Enemy at the Gates
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
Director: Jean-Jacques Annaud
Cast: Jude Law, Ed Harris, Joseph Fiennes, Rachel Weisz, Bob Hoskins, Ron Perlman
Writers:
Synopsis:
During the Battle for Stalingrad, political officer Danilov (Fiennes) turns a young Russian sniper named Vassili Zaytsev (Law) into a folk hero and a symbol of Soviet resistance against the Nazis for his sharpshooting abilities. The Nazis, unused to fighting a war against guerrilla tactics, call in their own sharpshooter, Major König (Harris) to hunt down and kill Zaytsev. What follows is a cat and mouse game as each sniper attempts to out-think the other and gain the upper hand set against the backdrop of one of the most brutal battles or the war.
First Impressions:
I saw this movie in theaters when it was released and I remember enjoying it quite a bit. The early part of the aughts saw quite a few movies about the former Soviet Union and this one was one of the more notable ones. I suppose Hollywood saw a new source for story ideas and looked to take advantage now that the Russians were no longer our enemies. Anyhoo, I thought the film was quite good, mostly because it took a different approach by focusing on the duel between Zaytsev and König, rather than on big battles. I haven't seen the movie since I bought it on DVD more than a decade ago. It's time to see if it holds up.
Story/Direction:
"You've promised people a victory I can't deliver. I don't stand a chance against this man."
However, the parts in between those moments leave a lot to be desired. It seemed to me like Annaud and Godard wanted to make a movie about this really famous Russian sniper but couldn't fit him in to a worthwhile story. For the most part, the parts of the movies that don't involve the duel focus mostly on a love triangle between Zytsev, Danilov and Tania Chernova, a young Russian soldier played by Rachel Weisz. That part of the story really seems more at home in a teen drama or a soap opera than they do in a movie about World War II. As I've mentioned before, I don't mind a romantic subplot in certain movies, but it has to make sense within the story. Here the love triangle serves no purpose in the overarching story except to drive a wedge between Zystev and Danilov.
One other note about the story, the movie has many scenes that show how ruthless the Soviet army was. There are scenes with Russian officers shooting retreating troops, having unarmed troops rush a German gun line and other atrocities. I don't know much about Soviet battle tactics during the war, and maybe this stuff actually happened, but it seemed fairly stupid and a bit over the top to be historically accurate.
Acting:
This movie is just loaded with great actors and there are few notable performances to highlight. Jude Law is serviceable in what I think was his first leading roll in a Hollywood production. Law plays Vassili as quiet, thoughtful and not entirely comfortable with the infamy he's gained. I wouldn't exactly call it a standout performance but it's a solid turn, for sure.
Ed Harris was, I thought, an odd choice to play the roll of a German sniper. However, I think he did a decent job overall. He wisely made very little attempt at a German accent, which may or may not be the reason why he had very few lines in the film. Overall, he plays König as a cerebral antagonist who's played this game for a long time. The film makes a half-assed attempt to give him some personal stake in the duel but I think the character works better as a professional just doing his job.
Ron Perleman also does a solid job as Koulikov, another Russian sniper who previously trained with König. Perelman is always a delight in just about any role he takes on and this one is no different. The character itself has very little bearing on the actual plot but Perlman plays the part with a degree of personality that's missing somewhat from the rest of the cast.
Of course, I can't write this review without talking about the late, great Bob Hoskins' portrayal of Nikita
Khrushchev. Hoskins plays the future Soviet Premier, who was sent by Stalin to take control of the battle, as gruff and no nonsense. The performance almost borders on hammy but Hoskins manages to walk that tightrope fairly well. He's also the only actor in the movie that really attempts to do any sort of accent other than his own (except for Perleman, who does a British one for some reason).
The accents, or lack thereof, was a point of criticism directed towards this movie, seeing as most of the Russians in the film speak with British accents. Honestly, I don't find it that big a deal. I'd rather the actors worry about giving their best performances rather than try to imitate a particular accent. Besides, Russians wouldn't have an accent when speaking Russian, so let's just stop bitching about it, shall we.
Visual/Special
Effects:
Overall, the effects in the movie are pretty good. There's some early-2000s CGI here, but it's used sparingly and to good effect (mostly to duplicate Luftwaffe planes strafing Russian troop barges). The film also makes good use of slow-mo and blood effects to make the sniper scenes really memorable. I think Annaud was trying to replicate with those scenes what an actual sniper must experience when he makes a kill. The background noise is dulled and the only clear sound is the report of the rifle. The results of the shot are always shown in a close up and usually slowed down for effect. It's a technique that really works and gives the audience some insight into that style of combat.
When one is making a movie about snipers, it's necessary to have good wound effects and this movie delivers on that front. There are a lot of people who get shot in the head and the effects team manages to make each head shot different than the last. It's an odd thing to write about how well a movie depicts a person's head being blown open, but this film does a good job at making it look realistic without being overly gory.
Visually, the film also looks great. Annaud shot the film in very muted palette, which makes the movie drab and gray (almost like a war zone). I've never seen actual pictures of the Battle of Stalingrad but I have no doubt that the movie's portrayal of the city during that time was pretty accurate.
Score/Music:
The score, done by James Horner, is very solid. Horner is one of my favorite movie composers and he does a good job by keeping the music fairly understated, which is particularly effective in the more tense scenes. One thing I've noticed about Horner - and maybe this is true of many other composers, I don't really know - is that he tends to re-use a lot of his themes from other films he's done. For example, in Enemy at the Gates, I noticed some familiar music from Aliens scattered throughout the film. This didn't bug me all that much because Aliens had a pretty great score.
Action:
For a war movie, this film didn't really have a ton of action. There's the opening battle scene which was shot fairly well but other than that, there really isn't much. It doesn't really matter though, as this movie doesn't rely on action beats to excite the audience. As I mentioned earlier, this movie really lives and dies by its tension-filled sniper scenes, rather than any pulse-pounding action scenes. However, for what little action there is, it's done well.
Final Verdict:
I'm of two minds about this movie, one one hand I really dug the bits featuring the snipers facing off against each other, but I could've lived without all the other stuff in between those scenes. Overall, those sniper scenes were good enough for me to overlook the other crap. I still enjoyed the film but perhaps less than I did on my original viewing.
Comments
Post a Comment