Enemy at the gates

[ahab]

i rather enjoyed this movie. If you havent seen it i would suggest watching it

[JKP]

One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Crappy romance moments, absolutely 0% historical accuracy, and bad camera work.

At least it gave inspiration to the game call of duty, which communicated the battle of Stalingrad in a way that the movie tried to do but failed.

[ahab]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 03:51 AM
One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Crappy romance moments, absolutely 0% historical accuracy, and bad camera work.

At least it gave inspiration to the game call of duty, which communicated the battle of Stalingrad in a way that the movie tried to do but failed.
hey i thought it was good lol, yea the historical facts were a little off, and sure the romance was rather bad, but the chick was hot, those seens of the red soldiers running across the field with the flag was awesome and the point that a regular communist soldier defeats a major in the fascist army is awesome too. Maybe not an academy award winner but still good

[El-Bortukali]

that movie is in my opinion a whole bunch of Hollywoodesk bullshit from the begining to the end.

It-s filled with huge incoerences. And i am not only talking about the fact that they invented a fucking romance that never existed, and thats not all that worries me about the movie, the fact that apparently the red army sent his troops to a death march against standing fascists with machineguns is pure bulshit, the fighting in Stalingrad was made from building to buiding, not with direct charges in open space.
then there is that part where you see a whole bunch of panzers standing in lines, anyone that has a minimal sense of modern warfare knows that standing lines of panzers were just a pretty good target for the soviet airforce and artillery.
then there is that other thing, the NKVD officers only had pistols and spent theyr time shooting at theyr own soldiers? PAlease......


seriously, this movie is bullshit, dont take it seriously for one second....

[Rollo]

Movie sucked testicular and made the soviet army looked like scared little rodents, watch stalingrad instead.

[Taiga]

It's awful. I hope you don't study history watching such crappy movies.

[Phalanx]

The book Enemy at the Gates was much better than the movie. The movie was one of the worst war films I've ever seen.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:51 AM
One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Crappy romance moments, absolutely 0% historical accuracy, and bad camera work.

At least it gave inspiration to the game call of duty, which communicated the battle of Stalingrad in a way that the movie tried to do but failed.
What about the Camera work did not live up to you obviously vast expectations?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 03:23 PM
watch stalingrad instead.
Is that; that German film, about Nazi desserters?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 05:42 PM
The book Enemy at the Gates was much better than the movie. The movie was one of the worst war films I've ever seen.
ANd just why is that?

And if it really is one of the worst films that you have ever seen, then you must rarely watch films, because it got 7.3 on the IMDb ratings, which is a good score.

I can think of hundreds of much worse films.

[Phalanx]

Most of it is opinion, of course.

Ratings are very rarely accurate; horrible movies I've seen had gotten good ones, good movies I've seen bad ones.

The only worse war movies I can think of would be Windtalkers and pretty much every John Wayne movie.

[Donnie]

The only bit that I liked was when that sniper guy shouts out to the other guy running down the stairs; "and don't spill the soup you Marxist bastard".

Other than that the films utter shite.

[JKP]

Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention the british accented voices; that really drew me in you know.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 12:26 AM
Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention the british accented voices; that really drew me in you know.
Well, four of the five lead cast members are from England and the other from the USA, so what do you expect? Perhaps you would hvae rachel Weize and Jude law attempt, undoubtedly without much success, to put on Russian accents?

I can tell that you haven't thought this through, you critisise the film for the sake of it, without any actual understanding.



Ratings are very rarely accurate; horrible movies I've seen had gotten good ones, good movies I've seen bad ones.

Well that rating is the rating it is given by the votes of over 25,000 people, which makes it a tad more objective than an Empire magazine film critic.

While I do, from time to time, disagree with IMDb ratings they are usually very good because of the massive numbers of people who participate in judging these films.

I have read all (everyone in the thread) of your critisisms and not one person has elaborated any reason why they dislike the film - other than its historical inaccuracy. Which is a bullshit reason to dislike a film. Its not a documentary, its a movie, if you want to know what happened go to the library, watch the history channel, don't go to the pictures.

Oh and for the ignorant individuals claiming this was a Hollywood flick, think again. It was not. Its production bif Hollywood production company was paramount which only distributed and oversaw production - it was Annaud's (director) company which financed and produced the film, with a French director and largely British cast. So not, this is not a Hollywood film.

