Enemy At The Gates 138
The battle of Stalingrad was a brutal collision between two vicious regimes, resulting in mass starvation, hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, savage hand-to-hand, back-and-forth battles between soldiers amidst rubble, bombs, artillery barrages, sharpshooters and freezing weather. It was overseen by two ruthless dictators willing to sacrifice their own citizens and troops in staggering numbers to win. Both sides knew that to lose here probably meant losing the war.
After Stalingrad, the German Army in the East collapsed, and the stage was set for the two-front war that doomed Hitler.
Jean-Jacques Annaud's Enemy At the Gates is the first major Hollywood treatment of this epic battle, and, as such, a chance to make a great movie about a riveting subject.
Annaud took the safer route. Although the battle scenes are brutal and vivid, especially in the opening minutes, he chose to take his story off into a cliche-ridden, loopy love triangle.
The film centers on a cat-and-mouse, high-stakes battle between two snipers, Vasily (played by Jude Law) and Major Konig (Ed Harris), each being used by their respective armies as propaganda tools in a battle that everyone knew might decide the fate of World War II. Vasily is the Derek Jeter of snipers, easy-going, wholesome, cheerful, his opponent, the merciless-Nazi-with-a-flash-of-heart. Vasily learned to shoot hunting wolves in the Urals; Konig ran the Nazi sniper-training academy. He is sent East to stop Vasily after the Russian kills scores of German officers from hiding spots in bombed-out buildings and becomes a national hero. Their battle becomes intimate and highly personal, shot through close-ups and through eyeball-to-eyeball confrontations (well, at least through scopes). This is good stuff, although we see too little of it.
turns out to be a fairly typical Hollywood war yarn, the heroes spending as much time mooning over the girl as they do fighting. You'd think a movie about this siege would give any director enough material for a dozen great movies, but Annaud unaccountably feels the need to concoct a sub-plot in which Vasily and Danilov (a political character played by Joseph Fiennes) fall in love with the same girl, the beautiful warrior comrade Ranya (Rachel Weisz), a well-educated Stalinist out to avenge the murder of her parents by the Nazis. For Vasily and Danilov (and apparently Annaud), the war quickly fades in significance, and the movie goes off track.
This plot line is silly, weakening not only the story of the battle, but the contest going on between the two riflemen (snipers and marksmen played an enormous role in the Stalingrad battle, both of terms of casualties and morale.) The film is skillfully animated, with realistic renderings of a great city reduced to flames and skeletal structures, it's surviving residents living in cellars and piles of brick.
Bob Hoskins nearly steals the movie as a brutal but determined Nikita Khrushchev, a central figure in the siege. He went on to become Prime Minister of the Soviet Union, and square off with John Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis (this movie does make you feel the world is lucky to have survived that stand-off, since this Khrushchev wasn't into backing down).
The movie plays with one of the central puzzles about World War II, an issue that has fascinated historians for years: why did the Russian people fight so hard and sacrifice so much -- more than 20 million casualties -- when their own leaders were nearly as brutal as the Nazis? Russian soldiers who find themselves confronted with horrific choices --- run straight into German guns, armed only with their bare hands, or be shot in the back as cowards by their own officers -- fling themselves by the thousands at the enemy.
Vasily, whose sniping exploits have been trumpeted all over the Soviet Union by his political officer friend Danilov, is an unaccountably reluctant hero, which takes some of the sting out of his showdown with Harris, who has no second thoughts of any kind. Vasily sometimes seems to act as if he'd wandered into the wrong movie, continuously puzzled about his role. The score is intrusive and annoying, introducing overblown chorales, angel choruses, and portent-laden symphonies obviously meant to invoke both the Holocaust and the Russian Revolution. We get it. The same kind of special effects which grabbed the audience of Pvt. Ryan are much in evidence in this film, and in very similiar ways.
Enemy At the Gates is a needed reminder that Americans didn't suffer the brunt of World War II. The Stalingrad confrontation was a Holocaust in itself, killing many more people than all wars fought by Americans combined.
But in the final analysis, Enemy At the Gates is a lost opportunity to do what Spielberg did -- take a great story and make a great movie out of it. It just doesn't do justice to the subject matter.
Re:Urgh (Score:1)
Mixed Feelings (Score:3)
I saw this movie yesterday and would give it a thumb sideways. It's definitely worth the price of a matinee admission, but it's not an epic movie that you'll want to watch again and again.
My main problems with the movie was the length, some cheesy lines, and the director's confusion about what the movie was all about. I was also a bit disappointed in all of the anti-Soviet bashing, even if warranted, because I think that stuff detracted from the main plot.
The most interesting part of the movie was what it depicted: a side of WW2 that Americans know little about. It's probably true that the Battle of Stalingrad was *the* battle that turned the course of WW2. But on a more mundane level, the nature of the Soviet fighters is quite interesting.
One of the striking things shown was that women fought along side the men. I'm not sure how integrated the Soviet forces were gender-wise, but the socialist and anarchist forces that fought in the Spanish Civil War had plenty of women. At one point, Vassily is shown with two other snipers under a crashed plane. The two other snipers are obviously lovers: a women and an Asian male. This integration of the Soviet military was in high contrast to the segregated American military at the time. I think it was around 1942 that esteemed African American leader A. Philip Randolph was threatening Roosevlet with strikes if he didn't integrate the U.S. military.
Another striking thing was the depiction of the Soviet propaganda effort, which was an integral part of the Vassily legend. I'm sure a few filmgoers chuckled at the ridiculousness of guys with bullhorns imploring their guys to fight and be brave. Those crazy Soviets and their propaganda, right? Let's not forget that the United States at this time had a similar propaganda operation in place, which was just as ridiculous. Contrary to what you may have read about the "Good War," there were many in the United States who opposed the war and more than a few who went to prison protesting what they correctly saw as a rich man's war between imperialist powers.
This movie could have been alot better, but it wasn't a bad way to entertain oneself on a cold March weekend.
Could have been a saga, but wasn't (Score:2)
The battle of Stalingrad has the makings of at least half a dozen great movie epics in it. "Enemy at the Gates" isn't one of them.
