What are some of those things? I'm curious.
#1: Love triangle. Poorly executed, and added nothing to the historical nature of the film. That worked in Titanic, it did not work here. A love story is completely unnecessary when trying to tell this story. A love triangle, even less so. Atop that, I didn't see any compelling chemistry between any of those involved.
#2: Joseph Fiennes - Not a bad actor by any stretch, but did not like his performance or his character in this film. Didn't see any chemistry between any of the leads really.
#3: The kid. The whole thing about him working for the Major and feeding information to Zaitsev was so ridiculously implausible. Seemed very contrived and just sapped the narrative heft out of the third act.
#4: The accents - An obvious target, but if you aren't going to hire actors that can do Russian/German accents, at least hire a cast with largely similar and 'neutral', if I may, accents. I LOVE Bob Hoskins as an actor, but his accent simply does not work for playing Nikita Khrushchev. Neither does Jude Laws accent. Atrocious. They decided to not try, rather than try and fail. If the rest of the film were much better, it would have been forgivable. But because of the other flaws in the film, it's just another thing to hate about it.
#5: It started off VERY well. The opening scene showcasing the Russian attempts to drive the Nazis out of Stalingrad were excellent. Very compelling. Well photographed. Solid score (RIP James Horner). I really liked the opening scene between Zaitzev and Danalov too. But after that (the instant the kid shows up and meets Zaitzev) the film starts to rapidly fall apart, and never recovers.
#6: The overuse of the 'headshot'. Snipers don't do that. They don't aim for the head unless they have no other target. Many of the targets Zaitsev (and others) shoots at in this film could have been hit center mass and been equally dead, with a much lesser chance of a miss. Made our heroes/villains seem somehow superhuman (which they are not) which just destroys any connection to the character one might have established. A mistake made by many filmmakers. Real snipers aim center mass, unless the head is the only thing visible, and they have to take the shot. In this movie, every damn shot was a headshot. Just took me out of the story instantly at many pivotal moments. Terrible. It came across as sensationalist tripe, designed to make the audience say 'oh wow, what an incredible shot that guy is'. Nothing grounded in reality, and in a supposed historical epic, you really need that. Just destroyed my ability to connect to the story being told in any type of rational historical context.
Things I did like:
Bob Hoskins as Khrushchev. I know I counted that as a flaw, but let me explain. Because the rest of the movie is such a mess, Hoskins performance as Khrushchev is among the few things I can really enjoy, because of how ludicrous it is.
Ron Perlman as Khoulikov. Only part of the second/third acts I enjoy watching is when the snipers are working with Khoulikov. But then he dies, in a really ridiculous way, and then the whole kid/Major subplot rears its ugly head again.
The opening scene and the first meeting of our principle protaganists. Pretty much everything before the scene where the kid shows up and discovers Zaitsev's hide is good. The rest of it is pretty bad, and gets progressively worse as the film moves forward. By the end, I can't see it as anything but a huge misfire, with only a handful of redeeming qualities.
Not saying there is ANYTHING wrong with enjoying this film. I enjoy it. Just my opinions on its artistic merit. The real tragedy is that the Stalingrad story SHOULD be told, and COULD be told really really well. This film didn't do it. A missed opportunity one might say. One of the most desperate, bitter, and historically significant conflicts in the history of warfare. Plenty of drama there already without the whole 'I love this girl, but she loves you, so I hate you' garbage.
reply
share