Armchair Expert (Spoilers and Facts inside)

Rating: Null/10 (25 March 2001)

Ok, so to start off, I went in to the movie having already seen the History Channel show about the Zaitzev - Thorvald duel. To be honest, until the last 10 minutes, I really enjoyed the movie. I think it is one of the best, most historically accurate war movies I have ever seen(especially compared to the last one, the deplorable yet guiltily entertaining U-571). The real beauty of the film is that, where other movies set a hackneyed hollywood story in a historical setting (Titanic, U-571), and others take alter a true story to make it more accessible (SPR among many others), Enemy at the Gates stays largely true to a generally accepted version of the story. Part of the problem is that the source material and history of the events portayed is often disputed. Because of the way snipers operate, records of their movements are not kept, doing so would severely compromise their effectiveness. Therefore, arguing that there are no specific records of the sniper duel. All of the major players in the movie, with the exception of Koenig, existed (as far as russian records show). Koenig/Thorvald may have been a name invented by the propaganda machine, but that does not discount the existence of a Nazi sniper involved in such a duel. It is impossible to be sure of the historical accuracy of a movie based off such material, but it is consistent with an accepted version of the story. Of course the Russians had Tanks and heavy equipment in the battle. But most of the sniper action occurs in the city proper, where mechanised conflict happened in the outskirts. Russian troops were thrown into battle as depicted in the movie. This was a military that through entire divisions into combat with melee weapons, and used unarmed chain gangs to clear minefields. Neither side is meant to be the bad guys(thought the russians are ostensibly the good guys), and Ed Harris is portraying a veteran soldier, not a nazi politico. Anecdotal evidence supports relationships such as Vasily and Tania's, though I'm not sure if Zaitsev corroborated that story. The scope of battle is kept intentionally small, this was urban combat, with small limited engagements happening everywhere, as opposed to huge offensives. Also, this is a story of how one of the greatest battles in recorded history became, for a short time, a battle between 2 men. Attempting to capture a broader scope would have detracted from the main point of the story.
# DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE
I found few faults with the movie compare to history as I recall it. The young kid I believe was actually older, and I don't recall his fate, so I'm not sure about that one. Danilov did in fact die in that way, raising his head to point out Koenigs position, but not in the place portrayed in the movie. The climactic battle occured later, as shown in the movie, except Vasily's spotter was only wounded, in much the same way. It then took several hours before Konigs position was found. Vasily caught a glint of reflection out of the corner of his eye, but could not place it. After examining the battlefield for some time, he concluded that the best place for Koenig to be was under that metal sheet. His spotter lifted his helmet, which Koenig shot, revealing his position, at which point Vasily returns fire, killing Koenig. Tania was indeed wounded buy shrapnel during an evacuation, and survived in a hospital for about three weeks, before succumbing to her wounds. So basically, as far as I can tell, the movie is mostly accurate until Joseph Fiennes starts spouting about the failings of communism. It does gloss over a bit, but the facts it presents are mostly accurate. I thought climax, while innacurrate, worked from a dramatic perspective, as in real live it was pretty anti-climactic. A little disclaimer: I presented the facts as I remember them. As with any history, the facts are only as good as the sources. Most of what I know comes from the History channel show on the duel, and several, books on the battle, as well as details I have had corroborated by several sources. In no way do I intend my statements to be taken as absolute fact. I highly reccomend this movie, but if you are a jaded moviegoer, the (completly innofensive) accents and love story may p**s you off. All in all though, it is one of the better war movies I have seen.