Simply Perfect

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

I am speechless in front of such a top notch performances of Ed Harris & jude law ..Such a impeccable screenplay , cinematography ,original score , editing & direction .. Unforgettable masterpiece ..Must watch it

"Enemy of the Gates" - Rumoured to be the most expensive European film ever made, Jean-Jacques Annaud's bloated Second World War epic is an audacious but no leaden rehash of "Saving Private Ryan", complete with a lot of flaws and historical inaccuracies surely but not as nearly as it's polyglot miscasting. A British-French-German co-production - Set in Russia but shot in Germany, this attempt to give the Battle of Stalingrad its proper due is commendable. But the director's decision to focus on a widely discredited Soviet anecdote is misguided and undermines the film's credibility from the start.With the Nazis set to achieve a major propaganda coup by overrunning the city that bears the name of their Russian enemy, Nikita Khrushchev (Bob Hoskins) arrives in Stalingrad to kick the demoralised army into shape. Intimidation only goes so far, though, so one apparatchik, Danilov (Joseph Fiennes), suggests they find a hero to inspire the troops.That hero is Vassily Zaitsev (Jude Law), a peasant from the Urals who happens to be a crack shot marksman or a Sniper if you play a lot of X-Box, which is no surprise since we're looking at Russia, the largest size-wise country is filled with more of these Snipers than the ambition to actually kill. Danilov builds the unassuming Vassily into a legend, trumpeting his exploits to such an extent that the Germans send their best sniper, Major Koenig (Ed Harris), to take him down.What follows is a series of one-on-one confrontations between the two men at various locales in the bombed-out city, juxtaposed with an unlikely and insipid romance between Vassily and pretty Jewish soldier Tania (Rachel Weisz). The opening scenes of chaos are as accomplished as those in Steven Spielberg's Oscar-winner, but unlike Saving Private Ryan, from then on Annaud is not all at sea or at war. In fact he ensembles a pretty decent directional approach and tension-full script along with solid performances from his British leads.While for a war film, it has no notable "extreme level brutality" on display or gores of Saving Private Ryan or any modern day slasher films as one might expect but it is nevertheless a must see for every fan of the genre.

