Enemy at the Gates

1942, the height of the battle of Stalingrad. The German command sends to the front of their best shooter, major Konig, with a special assignment. This is an experienced professional and patient — the only one who can try to cope with the Russian "angel of death" — an elusive sniper Vasily Zaitsev. Zaitsev — a legend and icon for defenders of Stalingrad. Every day he makes a death sentence dozens of invaders caught in the crosshairs of his sight. Between the two unique sniper begins a deadly fight, the winner of which will be destined to go only one...

  • Jean-Jacques Annaud

Release Date: 2001-03-16
IMDb icon 7.6/10
  • Country: FR, DE, IE, GB, US
  • Language: English | German | Russian
  • Budget: $68,000,000
  • Revenue: Cumulative Worldwide $96,976,270
Geraldine Cassell
20 March 2011 | 02:36

Of course, in the film, a lot of mistakes, a lot of clichés and prejudices, but is one of the few Western films in which really feel bad for the Russian soldier. And not wine Hanno that we can't make the cash available to Western people movie about WOW!!! Each of you will see in this film that wants to see: someone will see how stupid Russian hundreds are killed under the machine-gun fire, as the officers shoot their own soldiers, as a sniper wins all Germans and making love in the barracks between the injured (this time was completely unnecessary); and others rejecting ideological framework will see infinitely brave Russian soldier going on certain death for the Victory of a boy who under the threat of death does not betray their loved ones and the Motherland, the political officer who sacrifices life for their mistakes. Personally I have this movie proud of people who were able to survive and not broken. Especially like as shown a duel of snipers. The Germans were not look incompetent, uppity scumbag like they loved to show in the Soviet cinema. This is a duel worthy, formidable and intelligent opponents. After all, what an honor to win over near and stupid enemy?

In General, if we discard the ideological bias and some "bellechester" that will receive a very strong Western Thriller, in which Russian soldiers are shown at least respect and without bias. If it is God in person, a slap in the face to our dear Directors and producers, who are having financial, props and endless ambition have many years can't shoot worth mentioning the film about the second world war (except, perhaps, "In August 44").

7,5 of 10

Justinn Palla
04 December 2008 | 05:27

Frankly I just wandering around in"search" on the film for to view the posters and download Wallpapers, but could not resist and decided to read the reviews, in the hope more times to confirm his immense love for this picture, but there it...

The first testimonials written in large volumes and completely upset me very much and it is not even in the mismatch of flavors (they do not argue), and in the wrong perception and interpretation. From personal impressions formed blind criticism and suffered. Someone "were laughing the whole movie" and in the end generally not look advises and someone saw not correct portrait of Stalin and a lot of inconsistencies and also "lowered" to a new low. But the Lord "criticism", You not terribly right! And I'll explain why. This movie is a painting, painting a large-scale canvas showing us a very important moment in the history of the Second world war. Authors, my opinion, really managed to convey the atmosphere of the blockade (destruction, hunger, fear). It was fear of the unknown, death (his or mates) and killing (drinking 100 grams not to ensure that dying was not scary, but because to kill a person, even worse than think), tempered people: someone has broken, someone did stronger so or else we see Basil not a superhero (the brave and undefeated), and very lively, confused and not quite ready for assigned to him of the mission of the hero.

Of course, Jude law at the height of his Vassili Zaitsev, on my opinion, very Russian, live and real, as well as the rest of the actors ed Haris and my favorite Rachel Weisz showed a very decent game and created a character with a very real history. And Hoskins on Khrushchev's very similar, yeah.  & Perlman koloriten, however, as always.

Finally, two things that are in and I speak for them thank you very much, Director and screenwriter. It — "sex on the war" and"the victory of Soviet army over the German the film is shot not a Russian film Director and designed for world show". Just had the impression that these two "things" in the Second world, do not been. What five years men (that our that their side, with the Germans did were raped and abused our women and the Soviet soldiers are drinking bromine and nothing wanted) or quietly in love through letters, or flirted with the nurses of his — and that's all! And the film shows — Yes, and Yes there are not once in the movie is beautiful and roughly, instinctively — here is not love — war is, in a word understand and"believe"!

Well, we've probably all the tired of the American flag in movies war. America is confident and right, by cinema, transformed from allies in the independent the sole liberators of the world from the fascist evil. Some Americans, or almost everything, really think genuinely surprised when they learn that it turns out Russia also fought. And it's very sad. Here so I again glad films of world level, bringing the truth about that terrible time and the exploits of ordinary Soviet people exist. It is a pity that any more no one repeats this theme in great movie.

And you say "the spiky hero," "the boy is strong" — you need to look wider. You when you look at picture Museum pick on that swab not so put the artist and even the sea is not so draw, You see the whole and movie — the film is ideological, the picture is good, the actors are great(don't break Russian language, its pronunciation, by the way, plus) and all take look and already there is really a matter of taste.

In the conclusion in a very personal way, actually, why I all wrote. This movie seven years ago (like maybe this banal sound), awakened in me a patriotism, even though he was previously, but especially not intended, but after the film covered, understood and that the blockade was terrible and what a terrible machine was the Red army — merciless even to his soldiers, and, of course, love the way would be funny in context is not sounded, she was also. In a common touched by then, I haven't seen once still touching. Must watch.

Lotta Kathi
26 February 2012 | 03:43

Hollywood is still some background sculpting kinoshedevr about superheroes, pirouetting through the thorns to the stars. In fact, this phrase, as I think the entire film and characterized. There is a hero, is charming and independent the enemy, a sweetheart, have a common complex for hero von circumstances interference. Here they are indispensable ingredients of a successful gollivudski. And what to the historical truth, that someone in essence, matter, if not to offend those about whom off?

Movie for the soul takes (at least, my heart ... he is not touched), but leaves a pleasant aftertaste. Western cinemacity after all, and really got the hand on such blockbuster times they work all the better — the technique worked up to automatism. Take a movie we — surely prophesied in the films of the year, presented to awards in us and really a big deal — to remove something like the scale quality. Yes more about the native land. But in the merit of foreign craftsmen — shooting of this film came up, it seems to me, with soul. A lot of mistakes, innuendo, ad-libbing — but it as there, and came — a solid four. Great sturdy action, Yes more about the exotic Russian, not only drunks etc, but and the characters-the sniper, and in General, the "Red army — the Grand army," as mentioned in the film once. Useful, however, in film penny — for those who wants to knowledge of history to learn (if only he not aware of that at Stalingrad was fought fierce battles and the outcome of the battle changed the course of war). But for all other — quite bearable, even interesting. So what if you want to spend the time remaining in the same mood and to view, get this movie.

How much has Enemy at the Gates made?
Commercial tv-show fees worldwide today are Cumulative Worldwide $96,976,270.
How much did it cost to make Enemy at the Gates?
According to various sources, the cost of producing the tv-show was at least $68,000,000.
Who is the director of the movie Enemy at the Gates?
This tv-show was directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud.
What is the genre of Enemy at the Gates?
The tv-show belongs to the genres of Drama, History, War.
Who starred in Enemy at the Gates?
Many famous actors starred in this tv-show, here are the names of the most famous: Jude Law, Ed Harris, Rachel Weisz, Joseph Fiennes, Bob Hoskins.
What is Enemy at the Gates IMDB Ranking?
At the moment, the rating is 7.6.
When was Enemy at the Gates released?
The start date for this tv-show on USA TV is 2001-03-16.