Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Enemy At the Gates/Kommissar scene

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • stalin
    replied
    Originally posted by Sharposhnikov View Post
    Although the movie was well directed, well acted and very well composed as a story by itself, to say that it accurately portrayed Russia, or the chaos of the Russian Revolution and Civil War, is a bit of a stretch. For one thing, that supposes that the physical scenery of Finland, Spain and England where it was filmed are the same as that of Russia, and that Russian aristocrats are physically and emotionally the same as English or Egyptian aristocrats
    but Russia is a vast country with various climate zones, so "Dr.Zhivago" team was right when filmed it on the above mentioned locations... also, to me, the world aristocracy looks more or less the same, be it Russian or English (because they're aristocracy y'know).

    Leave a comment:


  • Sharposhnikov
    replied
    Originally posted by stalin View Post
    firstly, the book the movie was made from is far from being a masterpiece... and laughing is better than hating ...but imo the movie (the one with Omar Sharif) isn't bad at all and portrays Russia more or less accurately
    Although the movie was well directed, well acted and very well composed as a story by itself, to say that it accurately portrayed Russia, or the chaos of the Russian Revolution and Civil War, is a bit of a stretch. For one thing, that supposes that the physical scenery of Finland, Spain and England where it was filmed are the same as that of Russia, and that Russian aristocrats are physically and emotionally the same as English or Egyptian aristocrats. Possible, but it requires a suspension of belief that this old historian can't quite manage...

    As for EATG, it was purest Follywood from start to finish, and about as historically accurate as the cover of a current US science fiction novel that shows Robert E Lee holding an AK-47. But then, they based the film (sort of) on a 'history' of Stalingrad written in the west without reference to either Russian/Soviet OR German archive documents, nor any reference to Soviet memoirs, veteran's accounts, or histories. From this even with the best intentions you do not get accurate history.

    Leave a comment:


  • Erkki
    replied
    Originally posted by stalin View Post
    ...gross exaggerations like for example a sniper singlehandedly winning a war, troops transported to the front in padlocked cars, human wave charges etc
    They also got the snipers equipment wrong and some German officers wearing decorations from the first world war even if they couldn´t possible have been born by that time.

    Leave a comment:


  • stalin
    replied
    Originally posted by Shamil View Post
    “Enemy at the gates” has some exaggerations
    ...gross exaggerations like for example a sniper singlehandedly winning a war, troops transported to the front in padlocked cars, human wave charges etc

    Leave a comment:


  • Erkki
    replied
    Originally posted by Shamil View Post
    “Enemy at the gates” has some exaggerations but on the whole it is much more correct, well-balanced and objective than any Soviet movie on WWII.




    For Russian patriots and their sympathizers the WWII reality is the one that was shown in the Soviet movies ordered by the Soviet state mainly for propaganda needs. Any deviation from the old party line in the issue will never be tolerated by them.
    What do you know about it? Nothing I assume, perhaps apart from the "repeat until truth" principle because you repeat " Russian patriots and their sympathizers blah blah blah" in almost every post you make
    Last edited by Erkki; 05 Jul 11, 12:39.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shamil
    replied
    “Enemy at the gates” has some exaggerations but on the whole it is much more correct, well-balanced and objective than any Soviet movie on WWII. For Russian patriots and their sympathizers the WWII reality is the one that was shown in the Soviet movies ordered by the Soviet state mainly for propaganda needs. Any deviation from the old party line in the issue will never be tolerated by them.

    Leave a comment:


  • stalin
    replied
    Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
    I heard that most Russians laughed at that miserable thing.
    firstly, the book the movie was made from is far from being a masterpiece... and laughing is better than hating ...but imo the movie (the one with Omar Sharif) isn't bad at all and portrays Russia more or less accurately

    Leave a comment:


  • ShAA
    replied
    Originally posted by Exorcist View Post

    I heard that most Russians laughed at that miserable thing.
    The two movies are on the same level of detachment from reality, whether it's Russian reality or not, but at least Zhivago was funny, in an "it's so bad it's good" campy way.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by joea View Post
    Still I enjoyed films like "Kelly's Heroes," "Master and Commander" and "MASH" (the movie) even if they were far from historically accurate.
    Of the three, Kelly's Heroes was probably the best and closest to the mark Historically.
    Not that it ever happened, but they had a good handle on the General situation and how things were done.

    Originally posted by stalin View Post
    to be honest, Enemy at the Gates wouldn't be hated as much, had it been as good as Dr.Zhivago for example.

    I heard that most Russians laughed at that miserable thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • stalin
    replied
    Originally posted by joea View Post
    Some folks like Ebert or my current favourite film critic Mark Kermode get paid because of the creative way they say just that
    to be honest, Enemy at the Gates wouldn't be hated as much, had it been as good as Dr.Zhivago for example.

    Leave a comment:


  • joea
    replied
    Originally posted by stalin View Post
    after all, the main fault of this movie is that it's total crap.
    That line could be recycled for sooooo many films. Some folks like Ebert or my current favourite film critic Mark Kermode get paid because of the creative way they say just that.

    Still I enjoyed films like "Kelly's Heroes," "Master and Commander" and "MASH" (the movie) even if they were far from historically accurate.

    Leave a comment:


  • stalin
    replied
    after all, the main fault of this movie is that it's total crap.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    True, I guess we are used to it.
    Probably seems like less of a National Insult when it's your own people fouling things up.
    Not, you know, a lot less...

    Leave a comment:


  • Skoblin
    replied
    Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
    Well said!
    Your right, and come to think of it, I won't be bothering to see any more movies about this Front. Not that many have been made, but the whole endless controversy that has been snapping back and forth for ten damn years.... the whole thing is too sour now to get me interested in it again.

    Showing any interest in this, even to the point of renting a disk, would seem like taking a side to some people... and remind me of threads like this.
    Why bother?
    Well...consider it this way, Exo. If the only film made by Hollywood about the Allied participation in the ETO was Battle of the Bulge or U-571, would you not object, pointing out the historical inaccuracies? The benefit of such controversy is that it might in fact compel producers to pay more attention to factual details in the future. My main problem with this fil has not been the historical inaccuracies per se - it's a Hollywood-type film, I don't expect it to be accurate. My problem has always been that it was marketed as being based upon a work of actual historical scholarship: William Craig's Enemy at the Gates, when, in fact, it had almost no relation to that book other than the names of a few characters and that it took place in Stalingrad. It would be the same if Roland Emmerich were to make a movie titled Operation Mars, claiming it was based upon David Glantz's work and then threw in non-existent characters, contrived story lines, a romance and bunch of other stuff. I think the collective response would be WTF.

    Leave a comment:


  • Erkki
    replied
    Why not? You should not reflect to much on other peoples opinion. Why tell people that you rented it? The movie is not bad for entertainment. You have have knowledge in history, quite much so even. You can watch it because you know better. Other people, ordinary people if you may say , they have no knowledge of the subject and might take it all for fact.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X