..good film about war for an old fogey..

Rating: 10/10 (14 July 2006)

..it didn't matter to me that everyone spoke English - after all, it WAS directed at an English-speaking audience ! Thank heavens I didn't need to strain to understand what folk were saying - if you want realism in speech, then get a version that is in the native tongues.
I do feel empathy for the several reviews I read which were written by people who were native Russians. I'm sure they saw it through different eyes than Americans did. My response to their anger is just be glad you're in the USA - just think of how many films you may have seen "at home" that painted Americans as devils, yet we're not writing to tell you you're wrong. Welcome to the USA, but would you please send your "Mafia" home - we have enough of our own.
Again, so many reviews written by very young "users", who have only the movies to show them what war is. It was 2001, folk: pre-Iraq. Although we got all torn-up about 9/11 and our leaders made the wrong decision about invading Iraq, just imagine a major, American city all busted-up like Stalingrad was. We had the comfort of grand theaters and our homes to watch safely. Those people were fighting the people right next door, not really knowing who was whom - some "users" said how ridiculous it was to film enemy-snipers shooting one another in the department-store scene, but that was reality. Whatever space you were in, you had to keep yourself alive and keep the space, and KILL to get someone else's space. Made sense to me.....
Jean-Jacques Annaud and Alain Godard got it all going right from the first scene. No one else noticed that once the train-doors were opened and the Russian soldiers saw the wreckage of Stalingrad, they were trying to get back on it? That's the first thing I noticed - I also got the message when the barges were crossing the river full of soldiers and the German planes came, overboard! with the Russian officers shooting them. That was not fiction - it happened wherever Russia sent its troops - die fighting, or die because you didn't fight. Stalin sent 2-mil soldiers just to fight at Stalingrad - many without weapons - Jude Law (Zaitsev) left the train without a rifle. Being an expert shot, I suspect he was looking right-hard to get one in his hands. When he did, it set the plot of the entire movie - Commisar Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) was soooooo lucky ! Knowing the Russian troops needed some propaganda to be "pepped-up" from all the gore, he used what he saw firsthand.
I thought the cinematography was brilliant and was repelled at the way the Russian soldiers were sent to the slaughter, but that's facts, folk. Bob Hoskins looked like Krushshev to me ! I also thought it was ironic that he did the big "toast" to Stalin - although they were antagonists.......he had to do what it took to get the troops fighting. Yeah, I saw the reporter stuffing his bags with stolen food. Those "users" who criticized the "party-scene" between battles weren't thinking right - it was an escape, just like in "Jarhead". The same for the sex-scene (didn't enjoy it); get that many people together under great stress and sex is going to happen. I thought the Russian troops were lucky to have female fighters to have sex with......I also could have done without the intrusive score; sounded a lot like "Gone with the Wind" to me.
Yeah, I DID think Ed Harris (Konig) could've spiced-up his role with a touch of German accent - he truly looked the part. His calm demeanor throughout the movie was excellent - Prussian aristocrat, you could say. Yes, the view through both snipers' lenses were the best, but that's what the movie was about - huh? Eva Mattes was stellar in her under-playing of her role - hopeless, but ready to get-it-on again. The kid - Gabriel Thompson (Sacha) - TRULY needed some warmer clothes ! Russia had two great advantages for the 2nd WW - sub-zero weather, which greatly weakened the Germans during the battle for Moscow - and lots of male peasants to throw away. Without those, the war would have been much longer and more American soldiers would have died.
After all these criticisms, I immensely enjoyed this film, because I briefly laughed at what I felt was a bit unbelievable, but got right back into the story. It's always "the story" for me - accurate or not. The blood-and-guts totally convinced me the battle for this city was a nightmare I hopefully pray never happens again - but, it continues.....see the daily news about Baghdad, as "Bergy from Baghdad" (March 2003) attests. War movies glorify bravery from one side, but there is much death for the other. Not one thing glamorous or entertaining about that. I recently wrote if I wanted to see explosions, I'd watch a film about war. I did - horrific as it was, "Enemy at the Gates" is a winner that more people should see or watch again, just to catch-them-up on history. In this case, it wasn't just a movie - it was telling it like it was........and is. That makes it a 15-out-of-10 for me......I'm still wondering why Sacha had to die. Best actor in the whole thing.....