[bezdomni]

then there is that other thing, the NKVD officers only had pistols and spent theyr time shooting at theyr own soldiers?

:lol:

"Leon Trotsky was a brute. He killed hundreds of his own soldiers during the revolution."
-My world history teacher a few years ago. Now he is my economics teacher

"The people in the Soviet Union wanted to move to an American-esque capitalist system, because Glasnot allowed them to see what life was like in the US. When they saw us with our transistor radios, rock n' roll and blue jeans...they wanted our system."
-My economics teacher, explaining why a "command economy" does not work.

"Nobody in Russia starves anymore because they are unable to buy food."
-My economics teacher



I think he must have written that movie. :P

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

watch stalingrad instead

Never seen it, is it good?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Oh, and for anyone interested in a quick rundown of what went down at Stalingrad: http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/ryw5a.html

[violencia.Proletariat]

My favorite parts in this movie are when the main character goes on a rant about how he wants to become a boss in a factory, how communist :rolleyes: He says something like "without the man on the catwalk, the workers would be clueless as to what to do. I've always wanted to be that man."

[JKP]

Originally posted by Enigma+Aug 20 2006, 05:10 PM--> (Enigma @ Aug 20 2006, 05:10 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 12:26 AM
Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention the british accented voices; that really drew me in you know.
Well, four of the five lead cast members are from England and the other from the USA, so what do you expect? Perhaps you would hvae rachel Weize and Jude law attempt, undoubtedly without much success, to put on Russian accents?

I can tell that you haven't thought this through, you critisise the film for the sake of it, without any actual understanding.

[/b]
Did you know that when directing a movie you have a choice to not use British actors?

Generally most good movies involving languages from another land either have the characters actually speaking the language with subtitles, or least use actors with flat accents. But voices arem't everything of course; the point is how well they act. I suppose you could use an actor with an incorrect accent if their acting made up for it, but in the case of EATG, it didn't have much acting at all.

Seriously, there are hundreds of war movies that are light years beyond Enemy At The Gates; there's just no comparison.

Hell, I want to ensure that people watch good war flicks. I'll go out of my to e-mail you some .torrents you wont regret downloading. (and I don't mean Saving Private Ryan.)

[Rollo]

Stalingrad is a B rate movie but historically it is more correct and it shows the perspective ofbost the soviets and the wahrmecht.

[Invader Zim]

Did you know that when directing a movie you have a choice to not use British actors?

The director does not necessarily choose the actors, they have a say, but they have other considerations. Not to mention your argument is ridiculous beyond belief. Why must a film set in a specific country cast actors and actresses from that country - Gary Oldman would soon be on the dole if you were put in charge? Why should the film be set in the native language of that country, when the audience you are targeting it for is foreign? Do you think that in Gladiator, Russell Crowe should have learned latin and the film be made entirely in latin?




Generally most good movies involving languages from another land either have the characters actually speaking the language with subtitles, or least use actors with flat accents. But voices arem't everything of course; the point is how well they act. I suppose you could use an actor with an incorrect accent if their acting made up for it, but in the case of EATG, it didn't have much acting at all.

The film is made by Western Europeans and is targetted towards an English speaking audience. You can critisise that all you want, but films with subtitles are not nearly as popular in the English speaking world as films without - and dubbing into foreign languages is perhaps the worst thing that can happen to a film. This is why films like Downfall, Run Lola run, Ong-bak, Hard-Boiled, Trois couleurs: Rouge, City of God, etc while gaining massive critical acclaim, still do not recieve nearly the viewing figures as films covering perhaps even the same or similar subject matter as western films.

Its simple maths. More people want to see films in their own language than in foreign languages so films designed for a specific audience will be in the language most suitable for that audience.



Seriously, there are hundreds of war movies that are light years beyond Enemy At The Gates; there's just no comparison.

Really? While not wanting to suggest that Enemy At the gates is in anyway a 10/10 film completed to perfection; it certainly is not, despite what people on this site say, dire. It's IMDb score is pretty fair all round.


Hell, I want to ensure that people watch good war flicks. I'll go out of my to e-mail you some .torrents you wont regret downloading.

You can try it, list a few and I will see, but don't bother emailing - I have my own sources.

[Rollo]

Stalingrad people it's really good.

[Ian]

They should make a movie on Ludmilla Pavlichenko

[PaulMarsh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:25 AM
They should make a movie on Ludmilla Pavlichenko
Agreed - providing Bob Hoskins could still play Kruschev somewhere in the film!

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 09:52 PM

The director does not necessarily choose the actors, they have a say, but they have other considerations. Not to mention your argument is ridiculous beyond belief. Why must a film set in a specific country cast actors and actresses from that country - Gary Oldman would soon be on the dole if you were put in charge? Why should the film be set in the native language of that country, when the audience you are targeting it for is foreign? Do you think that in Gladiator, Russell Crowe should have learned latin and the film be made entirely in latin?




Generally most good movies involving languages from another land either have the characters actually speaking the language with subtitles, or least use actors with flat accents. But voices arem't everything of course; the point is how well they act. I suppose you could use an actor with an incorrect accent if their acting made up for it, but in the case of EATG, it didn't have much acting at all.

The film is made by Western Europeans and is targetted towards an English speaking audience. You can critisise that all you want, but films with subtitles are not nearly as popular in the English speaking world as films without - and dubbing into foreign languages is perhaps the worst thing that can happen to a film. This is why films like Downfall, Run Lola run, Ong-bak, Hard-Boiled, Trois couleurs: Rouge, City of God, etc while gaining massive critical acclaim, still do not recieve nearly the viewing figures as films covering perhaps even the same or similar subject matter as western films.

Its simple maths. More people want to see films in their own language than in foreign languages so films designed for a specific audience will be in the language most suitable for that audience.

Well see comrade, that's the difference between you and me. You're concerned about pandering to mass appeal, while I'm concerned about making a good movie. Even if it's 8 hours long:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151852/


And I don't care about IMDB's rating; they put Saving Private Ryan in the top 250. Just because millions of people believe that the big bang never happened doesn't mean they're right.


I'll end our Enemy At The Gates discussion with this:

"The film was criticized both in Russia and in the West for taking considerable liberties with the facts; in both its plot and in the depictions of its characters (notably Fiennes' character, Danilov, and the German sniper König), it varies widely from the historical record. The actual Soviet Stalingrad veterans were so offended by inaccuracies in the movie and the insulting way in which the movie portrays the Red Army, that they asked the Russian Parliament to ban the film in Russia."

[Vladislav]

It is okay from an action point of view, but I must say I really didn't enjoy the romantic scenes in the film. Read the book on the guy.I have a Russian version which I stole off my cousin, but I'm certainly gonna buy the english translation. The book is a very interesting read.

http://www.notesofasniper.com/

[Invader Zim]

You're concerned about pandering to mass appeal, while I'm concerned about making a good movie.

Oh stop being so goddamn sanctimonious, that is nothing to do with it. Indie movie fascists are incredibly fucking boring.


And I don't care about IMDB's rating; they put Saving Private Ryan in the top 250.

Thats because its a good movie, personally I wouldn't put it any higher than 7.5, but thats me. I think that you put more in stock into what you percieve are the politics of a film than how good or bad the film actually is. Which is an utterly stupid way of considering films.



I'll end our Enemy At The Gates discussion with this:

Something you just ripped from wikipedia. If you have critisism be origional, I want to here what problems you have with movies, not the author of a wikipedia article. Not to mention that historical accuracy does not make a good movie, indeed it has nothing to do with how good or bad the movie is.

[Rollo]

Well when you're watching it with your older relatives them complaining about how inaccurate it is and how disrespectful it is towards the red army it causes you to never want to see that movie again.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:05 PM
Well when you're watching it with your older relatives them complaining about how inaccurate it is and how disrespectful it is towards the red army it causes you to never want to see that movie again.
I don't give a shit what your relatives or anyone elses relative say. And I don't give a shit about it being 'disrespectful' to the red army.

Those points have no standing on whether the movie is good or shit.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

That movie taught me a lot of important things, for example, that all Russians and Germans have English accents.

Seriously though, I didn't think much of the movie, the ending especially. It was just stupid. Now, if that's what actually happened in real life then I will stand corrected, but AFAIK it's not.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and the romance was terrible.

