I really wanted to like this,

Rating: Null/10 (1 September 2001)

I had wanted to see this movie when it came out in the theaters, but did not get a chance to. While wating for it to come out on home video, I read "War of the Rats" (I don't rememeber the author's name) and found it was basically the same story that I had heard "Enemy at the Gates" followed. When I saw the movie last night, I was dissappointed. It is a really good war movie, and I didn't mind the love story ("War of the Rats" had one too, which I thought was better done,) but some things really nagged at me about the movie. For one, Zaitsev's early days are non-existent. He goes from raw rectuit foot-soldier, to 30+ kill sniper in about one minute. Where were the scenes that would show us how he developed as a sniper? In "War of the Rats," (which I know the movie was not based on,) it goes into great length about how Zaitsev trained raw rectuits to become snipers in the basement of the tractor factory, and shows how the snipers went out each day to strike fear into the german rear areas. All of this was absent in the film. Also, the portrayal of Keonig as the sterotypical Nazi kind've bored me. In the book, he was portrayed as an aristriocratic wimp who hated every minute that he was in Stalingrad. I think that would be a more interesting angle. And as for historical accuracy, the duel at the end was not true to history at all. The commisar who was shot didn't sacrifice himself, he stood up, rather stupidly, and pointed, shouting, "He's right there," and after he was shot, Zaitsev immeadtly put a bullet through Keonig's eye. And why was Keonig in a Wermact uniform? He was SS! I could go on, but I do have positive aspects about the film. The city was very well done. It is the best scenery I have seen in a war film. And the FX were very well done. I liked this film, but I feel it could have been done better.