Re: [OT] "Enemy At The Gates" Review

--- Allan Goodall <awg@sympatico.ca> wrote:

I just saw it a couple hours ago.  So:

> >I'm sure someone else has laready mentioned this,
> but the T-34/85 turrets
> >and a later scene in the movie with a burnt out
> T-34/85 in the background
> >were the only technical (in terms of equipment)
> mistakes that I spotted when
> >I went to see the movie.  The T-34/85 was not in
> use in late '42!
> 
> You're right! D'oh! I missed that. They were /85
> turrets, weren't they? They
> looked too rounded and large for /76 turrets.

Right.	I noticed that most of their Ruskie tank
turrets seemed to be /85s.  The other technical
problem I run into is the depiction of the initial
attack.  In 1942 the Russians had plenty of problems,
but a shortage of Mosin-Nagants and 7.62mm ammo was
not on the list.  An attack of that nature belongs to
the early WWI era, not mid-WWII.  Also the complaints
about lack of air, artillery, and armor seemed wierd
considering the Russians had more of all three.  There
was also a considerable degree of exaggeration of the
nature of the Russian political officers.

The problems with their depiction of combat sniping,
however, were legion.

Excellent movie as a movie.  As an accurate portrayal
of the reality of the battle for Stalingrad and
especially the sniper's existence, it sucked ass.

I did, however, enjoy the portrayal of Krushkev.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.