Good, but too narrow for its subject (Spoilers, of course.)

Rating: Null/10 (23 March 2001)

I had been looking forward to this movie ever since I first heard about it, but I also suspected that this story of Vasilly Zaitsev (Jude Law) the sniper was too small for the backdrop of Stalingrad. I found that in my eyes my suspicions were correct, however "Enemy at the Gates" is still a good production, and worth seeing for fans of history and war films, and probably almost anyone else.
The main problem with the film is that its main story is too trivial for the enormous subject it is about. Stalingrad was probably the most important battle of World War II, and also might have been the largest battle ever fought. The Nazi invasion of Russia would eventually leave over 20 million Russians dead. Stalingrad ended with the loss of an entire German army, a disaster of such enormous magnitude that even Goebbels' Nazi press didn't try to hide it. However, `Enemy at the Gates' uses Stalingrad as a backdrop for a story about snipers.
The intro is really powerful, but since these Russian soldiers are being `introduced' to the battle, we don't get the feeling as much as we should that this is a war being fought on their own land. The film also doesn't present to us how many civilians fought for Stalingrad. At times it even seems to claim that snipers should be given the most credit for the Russian victory! It also sometimes seems like the war is very far away, almost as if it was a sporadic inconvenience for the Russians, not the ongoing inferno that Stalingrad was--the battle scenes are very good, but there aren't enough of them, and I would like to have seen more of the fighting that took place in the sewer, and the bombing raids that killed 40,000 civilians in one week.
`Enemy at the Gates' is also flawed by peachiness, and what seems like Annaud's determination to present ambiguity in his material. An awkward and contrived speech by sniper Koulikov (Ron Perlman), discussing the similarities between Nazism and Communism in a "Catch-22' sort of way comes off pretty hokey, given the fact that the Red Army was facing an enemy that had been murdering millions of Russian civilians in cold blood. I also couldn't buy a Russian mother being more satisfied that her son was a traitor over being killed in battle--I think it very unlikely that a political officer would relay such information to a woman to comfort her sorrows. This solution makes it easier for American audiences to swallow, but doesn't come off very authentic. Also, heroes like Zaitsev were useful for propaganda purposes, but they were not the sole deciding factor in uplifting morale. By mid 1942, the Russians proved to be an enormously determined people who were totally at war. It is true that Red officers would shoot their own men who retreated and those who were trying to surrender, but it is wrong to say that this battle was won simply because soldiers were forced to fight fearing death from both directions.
I guess I must keep in mind that an epic that would explore all of the aspects of Stalingrad, on a sort of "GETTYSBURG" type scale is highly unlikely, and I should probably be happy with what has been presented. I must say that what is focused on is very well done. The battle scenes are powerful, and filled with carnage and realism. It was thrilling and horrifying as Zaitsev waited among his comrades in a boat, while Stuka dive-bombers strafed, destroyed, and killed the unfortunate people and boats beneath them. Every bombing scene is in fact, pretty intense. The production designers must be commended in their terrific presentation of the embattled city.
The best scene in my opinion is probably Zaitsev's introduction to Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) in the fountain. Here, Zaitsev first displays to us his talent as a sniper, cooly and calmly picking off high ranking officers, and soldiers a few ranks beneath them--it is filled with suspense and gives us a guilty respect for his excellent marksmanship. Many people are criticizing the love story, involving Tania (Rachel Weisz), but I didn't mind it. I actually found the sex scene between the two lovers to be surprisingly passionate and realistic given the situation. The main plot, the battle between the snipers is very engaging, although it isn't perfect. Zaitsev often worries about his abilities, but history has not described him in this way. Antony Beevor's excellent book, `Stalingrad' (which I would highly recommend to anyone interested in the Ostfront or WWII) describes him as somewhat arrogant, and says that he claimed he would reach 150 kills before the war ended (he reached 149). Beevor also states that since the very complete Soviet records never mentioned anything about Zaitsev's duel with a German sharpshooter, this story is probably false.
SPOILER WARNING; DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE!
The original `legend' describes Heinz Thorvald (`Konig' in the movie) being tricked into thinking he has killed Zaitsev. This does happen in the film. However, instead of emerging to find his supposed slain enemy, like Ed Harris did in the movie, it was believed that Thorvald peeped his head up from his scope, exposing himself to Zaitsev, who seized the opportunity and shot Thorvald in the head. I prefer what happened in the legend as opposed to what happened in the film, and I'm not sure why Annaud chose to depict the climax this way.
Overall, `Enemy at the Gates' is a good, engaging movie. Jude law is excellent as the lead, and most of the supporting cast do well with their roles. The production values and realistic battle sequences are jarring and memorable. I just wish that it had explored the Battle of Stalingrad in a much broader scope. Grade: B