rad111
Juli 2001 ist beigetreten
Willkommen auf neuen Profil
Unsere Aktualisierungen befinden sich noch in der Entwicklung. Die vorherige Version Profils ist zwar nicht mehr zugänglich, aber wir arbeiten aktiv an Verbesserungen und einige der fehlenden Funktionen werden bald wieder verfügbar sein! Bleibe dran, bis sie wieder verfügbar sind. In der Zwischenzeit ist Bewertungsanalyse weiterhin in unseren iOS- und Android-Apps verfügbar, die auf deiner Profilseite findest. Damit deine Bewertungsverteilung nach Jahr und Genre angezeigt wird, beziehe dich bitte auf unsere neue Hilfeleitfaden.
Abzeichen2
Wie du dir Kennzeichnungen verdienen kannst, erfährst du unter Hilfeseite für Kennzeichnungen.
Rezensionen5
Bewertung von rad111
Enemy at the Gates is an intriguing film, as much for its concept
as for the product that has been turned out. It's a look at World War
II that tries to be purely Russian, looking at the European conflict
without any participation by or even any mention of American
involvement.
However, I don't think the film went as far with this unique
perspective as it could have. It tries to represent the Russian point
of view, but its view of Russian culture is so blatantly non-Russian
that it fails to be truly convincing. The story of the Russian
resistance is unique to World War II, and the reasons for it are
complex. The reasons for the communist struggle, the desire for a
truly classless society, the magnitude of change that had to be
implemented for Stalin's government to exist at all could have
been effectively portrayed by a couple conversations between Jude
Law's shepherd boy-turned sniper and Joseph Fienne's intellectual propaganda minister. Their friendship is an unlikely
one created by war, and a couple of conversations on the insanity
they're involved in could have been really illuminating and
contributed to the atmosphere of the film. I'm not asking for a
treatise on Marxism, but most non-Russian audiences are about
as ignorant of the workings of WWII-era Russian society as Jude
Law's character probably was. A little bit of political
chitchat/argument would've been interesting.
A lot of people have argued against the integration of the romantic
subplot into the story. Again, I feel it's something that could have
been more effective if it had been depicted more completely. The
Russian army was the only one (as far as I know) to routinely have
female soldiers working alongside men within the ranks. This
again was reflective of the Communist government's posturings of
equality, and could have been addressed. An environment where
women worked, fought, and were killed on equal terms with men
would have had a strong effect on male/female relationships, and
would have been fascinating to explore a little more deeply. The
fact that Joseph Fiennes and Rachel Wiecz's characters were both
Jewish, while Jude Law's was not, could also have added an
extra, interesting dimension to the love triangle portrayed, but this
element is ignored. Law is better looking, more simplistic in his
approach to the war, and is easier to understand. Therefore
Wiecz's character falls for him. He's the guy most of the female
audience will root for anyway, he's the hero, so it's kinda a
no-brainer that he'll get the girl, at least for a while. But the journey
towards this event could've been a lot more interesting.
On the whole it's the performances that end up making this movie
work for me. Jude Law is a phenomenal, incredibly natural actor,
and the rest of the cast backs him up quite well. I can sit back and
enjoy the movie for what it is, decent escapist warfare drama, but I
can't help but be constantly aware of how much better it could have
been.
as for the product that has been turned out. It's a look at World War
II that tries to be purely Russian, looking at the European conflict
without any participation by or even any mention of American
involvement.
However, I don't think the film went as far with this unique
perspective as it could have. It tries to represent the Russian point
of view, but its view of Russian culture is so blatantly non-Russian
that it fails to be truly convincing. The story of the Russian
resistance is unique to World War II, and the reasons for it are
complex. The reasons for the communist struggle, the desire for a
truly classless society, the magnitude of change that had to be
implemented for Stalin's government to exist at all could have
been effectively portrayed by a couple conversations between Jude
Law's shepherd boy-turned sniper and Joseph Fienne's intellectual propaganda minister. Their friendship is an unlikely
one created by war, and a couple of conversations on the insanity
they're involved in could have been really illuminating and
contributed to the atmosphere of the film. I'm not asking for a
treatise on Marxism, but most non-Russian audiences are about
as ignorant of the workings of WWII-era Russian society as Jude
Law's character probably was. A little bit of political
chitchat/argument would've been interesting.
