Enemy at the Gates


Action / Drama / History / Romance / Thriller / War

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 54%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 82%
IMDb Rating 7.6 10 204891


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 199,181 times
September 14, 2012 at 05:01 PM


Rachel Weisz as Tania
Jude Law as Vassili
Ron Perlman as Koulikov
Ed Harris as Major König
720p 1080p
852.13 MB
23.976 fps
2hr 11 min
P/S 10 / 87
1.70 GB
23.976 fps
2hr 11 min
P/S 10 / 65

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by itpastorn 5 / 10

Entertaining disinformation

It's the Battle of Stalingrad. Things are not going well for the Red Army. The film suggests that should they loose this battle they will also loose the war. But the soldiers and the officers only know defeat, they have no hope of victory.

Enter a political commas (Fiennes) who has witnessed superb shooting by the soldier Zaitsev (Law) - killing a bunch of German officers taking a shower very near the front line (sic!). Zaitsev is turned into a sniper and his exploits are front page news all over the Soviet Union. He and his comrades are so successful that the German army ceases to function properly, only a few hundred meters away from the river Volga and Victory.

This is the setting for this movie, and the sniper duel that follows between Zaitsev and his German counterpart Konig (Ed Harris) is good entertainment. The love affair between Zaitsev and the female soldier Tania (Weisz) does not add to the suspense, but is forgivable. Some people like romance in movies, and why not? It does not make the story any better though.

Some people seem to believe that this movie is historically mostly accurate. That is not correct. There was a battle in Stalingrad. It was a bloody mess. Zaitsev was a good sniper and he killed a lot of Germans. Almost everything else in this movie is fiction and/or unrealistic. It is impossible to get every detail right, but in this movie the main plot - the duel between Zaitsev and Konig - is pure fiction and Soviet propaganda. And the idea that Zaitsev sort of "won the battle" is also absurd. He was part of their delaying forces in the city. Operation Uranus - a pincer move with tanks - was what really won the battle.

Enjoy the movie if you like. The acting is good, the scenery and costumes are OK, visual effects mostly OK. Just do not think you are learning history or are seeing realistic military tactics.

Reviewed by Jonathan Livingstone Grimshaw (Jonathan-13) 8 / 10

Everything that Pearl Harbor isn't

Bursting into my Top Five war movies of all time is this film. A gritty and realistic portrayal of one of the worst battles in the history of war - the 1942-43 armwrestle for the city of Stalingrad.

Much has been made of the actors speaking in their native accents, but this seems a trivial complaint - the film is in English after all! More important is the masterful manner of speech of the actors - Bob Hoskins' gutteral exultations as Ukrainian potato farmer Nikita Krushchev; Joseph Fiennes' pompous and proud intonations as the political officer; Jude Law's common man for the peasant turned soldier; Ed Harris with the clipped and crisp tones of a German officer.

This is my pick for the best film of the year so far (August). It is truly a cinematic masterpiece, with horrific scenes of the violence of war, brilliant dialog and heart-wrenching tragedy. Expect to be moved.

Reviewed by ([email protected]) 5 / 10

A selective distortion of history

"Enemy at the Gates" by William Craig was a great history of the Battle of Stalingrad as retold by living participants. "War of the Rats" was a powerful, moving dramatization of Zaitsev and the Soviet snipers who fought at Stalingrad, as well as the Germans who opposed them. I thought that the movie would be based on at least the novel. I was disgusted to find out that the producer/director/writers chose to throw both of these memorable books out the window and instead manufacture their own vision of the battle that provided absolutely no historical insight, replacing the great stories of the two books with warmed over putrid anti-communism.

The movie goer gets no insight into the complexities of why Soviet soldiers fought and defeated the Germans at Stalingrad. Instead we are given the impression that the only reason any Soviet soldiers fought there was due to the threat of being machine gunned by the Stalinist "blocking units". Then suddenly, one commissar has a brilliant idea to "create a hero who will be an example" and the whole battle turns on Vasily Zaitsev. None of the other real acts of heroism at Stalingrad are shown, such as the soldiers who held out for 53 days in "Pavlov's house".

Further, the main function of Zaitsev's publicity in the Red Army newspaper was to popularize sniper techniques. This was not shown. Nor the sniper school set up where snipers were "mass produced" to harrass the Germans. The heroic deeds and harrowing adventures of the real Tania Chernov are never mentioned. Her being blown out of the boat on the Volga, surviving the journey through the sewers, behind German lines, her responsibility for the loss of several fellow snipers and Zaitsev's anger with her for that, all would have made great scenes.

The tension and suspense of snipers hunting each other for days was completely missing as well as the long range aspect of these duels. The ludicrous scene at the end where Konig and Zaitsev confront each other "High Noon" style was absurd. No sniper would expose himself like that, let alone battle hardened troops by that point in the battle, even Germans.

The insipid speech by Commissar Danilov at the end about "there will always be rich and poor" was apparently thrown in to reassure the viewers that the director and producer do not sympathize with "Communism".

All in all, this movie was a travesty both as art and as history. It did a severe disservice to both. Soviet soldiers who fought and died at Stalingrad did not only do so out of fear of NKVD retaliation. Patriotism against a genocidal invader was a real part of it. And yes, many actually believed that they were fighting for a better future, that they were saving socialism. Why is it that Craig's book and Robbins novel can convey these complexities of the battle of Stalingrad while all we get from the movie is an insipid love triangle, rediculous "sniper tactics" and lots of good old fashioned anti-communism. You don't have to cover up the truth about the crimes of Stalinism to make an accurate portrayal of Russians in the battle of Stalingrad. But you don't have to churn out an anti-communist diatribe either. The truth will not be found in either. Certainly not in the sorry cinematic adaptation of "Enemy at the Gates". The only thing it has in common with the history is the title.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment