MovieChat Forums > Enemy at the Gates (2001) Discussion > This is insulting.

This is insulting.

posted 15 years ago by tokyostreetkiller
153 replies | jump to latest

Hey guys. I'm what you call a student of WWII and more specifically, one of the Eastern Front. I am a fan of military history and myself am a member of the US Army. I checked out this film becuase it was staged in the epic battle of Stalingrad. I was very excited about it. I've never seen a film involving Stalingrad before. I have indeed compiled a library of footage from the battle that was filmed from documentaries and the like. But I've never seen a film based on it.

After watching the film I have to say, it was rubbish. I mean, it's a very nice piece of fiction but, it carries no historical weight whatsoever. As an American, even I am offended by the films portrayal of the Soviet Soldiers. No country in the 20th century sacrificed more and lost more than Russia. And to show them in such a crass display of disrespect is appalling. I can't understand why nobody even thought to research this subject. To discount the bravery of the Soviets who at that time did what no other Army had done is wrong.

Where was General Chuikov? Why was there a love story? Really? a freaking love story? These filmmakers want me to believe that amidst the single most horrific battle in human history, a couple of soldiers had time for a little trist? I can't believe that!

I can only hope that someday a major film is made about this battle which is honest, sincere and faithful to the many who have fallen doing the bravest of deeds -- defending their homeland.

"Let's get out of here before one of those things kills Guy!"

[–] bear022013-588-696101 10 years ago

The long arm of Hollywood propaganda controlled by a certain group of people to
make the Germans look bad...no matter what!
Hitler should have stayed away from Russia{more White Men killing White Men}
and headed for Sub-Saharan Africa.
FDR was responsible for pushing America into WW II...he had the US Navy in Japanese waters,so more brave Yellow and White men murdering one another.
FDR purposely worked with Churchill to kill more White soldiers.
The beginning of this stinking movie shows a boy baiting a Wolf by scaring a Horse,then shooting the Wolf.Why not fight the Wolf barehanded if you are so tough...All hunters are physical cowards.
Finally,little Ed Harris is a "sold out" son of a bitch."

[–] Rumble_McSkirmish 10 years ago

Really, you never watched either Stalingrad before?

Panzer vor!

[–] vortexrider 10 years ago

Shut up. Your being a student of Soviet military history doesn't mean you understand film. The films should not be evaluated on historc accuracy but on cinematic and entertainment qualities.

I also dislike this movie. But in my case I simply don't like Jude Law and I do not like the whole cinematic feel of the film.

[–] GeeZee117 10 years ago

Your right this movie was inaccurate. The Soviets, comprised of mostly Jewish Bolsheviks raped and tortured their way into Berlin. Their resilient resistance however was quite unmatched.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] susliklev 10 years ago

I totally agree that this movie is one of the worst pieces of rubbish which calls itself a "historical movie".
A very good movie which is historically accurate and does not look like Hollywood action shooter is a German "Stalingrad" (1993 film). It accurately portrays the battle and is infinitely better then this rubbish.

[–] DigIt 9 years ago

What really makes me despondent and infuriated is they used the same title of the superb book by William Craig (Born in Concord, Massachusetts, USA) in which pages you can find all the facts and all the people involved that could simply be the source and inspiration for not just one movie, but possibly for many more.
And yet it seems they haven't even read the book to get their stuff in line and right or even worst, they have chosen to totally ignore it.
All those praising this fiction movie seem to ignore it too...
They just abused the title to make us believe it was based on true history: if they had titled it differently I wouldn't have found it so offensive, but just a laughable (if not entertaining) one.

[–] Georgy_Zhukov 9 years ago

I remember being disappointed how little of the book was used. I mean that was 5 years or so of research, interviewing LIVING veterans of the Battle of Stalingrad. The book was the definitive account of the battle until Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad:A Fateful Siege came out in the 2000's and more recently David Glantz four volume series on the battle, but it remains a must read.

The book takes you in the battle, you get to feel the scope and terror. The movie doesn't do that. Instead you get a forced love triangle and a not so exciting sniper duel that probably never happened set to the late Horner's mix of recycled and plagiarized musical score.

[–] nickm2 9 years ago

Right; maybe the largest, most pivotal battle of WW2 & reduced to a love triangle & a sniper duel.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

[–] andyofne 9 years ago

If you want something that depicts a battle with precise historical accuracy please watch something made for the history channel with interviews of old soldiers.

At the end of the day, this film was made to make money and to entertain not to provide you with an education.

This movie was damned good. It has a love story, bravery, sacrifice, villains on both sides... action galore.

I really hate it when 'experts' about anything watch a FICTIONAL movie and then try to educate everyone about how inaccurate the story is... try to get a grip on yourself and enjoy something once in a while.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]