- Robin
Germans near Moscow (Score:2)
General Hoth and the German 7th Panzer Divison made it within 20 miles of Moscow.
The Germans did have enough men to strike at the North, Center and South of the Russian Front. They didn't have enough men to win the War though.
10 Divisons on the Western Front (Score:2)
http://www.feldgrau.com/oob44.html
I count 58 Divisions - Panzer, Infantry, Reserve, Luftwaffe, Waffen-SS.
And the siege of Leningrad lasted 3 years, not six.
Re:Stalin and Hitler (Score:1)
...and so did the Mongols (aka Tatar) in 1237. They continued to control Russia until 1480. Details are here [geographia.com]
OpenSourcerers [opensourcerers.com]
Re:Pure Rubbish (Score:1)
Re:The scale of the German defeat was unnecessary (Score:2)
My 2 cents on Stalingrad is that the Germans were good at cutting up the countryside with Blitzkrieg attacks and encirclements, but they stretched their supply lines at the same time they were convincing themselves they were invincible. They had trouble holding their supply lines, and sacrificed their tactical advantage by getting into a house-to-house battle.
It's difficult to say why they put everything into attacking the city, but one of the main reasons is that it offered a place to garrison the troops during the winter. The Russians had had some success in pushing back the first year's progress because they fought well in the winter, and German troops were very vulnerable when flushed out of shelter. The Germans needed an overwintering site that was both comfortable and defensible, and the Volga was a significant natural barrier against the Russians to the East.
The myth about the French not fighting (Score:2)
Over the whole war, France lost 250,000 military men plus 370,000 civilians (a lot of them under american bombs).
That's a lot for a country that did "not fight".
Have you ever talked to a sniper? (Score:1)
Your Working Boy,
- Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)
Re:Strange, strange, strange... (Score:1)
Not surprising.. LTIC he led all other WWII snipers at about 400 confirmed kills.. That could possibly be the highest body count in modern wartime..
There also seemed to have been quite a lot of female snipers in Stalingrad at that point.
One of the best was Lyudmilla Pavlichenko, with about 300 kills..
Here's [russian-mosin-nagant.com] an interesting article about russian snipers of WWII...
Your Working Boy,
- Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)
Re:Geeks Don't Appreciate History (Score:1)
It's to amazon, but this book [amazon.com] covers the duel between these legendary snipers..
Your Working Boy,
- Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)
Re:a few things ... (Score:1)
Yes they were evil but not nearly as evil as any of the communist regimes. Six million killed in nazi camps to over 60 million killed in soviet gulags.
Maybe it's just my personal views on the subject, but I'd prefer a communist dictator who kills individual political rebels (and anyone else) over a period of, what, 50 years? Compared to a genocidal Hitler, who exterminated 13 million people (Jews, gypsies, blacks, etc) en-masse (gas chambers, mass graves) for doing nothing, in the space of, I believe, less than a decade.
The difference is that Hitler was stopped. If he hadn't been, you can bet your ass that there would have been a LOT more than 60 million deaths, and in a lot shorter time than Stalin was in power.
~Sentry21~
Re:a few things ... (Score:1)
Those "communist regimes" were hardly communist. They were nothing more than your run-of-the-mill dictatorships that claimed to be communist.
On the contrary, they were both. Communism is an economic theory, whereas totalitarianism is a political one.
It would be possible to have a combination of communism and democracy, capitalism and totalitarianism (though that wouldn't be too efficient), and so on. Communism is just a blanket fear that people apply. Most 'communist governments' (if not all) were totalitarian dictatorships with communist economies (i.e. the state owns everything).
Communism is not bad (nor for that matter is totalitarianism), it's just that the people who manage to set up communist governments are corrupt.
~Sentry21~
Re:a few things ... (Score:2)
First it seems that you are referring to Poland and Jews only. In the whole it seems that there were no less than 12 million Jews who ended either barbecued, shot or gazed... Note that nazis didn't worry too much to send all jews to concentration camps. In Ukraine and Bielorussia they did the dirty job almost in place. There was even the "Death Truck" where people where killed by the escape gases of the trucks that carried them to the mass graves.
On what concerns other nations I should note you that the large majority of slavians, latins and germans was doomed to destruction. Hitler's plan covered a massive clean up that even poor Deutchlander's couln't avoid. In this plan slavians were well doomed and already in the war there were a few serious clean ups. At least 3 million slavians died in concentration camps.
Uhm...they were. They were often sent without any guns just like WW1
Near BS. But that's because of the "often". It wasn't so often, but existed. Their name are the "Shtrafnye Batalliony" and were made of Gulag prisioners, criminals and soldiers who deserted their units. But note that this bloody scheme had always a well armed NKVD batallion behind them, that shoot everyone who went back.
Excuse me? The Germans almost won. If there hadn't been some rumblings in Yugoslavia (and we all know that kind of terrain just swallows up infantry), Germany would have had more than enough to capture the Kremlin. That delayed them a coupled months before marching into the soviet union. Time that they needed before the Russian winter set in. Same kinda thing happened to Napoleon
Yougoslavia was "done" when Wehrmacht was on the outskirts of Moscow. And this winter story is pure BS. Germans knew were they go and knew the Hell of winter they could meet. You know where Guderian became the great strategist we know? Just 15 kilometers from where I'm now and he studied here in the 30's. That's why people name here the Tank Institute as "Academya im. Guderiana". And look. I'm just on the other side of the Volga...
A desciple should never go against his teacher. And Guderian paid many times for this. Many times Russian generals knew how and when Guderian would attack because they were either his teachers or ex-campus pals...
Rommel who also studied in Russia never dared to go to the East Front...
Germans got caught in a brilliant trap set by a group of russian generals headed by Zhukov. One of the "visitng cards" of this operation was the first massive use of rockets ever - the Katiusha or "Stalin Organs".
Re:Stalingrad was ok... (Score:2)
However Stalingrad was more pivotal. If Germans won Stalingrad then the road was open in two ways:
The Volga plains up to the Urals.
Caucasus.
The plains were fundamental because they were the main food supply and many defense factories were in fact in these plains.
The Caucasus was also fundamental because then the biggest oil supply was in Azerbaidjan.
