F6Pilot

Note to my fellow history buffs: No movie set during an historical event is 100% accurate, no matter how good it is. Not Saving Private Ryan, not Glory, not Apollo 13, not Gettysburg, not Titanic. Stuff gets condensed, stuff gets left out and some stuff is added on in the interests of drama. Once you can deal with this, you'll not only have a much better time at the movies, you'll also be less likely to annoy the people you go to the movies with. That and you get to have the fun of e-mailing all the little goofs in to IMDB.

You know a movie has to be good when the biggest gripes people have about it are the accents. Yes, all the major Russians seemed to have studied at Oxford, and an accent coach would have been nice. And yes, in the many scenes when it's sniper vs. sniper, the huge Russian and German armies seemed to have disappeared completely. Other then that, there was very little to groan about in this movie. Ed Harris had a powerful screen presence, and the major Russian characters played by Jude Law, Joeseph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz played well off each other, even without the benefit of Russian accents.

The story is an excellent balance of excitement and suspense. There is an explosive, in-your-face action battle scene which the only half armed Red army gets clobbered in turn by German Stukas, tanks, and machine guns, and tense, uptight sequences where the two expert snipers stalk each other.

I'll recommend this for any WWII fan, suspense movie fan, Harris/ Law/ J.Fiennes/ Weisz fan and any movie historian who's starting to get the feeling that Hollywood has been giving a just little too much credit to the US contribution in WWII recently (U-571, Saving Private Ryan). Enemy is a welcome movie that gives the sufferings and the heroism of the Soviets their due.

... was probably Casablanca. Or maybe Gone With The Wind. Perhaps one of Godfather or Star Wars movies. Whatever cinematic achievement holds this pinnacle in your personal top ten list, you'll almost certainly place the wretched "Manos: the Hands of Fate" at the other extreme.

When a movie really and truly sucks, the actors and actresses are usually the last ones I blame, since even the best performers can't do much with a stupid plot, dumb premise, poor direction, and nonexistent continuity. But in this case the talent-deprived actors should have realized halfway through the project that they'd be better off having gone back to their day jobs, whatever they may have been.

Are there any bright spots in this abyss? The only performer who displayed any recognizable talent was John Reynolds as Torgo. I write this under the assumption that the late Mr. Reynolds was not mentally handicapped, and that his pauses and stutterings were him desperately trying to bring his ill-conceived character to life.

Even Joel and the 'bots, our fearless bashers of stupidity, had trouble making this movie entertaining. What's there to say about a movie that takes ten minutes of dialogue-less driving? The Ultimate Raspberry award goes to "Manos: Hands of Fate", which should be placed in the condemned spot of Worst Movie Ever.

If you aren't already a fan of either Natalie Portman or Ashley Judd, this film stands an excellent chance of making you one. If you are, this flick belongs on your "Must See" list. The two female leads soar through a witty and engrossing script, and are much aided by the stylish directing. A pluses go to Stockard Channing, James Frain and Keith David in their supporting roles, and Sally Field and Dylan Bruno also deserve mention for making their audience hate their despicable characters.