PzIIIs in "Enemy at the Gates"

1stlt · Post by **1stlt** » Wed Mar 28, 2001 10:00 pm

Did anyone pay attention to the PzIIIs in the movie? Any info on them? I noticed the barrels did not recoil when firing but that could also mean they were simply using pyrotechnics. Are they real, operational and in what country or are they mockups or build-ups like the Tigers in "Kelly's Heroes" or the Panthers in "A Bridge Too Far"?

Grumble · Post by **Grumble** » Thu Mar 29, 2001 5:02 am

On another thread, some German bro's stated that they were "real" PzIIIs. Constructed by a German company sans armor and guns.
Yeah, they used pyros: shows up better on film, especially with the lens filters they were using.

hhsohn · Post by **hhsohn** » Fri Mar 30, 2001 1:53 am

You know, something didn't seem right with those panzers. May be I need to see them again, but the superstructure on the chassis seemed to be set too far back. Most pictures of this beast leave me with impression of being compact and squat, but those in the movie seemed longer...

panzerfist · Post by **panzerfist** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 4:02 am

i wouldnt put myself thru watching enemy again. i made the mistake of reading "war of the rats" which is essentially a book about that movie (or vice versa) and since the book was so great, the movie could never compare. aside from the tanks not recoiling, i thought there was a lot about the movie that was just too hollywood. i think that among war films, this is probably down towards the bottem.
p/f/
p.s. did anyone notice those reds spoke with a british accent?

1stlt · Post by **1stlt** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 1:26 pm

Originally posted by panzerfist:
i wouldnt put myself thru watching enemy again. i made the mistake of reading "war of the rats" which is essentially a book about that movie (or vice versa) and since the book was so great, the movie could never compare. aside from the tanks not recoiling, i thought there was a lot about the movie that was just too hollywood. i think that among war films, this is probably down towards the bottem.
p/f/
p.s. did anyone notice those reds spoke with a british accent?

It's a movie afterall, and IT's from Hollywood; they do have to take into consideration the mass audience appeal and not a movie that catered to folks like us. We could nickpick every single war flicks til the end of time but that's not what I feel needs to be done. Heck, I could comment on "Saving Pvt. Ryan" on how little those grunts string themselves out, or the way they bunched together like some "Combat" series, etc. I think for a war flick in the midst of our time, EATG is a worthy effort. Afterall, this is not the 60s or 70s when we were chunking out the likes of "Battle of the Bulge" or "Cross of Iron"

So, what else did you notice about the tanks? From the brief shots of the running gears, I thought they looked authentic. I am also a modeller beside a wargamer and I am really curious about such details, that's all.

Thanks for your comments

Christian Blex · Post by **Christian Blex** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 1:38 pm

originally written by 1stlt

It's a movie afterall, and IT's from Hollywood

Not sure about this, think it's an Europian productions (many German actors int it). Sadly, like in most (hollywood) productions, they didn't spent enough many for the story-writer

Christian Blex · Post by **Christian Blex** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 1:42 pm

originally written by myself

they didn't spent enough many for the story-writer

Obviously I didn't spent enough time for writing.

Replace "many" by "money"

Rchrd · Post by **Rchrd** » Sat Mar 31, 2001 11:10 pm

I am vain enough to say that I know the battle of Stalingrad inside out. I know the units, the personalities, The layout of the town, The little battles, the aerial photos. So I didn't go to learn anything about the battle. I went for the imagery. And when they showed the panoramc view of burning, smoking Stalingrad from the east bank of the main ferry, I was very happy I had gone.I don't think I have ever seen a war movie with recoiling guns.

Billy Yank · Post by **Billy Yank** » Tue Apr 03, 2001 1:28 am

Originally posted by panzerfist:
did anyone notice those reds spoke with a british accent?

I actually like that. The language wasn't realistic, but it was internally consistant. All the Russians spoke British and all the Germans spoke "careful American".

Grumble · Post by **Grumble** » Tue Apr 03, 2001 1:54 am

Well, the background "noise" of Russian and German languages was real enough. Not day-players reading off phonetic scripts.
Also, the thousand-meter-stare, unwashed, unshaven troops were quite realistic-a credit to the actors who didn't insist on being "properly made up" for their close-ups.

The MSG · Post by **The MSG** » Sun Apr 08, 2001 9:33 pm

Anyone else spot that T-34/85?

I almost cried...

can they never learn...

Teroastero · Post by **Teroastero** » Mon Apr 09, 2001 12:06 am

Just T34/85 there...was there any t34/76???

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Sun Apr 29, 2001 8:06 am

Finally got to see the film, hey I thought it was magnificent. Ya I too am a modeller and can ID any tank in existence by the look of its bow armour. The stuff they used in the film was great, I mean really great.