If Russia won then Germans woul be forced to make a defensive stand over South Russia which would be very damaging for future operations. Russians won and Germans were forced to get into defense.
Kursk was the attempt to turn things back. However the Russian Army had also to made a big push in the same place...
Re:Stalingrad (Score:2)
Devil's Sense of Snow (Score:1)
Robert Dumas (robertdumas@hotmail.com)
Why Jon isn't a geek and this movie was good (Score:5)
This movie was based on the true story of one of the most well known Russian snipers of WWII. Sorry if you thought the love story was overblown, but it was part of the 'true story'! The duel is actually the most likely fictional portion of the story, more likely made up by Soviet Propadanda officers than anything else since there is no German or Russian military record of Koenig or Thorvald (as some accounts call him) ever showing up in Stalingrad or attempting to kill Zeitsev.
Zaitsev himself never confirmed or denied the story of the German sniper expert nor did he ever really talk about it.
The ending was the only thing that deviated much from the story as it is known historically... Zaitsev was actually blinded by a land mine and the girl thought he was dead and married another guy. They found each other again years later.
For more info Sniper Country's History entry [snipercountry.com]
For the most part the movie was quite accurate as far as the depictions of the brutality of the battle. The attitude of the Soviet army and the people who were caught between Hitler and Stalin.
For more background on this, Law Buzz's Backgrounder [lawbuzz.com]
Yes Jon it is important that we escape from the jingoism of the standard American's in Battle style of war movie... but really 'why did the Russian people fight so hard and sacrifice so much'? Please, what the hell were they going to do? Just let Hitler slaughter them? Maybe they should have just emigrated en masse? Whatever...
Anyway I personally thought they could have added more of the cat and mouse element between the two snipers since that whole thing probably never happened anyway... might as well make it as interesting as possible. Annuad took some very interesting twists with this... making Zaitsev more vulnerable and human rather than the Rambo or John Wayne invincible type.
I would not call this a typical Hollywood was yarn... I would call it a rather realistic depiction of the suffering... the hopes and the sacrifices made by a people in between a rock and a hard place, who must find someway to hang on to their humanity in the face of complete uncertainty about when they will die.
Do your research Jon.....
I thought this was "News for Nerds"? (Score:1)
Re:Bah, I still think .. (Score:2)
(shrug)
I liked the movie, actually. Coulda been better, but still worth the $ I paid to see it.
Re:Stalin and Hitler (Score:2)
The Vikings did.
MOVE 'ZIG'.
Stalingrad (Score:2)
Churchill called this battle "the hinge of fate". It is the largest land battle ever fought.
MOVE 'ZIG'.
Re:Why Jon isn't a geek and this movie was good (Score:2)
So his analysis of of the history was imperfect (to say the least). However, his analysis of the movie in the end was correct - it did not live up to its potential.
The girl in this movie probably got more screentime than any other character save Zaitsev. It got really tedious by the middle of the film.
They could have re-written the script to show much less of her and more of the overall battle and it would have made it a *much* better movie.
A better movie. (Score:1)
Oh, and John? Whats this about starting a two front war if they lost Stalingrad? They already HAD a 3 front war. Africa/Italy, the east, and the airwar. After the normandy invasion the germans were fighting a four(!) front war.
Re:Urgh (Score:1)
i could be wrong though..
British Accents (Score:1)
If the film piqued your interest... (Score:2)
Easily one of the most outstanding histories of the battle and its context I've ever read.
Stalingrad is crap too (Score:1)
^.
( @ )
Soylent Foods, Inc.
Re:a few things ... (Score:1)
The Russians are too often portrayed in WW2 movies as nazi cannon fodder. The russians fought like hell in WW2, shit, the germans didn't have a chance of beating the Soviet Army, one front, two fronts, doesn't matter. Stalingrad was absolutely apocalyptic: two million casualties. Think about that for a minute.
Actually, this is accurate. The company depicted, though, must have been one of the luckier ones, many of the units had only one rifle to share between 10 men. It didn't always matter, because alot of the fighting was hand to hand with knives and such. And the Germans did have a very real chance of beating the Soviets. The casualty figures were closer to 1.3 million, with the Soviets suffering about 1 million of those. It was a very costly victory for the Red Army. To get to Stalingrad, the German army had already advanced 2000 miles through Russia, sweeping aside Soviet defenses like they weren't even there. Stalingrad was close to being the final objective, once the Russians were forced across the Volga Hitler felt Stalin would agree to a peace treaty. He was probably right, as the Russians would have no hope of making a counterattack across the Volga. The Soviets were simply able to hold out long enough for the German 6th army to run out of supplies and then counterattack.
Although the Soviet officers were very brutal, they were very short of men in Stalingrad before the counter attack took place. I doubt seriously they were gunning down their own soldiers at that point.
This too is accurate. Behind every attacking Soviet unit, there was an NKVD unit to ensure that no one turned back without orders. more than 13,000 "cowards" were executed by the NKVD in this manner.
The Soviets had IIRC roughly two rifle divisions defending the entire city against the entire German Sixth Army. This is horrendous odds - yet they held out for several months, even after the german Operation Hubertus, which was their final push to take the factories near the Volga. The movie doesn't give you a sense of how desperate this was, or why the Soviets won.
Actually, at the beginning of the German attack, Stalingrad was defended by a single NKVD division, which was nearly wiped out. Reinforcements were quickly sent in. 2 Divisions could not have held out for months as you say, and 2 divisions is not nearly 1,000,000 men and women, the number of casualties suffered by the Red Army.
as for set design and FX, it could have been better. CGI always looks fake to me, and was over used, although the Stukas didn't look too bad. And though I don't read Russian too well, it seemed like none of the grafitti really said anything. Also, there seemed to be too many clear paths through the rubble and too many people walking around in the open without getting shot.
^.
( @ )
Soylent Foods, Inc.
They could have paid more attention to language (Score:1)
^.
( @ )
Soylent Foods, Inc.
Re:British Accents (Score:1)
Having everyone speak with british accents is fine, but the fact that the odd character (Kruschev, for instance) was speaking with a fake Russian accent was kind of distracting.
