I have not much to snipe about (groan) in this enjoyable WWII flick

Rating: Null/10 (6 September 2002)

Based on truth (I wonder how much) this tall recounts the story of a Russian sniper, Zaitsev (Jude Law) defending Stalingrad against the German incursion. His exploits are promoted by his good friend Danilov (Joseph Fiennes), making him a hero for all people. But now he faces his greatest challenge against the superb German sniper Konig (Ed Harris). Can he outwit him? Ta-dum!
One of the complaints levelled at this movie was the casting of Jude Law. Jude Law has very aristocratic features - high chiselled features and so on. Here we were meant to believe he was a simple peasant. Well he actually does this fairly well through a judicious use of grime and ragged garments. Ed Harris is always decent playing quiet, stoic characters - which is exactly what's required here. Fiennes does. enough here. His character isn't up to much, beyond trying to be jealous that Law's character gets the boring romantic interest that he cannot (played in an unmemorable fashion by Rachel Weisz).
Script? Pah. There's no real one liners. The characters are generally thinly drawn and one line throwaways (we learn nothing about Konig for example, beyond the hardened killer patriot role). There's a certain predictability in that, seeing as it's based on real events, you know some characters will not make it unto the end and one, in particular, surprise moment (although not a twist - the movie has no need of those). Only Law's character generates any real sympathy with the audience, but that's okay because..
The directing and cinematography here are very good and that's essential in a war movie. There isn't the grittiness of say `Saving Private Ryan' or the beautiful photography of `The Thin Red Line' (or some of the Vietnam movies). However it doesn't have the blandness that was `We Were Soldiers'. The initial battle scenes are quite striking - bombs, and so forth. No, they're not original but they do have enough scope and epic visceral qualities that I was sufficiently dragged into the old `horror of war' cliché. The later sniping scenes are also done very well. By the nature of the stillness of the sniper - shown from the very opening - we have a claustrophobic tense scene. A bullet can come out of nowhere, a single signature of death. This is quite different from the usual hail of lead we get in movies and definitely adds to the atmosphere. One of the latter scenes, where Law and Harris battle it out, has extra value because every move is a calculation a game, and not just a random race against hope. This dance between the two foes is well handled and never feels too protracted, interspersed as it is with events and sense of momentum. It's what adds to the movie being able to distinguish itself from the plethora of other war movies, and that's important.
I did have one problem with the movie - a very pointless romantic subplot. Perhaps the producers felt it needed one to balance out the `boys own' feel. They did by introducing an underdeveloped love triangle that feels tacked on, and only necessary to try and force some movement between Law and Fiennes' characters. Boring. Even worse than being boring it detracts from the otherwise enjoyable story of Law as a sniper and reluctant hero. Oh I guess they must appeal their demographics then.
`Enemy at the Gates' doesn't have the power of some of the great movies but it does have a nice streak of individuality, via the concept of focusing on the sniper. There's enough good work done in the technical aspects to make up for the weak characters and script and it's a good one to view on a decent screen and sound system. Not a must but certainly catch it if it's on. 7.3/10.