This movie was a bang! A critical hit. If there ever going to be a film that could make the most die-hard of Americans, cheer for a Cold War foreign nation like the Soviet Union. It probably be, this movie, set in World War II. Directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud, the film tells the cat & mouse sniper duel between Red Army's Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law), and German Nazi - Major Erwin König (Ed Harris), during the backdrop of the Battle of Stalingrad. Without spoiling the movie, too much, for the most part, 'Enemy at the Gates' action scenes were intense, brutal and deadly. It did limited the scape of the battle to these two trying to hunt each other in nearly the same area, each day in somewhat a repetitive motion. So, you never truly get the scale on how large, the battle was. Although, I am glad, that they feature a sniper duel, I was still somewhat disappointed by the fact that the book, that the movie was based on, the non-fiction novel by author, William Craig, chronicling the entire Battle of Stalingrad with hundreds of survivors of the battle-both Russian and German soldiers and civilians like Ernst Von Paulus, Alexander Rado, Emil Metzger, Andrei Ivanoich Yeremenko & others, stitching their incredible experiences together for one giant piece, while this movie only focus on that one story about Vassili Zaitsev. In truth, the urban clash with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union troops in Stalingrad cost the lives of nearly two million men and women, in a course of 5 months, 1 weeks and 3 days. Yet, you really don't see much of their stories. Because of this, the film represented more like 'War of the Rats' by author, David L. Robbins rather than 'Enemy at the Gate'. Don't get me wrong, the film is still good, but the story could be, a little more epic. Despite that, 'Enemy at the Gates' has other problems that kinda hurt this film. One of them, is the large amount of historic inaccuracies. First off, there is no way that German or Soviet rifles of those calibers would create a small hole in someone's head and nothing more. It would blow their heads off. The film should had been bloodier than what we saw. Another is how they portray coward and spies, acting like there is hope for them, if they get caught, despite what we been told in the beginning of the film. In real-life, the commanders of both nations would kill the family of the spies, but killing the families of those who failed to bring victory. In truth, there was little hope for anybody caught as one. Another problem with the film, is the unnecessary love triangle between, Zaitsev, his lover, Tania Chernova (Rachel Weisz) and his friend, Commisar Danilov (Joseph Fiennes). Yes, I get that, Tania was Zaitsev's real life lover and this relationship, was indeed part of the book, but the audience couldn't get invested in it, while, real-life people were dying on the street, while, they selfish argument with each other, on who f*ck who. 1942's 'Casablanca' tells it best. It doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. It did really does take away, from how important, winning the war, was, from the rest of the movie. It wasn't needed, even if all three British actors did wonderfully, in their roles, even if they couldn't pull off a Russian accent. However, I wouldn't mind, Tania being more like the borderline Sociopathic Soldier with a mild infatuation with Zaitsev, rather than the lovesick Damsel in Distress that she is, in the movie. Zaystev is the only character in the movie, whom portrayal matches the more accurate ones documented in the book. The film takes considerable liberties with other characters like Nikita Khrushchev (Bob Hoskins) was slightly more over the top. It's safe to say, this movie isn't near Bob Hoskins's best role. Another problem of the film is the fact that there is no current available evidence that Zaitsev and König, ever face each other. There is also no evidence that Major Erwin König ever existed, despite the claim made by the Armed Forces Museum of Moscow to be in possession of his telescopic sight. Regardless if its fiction or not, I just glad, this movie isn't surface deep 'flag-waving' communist propaganda. After all, it's hard to market that, to American audiences. I just glad, the film is a little more complex than that. It does show both factions as brutal regimes, which they were. It's a lot better than the book that portray the Germans in a little too controversial, favorable light. The film also show the soul-searching, tragic consequences and inner turmoil of the combatants on both sides, making them, question their superiors and the reasons, on why they must fight. I like how the soldiers are just trying to survive a war or to avenge/protect loved ones, rather than, trying to seek to do bad things. Also, neither Vasily or König ever demonstrate any real conviction in respectively Stalinist or National-Socialist ideology. I also love how the film expose the exploits of propaganda, with Vasily. You see, how brain wash the people can be, with these two nations going at war. Regardless of what they portrayed, the movie bomb at the box office, when it came out in 2001. It does beg the question; why was this movie even made? The Soviet Union is gone, so Russian audiences isn't going to see it. Western culture are so engrained in hating anything Red & Foreign. So it most unlikely, it was made for them. So, who is this movie, for!? Despite that, I still like this movie for what it is. An intense cat & mouse thriller. While, it's not the best WW2 movie out there. It's far from being one of the worst

Jean Jacques Annaud's Enemy At The Gates makes a harrowing impact on the WWII genre, with a scope and vision that successfully transports us to the nightmarish battle of Stalingrad, near the tail end of an era of never ending bloodshed and terror. The large scale battle scenes which usually populate this type of film have been distilled into a much more intimate and exciting style of confrontation: elite sniper warfare. In the hollow, ash laden shell of a once great city, Russian patriot and expert sharpshooter Vassily (a barely acceptable, miscast Jude Law) tries to survive a nerve rattling battle of both the will and the gun against the German's answer to his legendary tactics, icy Major Koenig (a primal Ed Harris). Another man, Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) is a brainy scholar who spins tales of his friend Vassily's heroic exploits to stir Russia into a frenzy effort in the desperate final weeks of the war. The two are steadfast friends and vital assets to both each other and their country, until of course, a girl comes between them. Tania (Rachel Weisz) is a Jewish soldier who falls deeply in love with Vassily, boldly acted by her in a powerfully affecting sex scene that shows what passion Rachel is capable of in her work. She has the skill to turn a character that's purposefully written to fail the Bechtel test miserably into something more than the script ever envisioned, and is one of the best actresses working today. There's a grouchy supporting turn from Bob Hoskins as an infamous military higher up, and a brief but memorable appearance by Ron Perlman as a disillusioned Russian soldier who's taken enough crap and seen too much. What makes this film such a winner is the excruciatingly suspenseful sniper battle between Vassily and Koenig, each a coiled viper of awaiting violence, scanning the horizon along with the camera, breaths drawn alongside the audience, ready to spring into explosive action and knock our socks off in one of the most impressive wartime duels in cinema. It's been said that the purest form of war is one on one. This film takes that notion and runs laps with it, throwing unending tension at us that doesn't let us go from its vice grip till the blood flows in tandem with our ragged exhales, long pent up in clammy apprehension.