The part with Danilov correcting Zaitsev's spelling was pretty stupid though, it's hard to misspell words in russian, even for someone who is semi literate, and nearly impossible to use the wrong consonant (Danilov said there was no K in a word, but there is only one consonant in Russian that has a K sound).
^.
( @ )
Soylent Foods, Inc.
In case this isn't a troll... (Score:1)
The treatment of captured German soldiers by the Soviets certainly was't any better (90% never returned home) but one can make a stronger argument in defense of the Soviets, who had good reason to be pissed off by the end of the Stalingrad siege. The Germans were fighting a war of expansion. They pretty much got what they deserved.
"Stalingrad" basically ignores all these facts and portrays this company of stormtroopers, who are meant to represent the average soldier, as decent men who are as much victims of the Nazis as anyone else is. That may be true in a sense, and certainly there were decent human beings in the Wehrmacht (at least one hopes there were), but the compassion shown by the soldiers portrayed in the movie certainly does not seem to have been typical of German troops.
^.
( @ )
Soylent Foods, Inc.
A spectacular opening does not make a good movie (Score:2)
^.
( @ )
Soylent Foods, Inc.
Pure Rubbish (Score:5)
He says: "turns out to be a fairly typical Hollywood war yarn, the heroes spending as much time mooning over the girl as they do fighting"
this was an entirely European production, not a hollywood flick.
Much like "Saving Private Ryan" the opening sequence is pretty spectacular and brutal, and much like "Saving Private Ryan", the movie turns to crap right afterward, with Annauds use of melodrama and absurd plot devices to replace the actual history of the story. His bizarre casting choices don't help much either. Only Bob Hoskins (Kruschev), Ron Perlman (Kulakov) and Ed Harris (Koenig) don't seem totally out of their depth. Harris is actually kind of frighteningly convicing as a Nazi, maybe it's his blue eyes.
If you aren't familiar with the story, Zaitsev was a real person, so were Danilov and Kulakov, although unlike in the movie, all three survived the battle of Stalingrad. Koenig may have been real, but probably not. In most accounts I have read, the German sniper's name is Col. Thorvalds, although some do identify him as Maj. Koenig. There are no records of either having been at Stalingrad, so most historians believe the whole story of the duel to be a fabrication of the Soviet press. Zaitsev himself never confirmed nor denied it. There is a written account of a similar showdown that is often attributed to him, and cited as proof, but it identifies neither him nor his german counterpart by name. What is known is that Zaitsev was a real Soviet hero, he did kill at least 142 German soldiers at the battle of Stalingrad (some accounts put the number at over 200) and altogether he had over 400 kills attributed to him throughout the war. By all accounts, he was not the naive shepherd boy portrayed in the movie, but a hardened professional soldier (who looked alot more like Ron Perlman than Jude Law). He set up a training school in the ruins of Stalingrad and trained hundreds of soldiers to employ the sniper tactics that became such a thorn in the side of the German army. Danilov was the political officer who "discovered" Zaitsev and turned him into a legend amongst the Soviet troops. In reality, it is doubtful that he tried to get him killed. Kulakov, at least in the legend of the duel, was Zaitsev's parter and was with him when he killed the German. There are several accounts, complete with references, available online. Just search Google for "Zaitsev".
The story is so good that, even though it is probably not true, it has become a legend. Annaud thinks he can make it better. He is wrong. He turns the whole thing into, of all things, a love story. In the process he loses sight, not only of the "facts" of the story, but of the enormous sacrifice made by the Red Army and the unimaginable suffering of the civilians who were forced by Stalin to remain in the city to starve. Everyone in the picture looks pretty well fed, clean and no one ever looks cold (it was -30C during the winter). It was so bad,it is said, that city's dogs tried to swim across the Volga to escape, only people stayed behind. After 50 years of movies that portray the Americans (who lost about 290,000 men) as the saviours of Europe, its good to see a major movie that attempts to give credit to the 25 million Soviet soldiers and civilians killed defending their country, but it falls short.
If you want to see a movie that more accurately portrays the misery of the Stalingrad battle (although from a German perspective) see the 1993 movie "Stalingrad". That movie has its own problems (a somewhat revisionist view of the conduct of German soldiers for one thing) but it's much better as a war movie than "Enemy at the Gates". If you just want to see some blood and guts, and 3 seconds of Rachel Weisz's bare ass, then "Enemy at the Gates" might be for you.
^.
( @ )
Soylent Foods, Inc.
The scale of the German defeat was unnecessary (Score:1)
Retreating would have allowed the Germans to fight again another day. In the end, he (the general) surrendered when surrounded and running out of food and ammunition. Hitler was incandescent (which was normal for him anyway).
Re:The scale of the German defeat was unnecessary (Score:1)
Do you mean Leningrad?
Re:Bah (Score:2)
The real brutality against the Russians and (to a lesser extent) Ukranians started later. That did not affect the way the armies fought, but it made for a vicious resistance organisation behind the German lines.
As to why the Germans were in that area in the first place: it had (imho) very little to do with the name and a lot more to do with oil. The German war machine was having problems getting hold of fuel and there was a lot available a bit further over.
Sure, Hitler considered the land vacant and available for colonising, but that was to be the next stage after the Russians had been defeated.
Re:Impoverished Movie (Score:1)
More on topic, I think that it was readily apparent how Zaitsev escaped from each of the situations. I also saw snow. Not mid-winter Stalingrad snow, but then the movie was mostly set in September and October. Certainly there would more snow over the course of the Battle of Stalingrad, but then the fight for Stalingrad continued for several months after the end of the movie.
itachi
Re:Urgh (Score:1)
Another movie to watch is the Tom Berringer/Billy Zane flick 'Sniper.' Though thin on plot and substance, it is an interesting movie nonetheless.
Did you know that the US didn't have a permanent sniper school until AFTER Vietnam?
Re:USSR won the war (Score:1)
More positive review, for a change (Score:1)
The plot is rather well done. There is a bit of sleight-of-hand in getting Vasily out of some tight spots. But the story is gripping; there's plenty of tension in the sniper duels. Quite a few times where it's tough to say what will happen next -- rare in a Hollywood movie.
