I went to see "Enemy at the Gates" with my husband, as I knew it was about his favorite battle of his favorite war that he watched continually on the Military Channel. After having to endure a harangue the whole way to the screen about how we would be seeing the real battle that won the war, not that inconsequential D-Day that "Saving Private Ryan" made such a big deal about as the U.S. didn't come in until the Russians already had turned the tide, I asked could he please be quiet during the movie and refrain from commenting on inaccuracies, etc. until after.
But other than the clarification I needed between the Battle of Leningrad and the Siege of Stalingrad which I always mix up (whoops, I think I just did it again), and Hitler's and Stalin's fallacies as military leaders in relation to the symbolic importance of the Volga (and the movie could have used more strategic explanations), he and I pretty much agreed about the movie.
There's a taut, gritty war movie screaming to come out of a drekky melodrama. The best parts are the battles, of troops and individuals. The opening sequence of soldiers thrown from trains to boats to the front line is terrific and frightening.
The one-on-one between Ed Harris's Nazi sharpshooter and Jude Law's hunter (though he doesn't do working class too convincingly) is exciting.
The most captivating surprising is Bob Hoskins as Krushchev. He completely inhabits the character and brings him completely to blood and guts life - showing just what it takes to survive as a top man to Stalin.
There was also more potential in Joseph Fiennes' political officer as insight into propaganda that is only occasionally effective (after all, "Ryan" was similarly about a PR stunt).
I thankfully dozed off during most of the ridiculous sub-plot of the love triangle. There appears to be only a couple of women living in this city, and they sure do get in the way, as these few can themselves provide multi-lingual translations, sex, food, lousy child care and brave sharpshooting.
The music by James Horner is atrociously bombastic, wincibly so.
(originally written 3/31/2001)
But other than the clarification I needed between the Battle of Leningrad and the Siege of Stalingrad which I always mix up (whoops, I think I just did it again), and Hitler's and Stalin's fallacies as military leaders in relation to the symbolic importance of the Volga (and the movie could have used more strategic explanations), he and I pretty much agreed about the movie.
There's a taut, gritty war movie screaming to come out of a drekky melodrama. The best parts are the battles, of troops and individuals. The opening sequence of soldiers thrown from trains to boats to the front line is terrific and frightening.
The one-on-one between Ed Harris's Nazi sharpshooter and Jude Law's hunter (though he doesn't do working class too convincingly) is exciting.
The most captivating surprising is Bob Hoskins as Krushchev. He completely inhabits the character and brings him completely to blood and guts life - showing just what it takes to survive as a top man to Stalin.
There was also more potential in Joseph Fiennes' political officer as insight into propaganda that is only occasionally effective (after all, "Ryan" was similarly about a PR stunt).
I thankfully dozed off during most of the ridiculous sub-plot of the love triangle. There appears to be only a couple of women living in this city, and they sure do get in the way, as these few can themselves provide multi-lingual translations, sex, food, lousy child care and brave sharpshooting.
The music by James Horner is atrociously bombastic, wincibly so.
(originally written 3/31/2001)