[Rollo]

Yes it does enigma, if a movie pisses you off beyond belief because of how stupid it was it makes it a bad movie.

[Invader Zim]

Now, if that's what actually happened in real life then I will stand corrected, but AFAIK it's not.

It is a fictional story.

It's not real, nobody ever claimed it was real. There was never a person called König, the whole story of the sniper duel is fictional. Its a drama using some real characters based upon a real historical backdrop. But the film and drama are fictional.


Yes it does enigma, if a movie pisses you off beyond belief because of how stupid it was it makes it a bad movie.

No, it doesn't. Getting pissed off that a fictional story isn't what really happened is the most fucking stupid thing I have ever heard.

[Phalanx]

I think it's funny that everyone's hormones are raging on the same day. Honestly, it's a fucking movie, and there's no reason to get so angry about it.

[Rollo]

A movie about WW2 should actually show what happened in WW2. If I was to make a WW2 movie and put aliens, ghosts and velociraptors in it people would be pissed and confused. There is a difference between changing history and a fictional story.

[Xiao Banfa]

One part I hated was when they made Nikita Krushcev look like a monster with his wild, evil eyes. When in reality, Krushchev was nothing like that.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:07 AM
A movie about WW2 should actually show what happened in WW2. If I was to make a WW2 movie and put aliens, ghosts and velociraptors in it people would be pissed and confused. There is a difference between changing history and a fictional story.
Thats a bag of crap - the film did not put aliens, ghosts and velociraptors.

As for taking artistic licence with the facts, the vast majority of the best historically based movies have done. Do you think that the Bridge on the River Kwai, Full metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, Schindler's List, etc, were all perfectly accurate? Of course they weren't; stop being so naive.

[Free Left]

As for taking artistic licence with the facts, the vast majority of the best historically based movies have done. Do you think that the Bridge on the River Kwai, Full metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, Schindler's List, etc, were all perfectly accurate? Of course they weren't; stop being so naive.

Ya, but most movies are at least in some way accurate, Enemy at the Gates could have doubled as american propaganda.
Besides, it was a shite film and those kinda films don't deserve respect.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Of course it's kind-of capitalist propaganda; for fuck's sake, watch the scene in the end where Danilov sacrifices himself because he 'realises' communism will not work :rolleyes:
That doesn't make it a bad movie, and apart from the crappy romance scenes (and the -aaargh!- annoying British accents) I quite enjoyed this film.

[Comrade J]

The movie isn't actually meant to be focused on battle, it was actually written about WW2 propaganda on the Eastern Front, but they had to build a story around it as the mass cinema audience aren't actually interested in WW2 propaganda.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 23 2006, 08:28 PM

As for taking artistic licence with the facts, the vast majority of the best historically based movies have done. Do you think that the Bridge on the River Kwai, Full metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, Schindler's List, etc, were all perfectly accurate? Of course they weren't; stop being so naive.

Ya, but most movies are at least in some way accurate, Enemy at the Gates could have doubled as american propaganda.
Besides, it was a shite film and those kinda films don't deserve respect.
How was it a shite film? Not one person has delved into any actual reasoning. its all "OMG!!!1! They didn't follow the facts!"

then when challenged, every one resorts to 'its a shit film anyway!"

Well, how was it shit? And when you make a better film, do tell us.


(and the -aaargh!- annoying British accents)

British peoples accents annoy you?

[Rollo]

Russian people with british accents annoy me. Also why the hell does the camera shake around like a moron? I've seen real war footage with better artisitc value. I know what I like I was stating my opinion and stop trying to change my opinion.

[Dyst]

I agree with Rollo.

Though the film may be okay to watch just for entertainment, I'd certainly not recommend people to watch this. Simply because a lot of it is based on lies.

Then again, most american war movies are based on lies, and most war movies are american.

[Rollo]

It isn't the lies that got me but the bad acting by everybody who wasn't Jude Law.

[Free Left]

Well, how was it shit? And when you make a better film, do tell us.

It was so predictable! The characters were crap, the plot was flimsy and the historical refernces were complete bullshit!

[Rollo]

Nobody is claiming they can make a better film, but nobody has a multi million dollar budget and thousands of dollars of film schooling either.