The romance is good but it could probably be de-emphasized somewhat. Amusing to read all the comments about how unrealistic it is, when it basically happened. One of the better sex scenes in a while.
Some great performances. Ed Harris is outstanding -- that role could easily be one-dimensional; he makes Koenig frightening but human. Fiennes is good. Law is OK. Hoskins does a lot with a small role. Gabriel Thomson is excellent as the Sasha, best kid performance I've seen in a while (better than Osment for sure). Rachel Weisz is a bit off as the love interest. But she looks great...
Overall I'd recommend it; it's not a must-see but it's easily worth a matinee price. I'd put it on a par with Saving Private Ryan, which was rather overrated IMHO. Enemy probably has more flaws but also a more interesting plot. Solid performances on both sides, with Harris getting the nod over Hanks by a thread.
Cheers,
Dave
A snug-fitting shoe... (Score:2)
Sure... the poster didn't mention where he was posting from, so one can't be sure if his post is a reflection of the USA. And I agree, the ratings he mentioned might indicate a different country (or it might indicate the poster just doesn't know what those ratings mean).
But. I live in the USA. And my post is certainly based on the American culture I've observed. Stereotype or not.
Sheltered Youth (Score:4)
Here we have a movie about one of WWII's most vicious battles. The movie depicts graphic violence in desturbing detail (this is my assumption since I haven't seen the movie, but since such scenes are being compared to Saving Pvt. Ryan - I have seen Saving Pvt. Ryan and found the violence distrubing, although justified and important to the experience). So we have graphic violence. And its the scenes of explicit sex that cause one to wonder whether it is appropriate for a young adult audience.
The kind of lesson this paradox presents, I'll leave as an exercise to the reader. But I thought it was a prime example and worthy of note.
Re:Good story gone bad. (Score:2)
What I remember is that Zaitsev had a wife who was also a sniper, but that she died at some point. So there wasn't really a love triangle, but he was married to a sniper.
Then again, it could have been a different WWII sniper that I've gotten mixed up with Zeitsev.
But over all I enjoyed the movie. As another poster mentioned, they could have been a little more detailed on Zaitsev getting out of some of his predicaments. Though I think they did a 'fair' job of keeping a rather boring undertaking somewhat interesting. Seeing as sniping is 99% waiting, it would have made for a slow movie :)
Ender
Re:Urgh (Score:1)
It's not just plausibility. One of the things I thought this movie did well was show that women were a significant part of the war effort.
The romantic scenes were obnoxious, but also go back in part to the (stated in the film) idea that people didn't know if they were going to be alive tomorrow, so they (almost desperately) enjoyed the few good times available to them.
Bah (Score:1)
I would think that this just shows Machiavelli's Principle that it is better to be feared than loved. The Russians were taking huge losses, throughout the war. I do know that Stalin tried many things, including putting more units behind the front lines to "clean up" those that retreated. If you know your superior is going to shoot you if you stand still, why the hell not charge the damn guns? Not to mention the fact that Hitler stated his primary goal was to take Russia up to the Urals. Hell, in the territory the Nazis did take over, there were Enzitazgruppen(sp?) that came after and once again "cleaned up" what the army didn't take care of.
ok, I've finished that rant. I do think the Battle of Stalingrad is worthy of a movie, more so than a lot of other WWII movies depending on your perspective. It was the turning point in the eastern front, the Nazis never made any major advances after it(of course in 6 months one must learn how to effictively fight one's foe). What I find incredably intresting, are the reasons behind the battle. Hitler's propaganda machine was always looking for new blood, and noticed that Stalingrad was named after Stalin(duh). Therefore the Nazi's make a valiant effort to siege the city. Of course, Stalin says to himself, 'Hey! I named that place after me! They can't take it!' and the bloody bloodshed we see follows, says a lot about the nature of the two, don't you think?
Enemy at the Gates' (Score:1)
If only it were true.
TheGeek
Movie was great. (Score:1)
Re:Basis for opinion (Score:1)
Well, now this is an impression a lot of american have about russians, I guess the 50ths and McCarthy have something to do with that idea.
Reality is that for decades the russian people have had the short end of the stick, the Zar didn't care much about his people and when Lenin came to power (thanks to German support during WWI) he forgot about the people who got him in power (farmers, workers etc.). He also had to learn that it was way harder to get his dreams into reality.
As for "only so much"... Well look at the map today and you see that a lot of what was the Soviet Union fell apart once the iron curtain and the pressure was down. A lot of people in the Baltic despite Stalin and Russia and they are very wary about what is going on in this country today.
Russia has a very rich culture, way more so IMO than the US, and it is not as easy to grasp for outsiders as it might appear (and no, I am not an expert on this, I know some people from the former Soviet Union as such I have a bit of an insight what was going on there, but I am far from an expert).
Re:Stalin and Hitler (Score:1)
If I remember correctly Stalin btw, didn't leave Moscow as such if he would have really managed to conquer the city he actually might have pulled it off.
Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:1)
To my knowledge pretty integrated. In the sense that they needed everyhand that could pull a trigger, they even created an all female Squadron of Fighter Pilots.
Re:Strange, strange, strange... (Score:1)
What I have read in other sources it seems to be true. Both of them were lovers AND both were snipers (he trained her).
There also seemed to have been quite a lot of female snipers in Stalingrad at that point.
On a side note. I read somewhere that apparantly woman make BETTER snipers than man do... Wonder why?
Stalingrad -- There is a better movie about this. (Score:2)
It's called "Stalingrad" [imdb.com]
Sure, it's a german movie, less production value and not so many CGI Effects (after what I can tell from the trailer), but also no Love Story, no "Hollywoodniced" version of a war.
Re:Stalingrad is crap too (Score:2)
A couple of years ago I read an interview with one guy who was 18 when he ended up on the russian front, and he said up until this day (though only some years later) he still looks at his family and grand chlildren and wonders who the two red army guy's were he shot and killed, and how their family would be now.
War is a very bad thing, and people do things in war that they wouldn't do normally, but I wouldn't say that ALL german soldiers were there to kill and torture people.
Besides, if you look closely you'll see that this is a two way street, all through history attrocities during war time existed. Yes, even your preciouse american army did this, world war 2, Korea, Vietnam it's all there.
As such: Stalingrad I think is way more accurate in that regards than most other movies.
BTW, one more thing. There is a reason why even german movies show the Nazis as the bad guys: That's the german mentality about this period, there is a collective guilt within germany about what has happened, and germany tends to take the blame for everything that happens (we not only accept, we actually ask for taking it).
Face it: War is a horrible thing, and people do horrible things.
[End of rant, the above post is not a political statement]
Re:Stalingrad - Largest battle?!? (Score:1)
Re:a few things ... (Score:2)
Yes they were evil but not nearly as evil as any of the communist regimes. Six million killed in nazi camps to over 60 million killed in soviet gulags. So who would you prefer to have as a neighbor: a clean cut business man who murdered his family in their sleep with a gun or a guy who just slaughted them with an ax? This whole sympathetic view of communists scares me.
The Russians are too often portrayed in WW2 movies as nazi cannon fodder.
Uhm...they were. They were often sent without any guns just like WW1.
the germans didn't have a chance of beating the Soviet Army, one front, two fronts, doesn't matter.
Excuse me? The Germans almost won. If there hadn't been some rumblings in Yugoslavia (and we all know that kind of terrain just swallows up infantry), Germany would have had more than enough to capture the Kremlin. That delayed them a coupled months before marching into the soviet union. Time that they needed before the Russian winter set in. Same kinda thing happened to Napoleon.
Though you do have some valid points about attacking the Romanian flank. The soviets attacked them because they were by far the weakest. It would have been radically different if they attack a German division but oh well. The nazi's were freezing to death before this well before any counter-attack.
Re:It's good to see Soviet history on the big scre (Score:2)
Better Tanks??? (Score:1)
Heh. Better by what measure?
The T-34 was a good tank for the time, without a doubt. It was a lot better than the Germans expected them to be able to field, but saying it was better than the German tanks is a bit odd. The Tiger was far more powerful, the Panzer III was comparable and intended for infantry-support rather than tank to tank battles anyhow.
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
Re:Why Jon isn't a geek and this movie was good (Score:1)
Re:Snow? (Score:1)
Target moves his head two inches and you've wasted the shot.
Very true.
Though... depends which eye you're aiming at, and which way he moves...
-J
Re:Impoverished Movie (Score:2)
Yeah, the love story was pretty goofy. Totally on the mark there, as it were.
-J
Urgh (Score:3)
The sniper and military parts of the movie were really good, and it held be to the extent that the final bullet in Vasiliy and Konig's duel, though expected, still made me jump.
But the romantic elements of the film were just obnoxious. I know this is how movies work these days, but this one really could have (IMO) done without it.
-J
Re:a few things ... (Score:2)
Those "communist regimes" were hardly communist. They were nothing more than your run-of-the-mill dictatorships that claimed to be communist.
Re:Sheltered Youth (Score:1)
--------
Re:A snug-fitting shoe... (Score:1)
I agree. I was caught in a dilema: reply in agreement that Americans are soft on violence and hungup on sex, or reply in protest of stereotypes. In the end I think was mainly just giving you a hard time
--------
Re:Better Tanks??? (Score:1)
Re: The French and *not* fighting (Score:1)
I won't go into the military defeat - that could have been averted as well - the French had more and better tanks than the Germans, and some truly fine aircraft (though in much less numbers). This is a topic very well discussed in a book titled "To Lose a Battle: France 1940" by Alistair Horne.
There were many complicated contributing factors to the French surrender in 1940 - the loss of the battle a catalyst for action hoped for in some camps of the upper echelon. Surrounded by facists to the east, west and southeast, there were a good number of high ranking French that wanted German/Italian alliance, not war, as they saw democracy as decrepit and unworkable (remember, the French were on their 3rd republic by this time) and the only social choices being facism or communism. Few believed that democracy could survive a confrontation with the absolute power of a strong central regime like facism or communism.
The people were cleverly manipulated during the brief confrontation and a plot to overthrow the government and install a facist regime was hatched at the time of military defeat. The "anti-revolutionaries" took advantage of confused events during the defeat to install a facist-like leader (Petain, a military "hero" of WW1, trusted and worshiped as such, but not a great statesman, and aged nearly senile) and arrange an armistice rather than continue the war from the colonies. Many did not expect Britain to survive and saw no help coming from the US; some wanted to arrange better treatment for France in the "new world order". The whole saga evokes images of rats running from the sinking ship - crew first, women and children last, and no one manning the pumps...
I highly encourage the reading of the book "The Gravediggers of France" by Pertinax (pn); extremely detailed and enlightened view of the political/economic/social environment of France leading up to 1940, and on through to the Allied landings. The book pulls no punches, criticizing all the players of the disaster.
It's amazing to me how close things were to being very different, and how the schemings of relatively few and the blindness of so many caused a disaster for a nation.
Spoilage warning? (Score:5)
I suppose that mentioning that the Germans loose the war would be a huge spoiler?
--
Basis for opinion (Score:2)
The Russians lost 20 million people in the war. Stalin's efforts resulted in an unknown number of deaths, with some people claiming 50 million, and others up to 120 million.
Second point. (which weren't in the best shape to begin with...) Once again it is suggested that reading a little history would help here. Hitler invaded Russian on June 22, 1941. At that time, his forces were the best organized and equipped in all of Europe. His air fighters were made of metal, when the Russians where still using wood-and-cloth construction. His troops were rested, and consisted of veterans. They were in very good shape. I agree, however, that the move was stupid - by invading Russia, Hitler opened a second front.
"cursed capacity for suffering" Ok, how much of the "long suffering Russian soul" crap do we have to hear? Where are you getting this? The Russian lit class you took recently? Every time someone takes one of those, they think they get a handle on how the Russian people think. You are taking impressions out of context, using a translated text. Once again, get the facts, don't spout opinions.