So they flubbed the T34/85 so what, its not like accurate tanks are just lying around waiting for a movie. I thought the german gear was outstandingly well accomplished, hell I couldnt see any flaws worthy or mention, noit without a magnifying glass at least (I couldnt find any flaws actually, but I only watched the film once, minimum budget eh, gonna buy it when its on sale though).

I thought the film had a good pace, not to much dull drama, not to much in your face hollywood glitz. It was raw grimy and an honest good depiction.

My only beef I guess was getting a peek at the young ladies admittedly soft smooth bottom. Man I hate it when they force feed me the obligatory sex scene even in my dang war movies. Sure they have sex in wars, so what. They use the toilet too, thank god that only shows up in french films.

If you miss seeing this film, well you blew the chance to see a classic.

gorgias96 · Post by **gorgias96** » Tue May 08, 2001 10:10 am

Bah a very very irregular film. Althought some images (like the M 110 bombing) are impressive.
It is not a war film. It´s a stupid and pseudoromantic love story with the war as background. Rachel Weizt (everyday more beautiful) and the bombing images are the better. The rest it´s only bullshit for teenager girls

))

KG Erwin · Post by **KG Erwin** » Wed Aug 22, 2001 1:42 am

I brought this topic back because "Enemy..." is available for rental on VHS and DVD now. I'll get to watch the DVD in about an hour, so I'm keeping an open mind. If I have any noteworthy comments to make, I'll post 'em here. Otherwise, I'll just rant & rave as usual. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Wed Aug 22, 2001 4:37 am

Just watched my buddies DVD as well actually.

One thing I will say though. Ya gotta get your facts categorically straight guys. The film is "hollywoodish" only by virtue of that being a term denoting a style. But the film was made in Europe. So complaining of European accents from Europeans is well pointless.

I stand by my original appraisal though, I liked it. To complain to much about a film, can some times lead to pointless nit picking. Take Saving Private Ryan for instance. The man was actually a British soldier (wonder why no one has ever mentioned that?).

The reality of war movies is this, we dont have the right gear anymore, we can never film it on locations that are gone, and we are highly unlikely to find bored unemployed soldiers willing to play the roles.
Gotta admit though Gorgias96 calling it a bullshit teenager girl film is about as goofy a comment as I can imagine heheheh

Oh well I doubt this thread is going to have much of a shelf life

KG Erwin · Post by **KG Erwin** » Wed Aug 22, 2001 7:02 am

Well, I've gotten through 37 minutes of the DVD so far, and I'm impressed. The scene of the city at 6:49, viewpoint from the east bank, is as good and accurate as any picture I'm seen of the city itself during the battle, and the scene at 15:55 with the Pz III approaching the statue of the kids dancing around the alligator should please the hardcore guys, too. As for the historical license taken, well, deal with it. I'm glad a major motion picture was made with this battle as a backdrop. The researchers and set designers, IMHO, did a damn fine job in recreating the scene. We should give them kudos, not nitpick it to death like some pedantic dilettantes. That's the kind of stuff that makes self-professed "experts" sometimes look ridiculous.

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Fri Aug 24, 2001 1:06 pm

I liked it.
With the references to Hollywood I will say what I know, its a the most expensive European film ever made, and I for one am glad they made it on a topic such as Stalingrad.
As for the love story, hell what an you do about about it?.

One thing I did like was the German grave robber and the fact he was delt with. The accents I dont mind, but I do miss the old days when they start off in German and it would blend into english.

For the guys who hated the movie I say this, just be happy people are still willing to make movies based on Barbarossa, I dare say there are not to many well made, expensive english speaking productions made for a large audience, remenber this could lead to other films on the subject.

Randy Stead · Post by **Randy Stead** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 3:13 am

I saw this movie at the theatre and I now own it on DVD. This is one movie that should have been seen on the big screen. My little television doesn't do the ferry-crossing scene justice. Just like Titanic, it's not the event that is the focus of the film, but the character story. I heard that going in, so I wasn't disappointed, just accepted that in every movie there has to be some love interest or else the guys can't get their wives/girlfriends to go. Much as I'd like to see movies that deal just with the action, Hollywood won't make those movies. There just aren't enough of us grognards out there to convince the filmhouses to pump millions into a movie that only a small audience will watch. A sad reality about today's movies.

I do like that deleted scenes feature of the DVD. I only buy movies on DVD now because they often have stuff that isn't on the video, also that they last better than a tape. I can't understand why some of those deleted scenes didn't make it into the theatrical release. The one scene where Kruschev [Bob Hoskins] rants on about Stalin's superstitious nature should have been in the original. I can only hope that there'll be a director's cut.