A lot of people have argued against the integration of the romantic
subplot into the story. Again, I feel it's something that could have
been more effective if it had been depicted more completely. The
Russian army was the only one (as far as I know) to routinely have
female soldiers working alongside men within the ranks. This
again was reflective of the Communist government's posturings of
equality, and could have been addressed. An environment where
women worked, fought, and were killed on equal terms with men
would have had a strong effect on male/female relationships, and
would have been fascinating to explore a little more deeply. The
fact that Joseph Fiennes and Rachel Wiecz's characters were both
Jewish, while Jude Law's was not, could also have added an
extra, interesting dimension to the love triangle portrayed, but this
element is ignored. Law is better looking, more simplistic in his
approach to the war, and is easier to understand. Therefore
Wiecz's character falls for him. He's the guy most of the female
audience will root for anyway, he's the hero, so it's kinda a
no-brainer that he'll get the girl, at least for a while. But the journey
towards this event could've been a lot more interesting.
On the whole it's the performances that end up making this movie
work for me. Jude Law is a phenomenal, incredibly natural actor,
and the rest of the cast backs him up quite well. I can sit back and
enjoy the movie for what it is, decent escapist warfare drama, but I
can't help but be constantly aware of how much better it could have
been.
A lot of people might be put off by the plot of this movie, mistakenly
thinking that it's supposed to accurately depict a specific Christian
denomination and its beliefs. I don't think that's the point--the point
instead is to tell the story of a fictional situation in which the rapture
is actually on its way, and many people, both saved and not, are
sensing that its coming.
Both Mimi Rogers and David Duchovny do very well in this movie
and make the most of their scenes together in a very realistic way.
It puzzles me, b/c most of Duchovny's films after this one have
been just awful, as have been his performances. He shows
himself capable of a decent performance in this movie, but maybe
his long stint w/the X-Files has killed his spontaneity. Or maybe he
just needs a better agent.
Anyway. Back to the movie--the pacing is well put together, the
mood is brilliantly constructed, from the emptiness of Sharon's
(Rogers) struggle to find meaning and happiness in a loose life
"full of sin" in the beginning to her joy in embracing a faith, to her
distress when it is tested and eventually shattered. A fascinating
allegory of faith and love, guaranteed to raise questions,
regardless of the viewer's beliefs.
thinking that it's supposed to accurately depict a specific Christian
denomination and its beliefs. I don't think that's the point--the point
instead is to tell the story of a fictional situation in which the rapture
is actually on its way, and many people, both saved and not, are
sensing that its coming.
Both Mimi Rogers and David Duchovny do very well in this movie
and make the most of their scenes together in a very realistic way.
It puzzles me, b/c most of Duchovny's films after this one have
been just awful, as have been his performances. He shows
himself capable of a decent performance in this movie, but maybe
his long stint w/the X-Files has killed his spontaneity. Or maybe he
just needs a better agent.
Anyway. Back to the movie--the pacing is well put together, the
mood is brilliantly constructed, from the emptiness of Sharon's
(Rogers) struggle to find meaning and happiness in a loose life
"full of sin" in the beginning to her joy in embracing a faith, to her
distress when it is tested and eventually shattered. A fascinating
allegory of faith and love, guaranteed to raise questions,
regardless of the viewer's beliefs.
So many people have delivered the same glowing praise of this movie that I'll restrain myself from gushing too much. I don't think this is the greatest film of all time, but it hits a nerve with me that no other movie has. In 3rd grade when I was sick w/the chicken pox my mom sat on the couch and read me The Hobbit over the course of a week. The next 2 years were occupied w/reading the LOTR trilogy, chapter by chapter, night by night, w/breaks in-between each book. It was a wonderful experience, and when my family went to see it together, it was a terrific bonding moment, as well as a well-acted, beautifully realized movie. Not flawless...but a terrific interpretation. Does anyone else out there think Dominic Monahan (Merry) did a fantastic job? Everyone is wonderful, and Sean Astin is also a pleasant surprise, but Monahan has such an intelligent and expressive face. Truly wonderful to watch. I agree w/those who say that 12 months will be a long time to wait for the second installment. At least we'll be able to get the DVD of FOTR before then, to tide us over.