I certainly don't mean to start a nationalistic bitch-fight here, but honestly, can you drop the high-handed discussions of a national struggle of absolutely gargantuan proportions, especially while being ignorant of the actual historical details? I doubt anyone will disagree if I say that Hollywood is far more interested in making money rather than presenting the actual events. Yes, Stalingrad happened. But it is pointless to pose as a critic of Russian military history based on one western movie, or a few books on which the Russians themselves are divided.
I have been listening to these discussions for a decade now, and one thing they all have in common is a profound ignorance of the facts, and the high-handed pity and even contempt for what the Russians did in the war. So please, watch the movie, have fun, but have enough decency not to slur the memory of the millions of heroes who died to stop Hitler. You are not insulting only the Russians. You are insulting your own grandfathers who fought and died with them.
Sounds like _War of the Rats_ by David Robbins (Score:1)
It is sad that the director/screenwriter (adapter) chose to focus more on the love/romance than the brilliant duel the novel evokes. Because it is an adaptation of the novel (which I loved, in case you haven't gotten that idea yet) I may go see this. Sounds like a dud in comparison though.
Re:a few things ... (Score:1)
Oh, and your "neighbours" analogy is flawed as well as offensive: your clean-cut business man would also be murdering other families in their sleep.
--
Different Medium (Score:1)
Re:Stalin and Hitler (Score:1)
Unfortunately for Hitler, Russia was planning to invade Germany later that summer (various archives opened recently, also most military equipment on the Russian side of the border was "offensive", not "defensive" weapons), so he pretty much didn't have a choice.
Proof of Life (not really spoilers) (Score:1)
--
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Re:They could have paid more attention to language (Score:2)
Danilov dictates a letter to Vassily and corrects his English spelling, but then dictates a letter to a Russian secretary which turns out in Russian. Sasha (the kid) speaks "Russian" to the other Russians, and then speaks "German" to Koenig perfectly fluently. There's are such disconnects everywhere.
I think the best way to handle it was to have the Russians speak English and write in Russian (have Danilov spell out Russian words with Russian letters), and have the Germans speak and write in German with subtitles. If half the actors in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon can fake Mandarin, Ed Harris can fake German.
And another nitpick, not about the movie, but about Katz's article. If I can go to IMDb.com and find out that it's not Ranya (where did that come from?) but Tania, so can you. Same deal with Vassily and Koenig. Oops, maybe I shouldn't trust IMDb so much: they list Jude Law's character as Vassily, but his grandfather is Vassili's Grandfather.
--
Re:How this movie could have been stronger... (Score:2)
As far as Koenig's character, the short little part about his son indicated that they intended to have more depth to his character but they just couldn't afford it time-wise. I think it was clear that Ed Harris was really trying to play that tortured-soul grey-area character, but the editing really didn't support it.
--
Re:Urgh (Score:1)
Yeah, I thought that the sex scene was a little unneeded. O.k., so you had to continue living in really harsh times - keep the spirit up and so forth. But I didn't think it needed to be that explicit. They could have implied that happened by moving the camera off for a second or two on the people lying nearby - that would have presented the idea as well if not better.
I was sitting there wondering a bit why these things _need_ to be shown. They don't add to the reality and it made me question the "15 [years plus]" rating it got over here. It was explicit enough, I think, that it could have belonged in some adult romantic comedy, et al., but seemed out of place here.
It also made me wonder about the girl getting a urinary tract infection - they didn't seem too clean.
Re:Bah (Score:1)
I would think that this just shows Machiavelli's Principle that it is better to be feared than loved. The Russians were taking huge losses, throughout the war. I do know that Stalin tried many things, including putting more units behind the front lines to "clean up" those that retreated. If you know your superior is going to shoot you if you stand still, why the hell not charge the damn guns?
But Machiavelli wasn't dumb and the way they protrayed this _was_. They supposedly had one rifle for 2 soldiers and sent some up without rifles to pick up ones that were dropped from those who were killed. When these people retreated, they were mowed down by this gattling gun from their own side.
Hey! Why don't you shoot the Germans with the gattling gun! Why not put it on the front line somewhere!
I just have a hard time any military leader would keep a piece so vital for mowing down his own deserters who are deserting in the first place because they lack guns at all...
Stalingrad was ok... (Score:2)
Stalingrad was lost primarily due to the weather...the Soviets were victorious at the Kursk due to the vastly increased quality of their leadership, training and weaponry.
The Kursk was Germany's last stand in the East, and a pivotal victory for the Soviets.
For a promotional poster... (Score:1)
Re:Bah (Score:1)
Except for one tiny problem: That really did happen.
Every Soviet corps had several "penal batallions." Several companies of men, not necessarily armed, and one company of MP's (or whatever the USSR called them) with rifles or SMGs. The latter company would form up behind the formers and open fire. Anyone in the penal companies who stood still would be killed by the MP's.
A lot of breakthroughs were made with the blood of the penal batallions. A lot of minefields were cleared that way too. Blow your foot off with a German mine, or get gut-shot by an MP and left to die...
Penal batallions weren't necessarily for deserters. It was fairly common for the senior officers of a regiment to be demoted and sent to one if they lost the regimental flag. I'm not sure what they did with the deserters, but I doubt it was the relatively gentle time at Leavenworth or Portsmouth which the US gives ours.
One ping only. (Score:1)
it's funny (Score:1)
A more positive review (Score:1)
Here's [salon.com] the review off of Salon. It's a much more complete and thoughtful review.
Snow? (Score:1)
I want to mention something else though, what sniper worth his salt aims for the eye?! Target moves his head two inches and you've wasted the shot. Give me a break.
Re:Devil's Sense of Snow (Score:1)
Impoverished Movie (Score:3)
Technically, most of the shots were very disappointing. Particularly, one scene comes to mind. Konig has Vasily pinned down in a factory, so that he can't move. Vasily is stuck behind a stove, and can't see Konig. As per usual the germans bomb the entire area (don't they know their best man is in the area? Apparently not...) Some glass falls from the ceiling. A bunch of the glass stick upright in the dirt, and Konig can see close-ups of Vasily's face. In every single piece that fell. The biggest disappointment though is that rather than actually set up the shot so that there is a reflection, they just put some CG reflections on the glass, which look horrible, totally fake. Since it's hard to beleive that could happen in reality to begin with, the fact that the director didn't use real reflections hurts the scene even more. Plus it's just corny to begin with.
