the book gave this aspect of the battle no more than a page in total.
In order to develop this Hollywood-style romance-in-war theme, most of the most fascinating and horrifying elements of the book and the battle itself were omitted from the film. The Italian, Romanian, Hungarian, and most of the main Russian and German personalities in the book were eliminated in order to develop the Russian sniper characters. Gone is the starvation, the images of people freezing to death, the cannibalism, and the real senses of fear, frustration and hopelessness so powerfully evoked in the book. It goes without saying that the horrors of the Axis soldiers' march into captivity and life in the Soviet prison camps were also allowed no place in the movie. The author, William Craig, spent several years traveling through Europe, North America, Australia, and the former Soviet Union to interview survivors of the battle, and it was a shame that almost none of his work was used for this film.
Not only is there no mention of the Axis Allied troops so prevalent and important to the book, but the film gives little perspective from the German side. As with most Hollywood films, this movie shows the Germans as no more than one-dimensional, evil characters. The book shows that despite the atrocities committed by many German troops during the war, they were also human beings and some actually behaved as such. Ed Harris is brilliant as usual in his portrayal of the expert German sniper, but the character does not show the human side that the actual soldier showed in the book. They also portray him as committing war crimes in the film that others had actually committed in the book.
The film does a pretty decent job of showing the suffering of the Soviet troops and people, while the acting and the opening battle scene are actually really good, which is why it does not get a 1, 2 or 3 rating. The potential was definitely there to create something on par or better than "Private Ryan," but the film's creators chose to do something more like "Pearl Harbor." It is no wonder that the film's producers waited until after the author died in order to ruin his vision.
I would definitely recommend watching the first twenty minutes if you are a WWII buff or want to see something like the D-Day scene in "Private Ryan," but after that I would only stay tuned if you like love stories and clichéd WWII films. I can only hope that someday someone will decide to make a film that is more faithful to the book, because among World War II books, Enemy at the Gates is one of the few that is worthy of a far better one than this. If you really want to enjoy this movie, maybe it is best not to read the book, that way you will not be as angry and disappointed as I was.