Second on the techinical list, the movie is full of inexplicable scene changes. It is never explained how Vasily ever escapes Konig's scopes. It always just changes scene, from him being pinned down to him returning to Russion HQ. Since this film clearly is not supposed to be an avant garde piece, this little trick of editing makes it seem as if they hastily put this film together at the last minute. It makes it seem as if they had to cut a lot from the story.
This movie does not explore the experience of being a sniper in the Russian army. It is simple a goofy love story cast with historical characters. Sniper [imdb.com] had a more interesting look at being a sniper than this movie.
I could rant about this movie for days but, for my finale, can I just ask, where is the snow in this movie? It is set in Stalingrad in winter... and there is not a drop of snow in the city. Considering that the Russian cold is always an enormous factor when invading Russia, the omission of snow is laughable, at best.
If you want to see a corny yet horribly violent love story, go see this movie. If you are expecting a Saving Private Ryan [imdb.com]-esque dramatization of the experiences of WWII, don't waste your time. You will be sorely disappointed. I recommend renting Full Metal Jacket [imdb.com] instead. You will benefit more from seeing this movie twice than Enema at the Gates once.
Re:Stalingrad is crap too (Score:1)
--
Re:Spoilage warning? (Score:1)
A bit unrealistic (Score:1)
Strange, strange, strange... (Score:2)
Craig's book is a history of the battle itself, and only mentions in passing the subject of the movie and both novels: the sniper's dule between Chief Master Sergeant Vasily Zaitsev and S.S. Colonel Heinz Thorvald. I've read, and enjoyed Robbins's book. Lambert's book is out of print, and I have no interest in Hollywoodized history.
Here's an interesting change: according to Robbins (he claims to have merely dramatizied history, and avoided changing documented facts), Zaitsev's snipers included several women, including our romantic interest, Tania. I gather the movie couldn't quite deal with the concept of female snipers, and made Tania a "translator".
I have to point out that some historians don't believe that the Zaitsev-Thorvald duel actually happened. There's very little documentation of it outside Soviet propaganda, and no proof in German records that Heinz Thorvald ever actually existed.
__________________
Alt.Poster (Score:2)
--
one equals other.... (Score:1)
another bit of revisionist history (Score:1)
This movie is no fun for history buffs because we all know how it ends. :)
I suppose none of my gripes matter. Rumor has it among the experts that the whole thing never happened anyway- that it was a well crafted bit of Soviet propoganda based on the accidental death of a random Wehrmacht sniper. If it's a damn lie, that would explain why Hollywood decided to embrace it.
Hollywood's cartoonish portrayal of German soldiers has always made me laugh. If it were up to them we'd all teach our children that they ate their firstborn and grew bat wings during WW2.
Galland***
***
Bah, I still think .. (Score:2)
All in all, I think it was an excellent movie. It was actually quite informative, as I hadn't heard that part of the story before, and I never paid attention in history class. :P I do believe these war stories need a bit of a personal touch, however that may be achieved, else it'd end up as merely pointless violence [which Katz actually seems to want, according to his review]. There's nothing "silly" about losing loved ones in the midst of a battle, especially if they're shot down by your #1 enemy. That *is* what happens in war, whether you like it or not.
--
Re:It's good to see Soviet history on the big scre (Score:2)
Yes, they were FAR behind. IMHO it is clear that Heisenberg, the boss of the German nuclear program of the time didn't want to succeed.
Some of the people on the American bomb had worked with him for years. The boss of the theoretical section was Hans Bethe, a German. They were very afraid he might succeed. Actually, the German program didn't even get a self sustaining reactor.
When Heisenberg as a POW heard of the American bomb, in a few days he correctly calculated the critical mass. If he wanted the bomb, he would have done that years ago.
There is a famous talk between Heisenberg and Bohr during the first half of the war. Many believe that Heisenberg wanted to tell his friend that the Germans wouldn't build an atom bomb. Unfortunately Bohr got completely into panic when he heard that word. Heisenberg drew a reactor. Bohr understood that the Germans would drop it onto London, which is ridicules.
My father always said: For a scientist in war, its unbelievable easy to do "sabotage": Just don't tell anyone the good ideas you have. He worked on the V2 rocket. While there were a few things in the war that he was proud of, his passive sabotage wasn't really one of them, since it was so easy and safe.
How this movie could have been stronger... (Score:2)
I just saw the movie on Friday night, and I came out with the impression that the movie could have been made to be much stronger. Here are a few of the ways:
1. Get rid of the girl. The stupid love triangle relationship is far to overdone. The girl should have been removed completely, as her appearance only weakened the movie.
2. Remove Danilov as a significant character. Danilov didn't do as well as he could have in the movie, and I think his role was a bit overinflated. This was mainly due to the love triangle (see above)
3. Develop the characters of Vasily and Konig much more. This is my main suggestion for the movie. Vasily's background was limited to one 20 second flashback to the Urals with his grandfather. Konig's character was not really developed at all. If we could have seen the background from which these two fueding experts came, it would have really strengthened the movie. I feel that such a meeting of expertise would outplay a love triangle cliche any day. Tell me this: would you rather watch a soap opera, or a meeting between Larry Bird and Magic Johnson (to use an eighties sports analogy), two of the greatest and most storied basketball players of that time?
The movie did turn out to be entertaining, but I really believe it could have been much stronger.
Spoilage warning (Score:2)
Stalin and Hitler (Score:4)
From a military standpoint (at least at the time of World War II), one could say with conviction that Hitler was stupid to invade Russia. He diluted his forces (which weren't in the best shape to begin with at that point) and historically, no one had ever successfully invaded Russia.
Why did the people of the Soviet Union allow all of this to go on? The author Boris Pasternak speaks of the Russians' "cursed capacity for suffering," and I think the answer lies there. We can't begin to conceive of how downtrodden and utterly hopeless these people were -- yet still they fought on.
To me it's more interesting to ponder the relationship between the Allies and Josef Stalin. He was needed to win the war, but he certainly could have given Hitler lessons in brutality.
Annie