The Unknown Soldier (2017) User Reviews

Not your typical Hollywood movie...very realistic

[sewi-kadr · 8/10 · 11 January 2018]

I enoyed this film very much, i saw it in the theatres here in Sweden. This kind of movie was very new to me since im not used to this kind of realistic film. There was raw emotions and alot of sadness in it, picturing the war as close as it was. This movie has no gloryfication, it showed loss on both side and the horrible sides of war. I very much enjoyed the fact that the war scenes had alot of realistic deaths in it. Not just explosion everywhere but the camera showing us the soldiers' fear and their deaths and letting us see that. We usually do not see this vournable side. Walking over your fellow sodier's body that just got shot in the head and the camera is not looking away . This movie was grim, with a lot of feelings, pain, But it felt intelligent somehow. It felt like a real movie.

Just to make it clear, the movie in swedish theatres was cut shorter so there are some scenes I haven't seen yet. The movie we saw was just over 2 hours while it is actually 3 hours long but theatres here thought it would be way too long and not attract enough audience.

A Gripping Adaptation Of A Finnish Classic

[veikkohoffman · 7/10 · 5 November 2017]

The people of Finland, me included, had high expectations for the third film adaptation of Väinö Linna's novel Tuntematon Sotilas (The Unknown Soldier), boldly made by celebrated Finnish director Aku Louhimies for the 100-year anniversary of Finland's independence. I tried my best to block all positive and negative expectations out of my mind, so that I could watch the film with an open mind and form my own opinions. That isn't an easy job, as this story is something very iconic and personal to the Finnish people. After seeing the film and doing a lot of analyzing and over-analyzing about what parts I liked and didn't like, the strongest thought I have is still the one that I had for the movie's entire three-hour run time and in the moments after it: this movie is pretty great.

Everything that I say should be taken with a large grain of salt, as I haven't read the original novel. Therefore my opinions are based partially on a comparison with the original movie from 1955, and mostly on how I liked this as a film of its own and as a part of Finnish culture. The directing by Louhimies is decent, as modern film technology allows for more intense action sequences and realistic sound effects, thus capturing the atmosphere of war well. At times, the modern style was a bit more polished and Hollywood- style than I would've liked - for example I wasn't a big fan of the instrumental soundtrack, which relied on slightly cliché string melodies that took away from the gritty and realistic story. That is a minor complaint though, as for the most part the film did a good job portraying the story in a more modern fashion. Also, it was one of the most justifiable cases for a three-hour run time that I have ever seen - everything was relevant for the plot and character development, and I didn't feel especially bored even once.

The soul of The Unknown Soldier has always been considered to be in the characters, many of whom have a legendary status in Finnish culture. The casting department did an excellent job in finding suitable actors for these roles, as some of the characters are just as interesting or even better than their counterparts in the original film. A good example is lieutenant Koskela, wonderfully played by Jussi Vatanen, who is fleshed out and fascinating to follow throughout the film. Eero Aho fills the shoes of his predecessor Reino Tolvanen amazingly in the iconic role of corporal Antero Rokka, and Hannes Suominen is incredibly similar in his mannerisms to the original film version of the character Vanhala. I was a bit skeptic about the romantic subplot involving the character Kariluoto shown in the trailers, but the film did a great job with it. Having one of the major characters missing someone they truly loved back home added depth to his motivations, making it more relatable when considering what the soldiers were fighting for - and what they risked losing.

The actors must have had a hard job pulling off dialects that aren't typical for today's Finland, but most of them did a great job with it. I was a bit let down by the casting of Aku Hirviniemi as corporal Hietanen, as I felt he didn't come anywhere near the original film's Hietanen in terms of likability and character development. I was also a bit annoyed by the cameo of Finnish teen idol Robin, which took away from the emotion and darkness of an otherwise powerful scene in my opinion. But again, these complaints are small, especially in comparison to everything that the film succeeded in.

In many aspects, the original movie is better, but Louhimies's version also rises higher in quite a few categories. While the 1955 film is a great gritty exploration of Finnish soldiers on the front, the 2017 adaptation is more deep and layered. We see the characters grow through grim moments of pain as well as warm moments of humorous interaction, while certain scenes and story lines provoke thoughts of the larger picture at hand - what the job that soldiers like that did for Finland truly means. As a Finn, I can't view a film like this purely objectively, so the fact that it makes me emotional and grateful of my homeland adds very much to my opinion of the movie. Many moments in the film made me think about the society Finland has today, and how we have it all because men just like the fictional yet realistic characters in this movie once fought to keep Finland independent. That is what makes this film truly powerful and though-provoking, and I admire Aku Louhimies for managing to subtly convey that message into his film without getting over-patriotic about it.

Although the movie has an almost celebratory tone at times (which is proper considering the year of its release), it certainly doesn't fall into the trap of over-romanticizing or glorifying war. Though there are moments of heroics and bravery, there are themes of cowardice, conflict within the Finnish side and human cruelty throughout the film. It gives a gripping account on the lives of Finnish soldiers during the Continuation War, and doesn't try to hide painful facts like Finland's partnership with Nazi Germany or the one-time execution of own troops for disobeying commands. All in all, Louhimies's films manages to capture the audience with a deep and powerful story, filled with memorable characters, great acting and a brutally honest depiction of war.

How to endure the war and defeat

[terhitapiainen · 7/10 · 29 October 2017]

In Finland, we have a tradition to tell the story of WW2 as we actually almost won the war against the Soviet Union which is of course true in the sense that Finland was not occupied by the Soviet Union. After the painful war, the Unknown Soldier was a novel that was appreciated therapy for the wounded nation and it introduced dozens of catch phrases and iconic characters that were needed for the healing process. Every Finn can quote the book, often in a cheerful manner. Ask any Finn in the late hours in the bar and they will keep going forever.

The novel has been filmed twice before but the present version is the best and the most ambitious. Here, in the modernized version of the Unknown Soldier, the war between Finland and the Soviet Union is brutal, exhausting and devastating, and definitely Finland does not almost win the war. The humor used by the characters is a coping mechanism and is not used as a national therapy.

We see a beautiful and melancholic film that is very sincere. Finland fights side by side with Germany which may have been necessary to fight the Soviet Union, but usually the fact is hidden beneath Finnish pride of independence. Now, we see Hitler visiting Finland, we see Nazi flags.

We see how men are gradually broken. The heroes die, and in the end, the most unlikely characters still need to fight. The four main characters, Koskela, Rokka, Kariluoto and Hietanen are all played very well by leading Finnish actors. I was especially moved by Koskela played by Jussi Vatanen, who reminds me of Damian Lewis as Richard Winters in Band of Brothers. However, Rokka played by Eero Aho is the center and the heart of the movie. The opening scene with two swimming boys, filmed like in a Terence Malick movie, is the starting point for the story of Rokka who is brave, keeps the good spirit, encourages and teaches younger ones. In the end, he shows in one last scene how the defeat feels after several years of fighting. He endures but is not anymore the same cheerful happy farmer. Eero Aho tells the story of losing the war in a superb way. He should definitely be nominated for Jussi, the Finnish Oscar.

The film is a bit long and has some scenes like the compulsory "Finns getting really drunk" scenes that I always found rather boring. However, the film is so much better than the original war novel. My Finnish teacher tried to explain the idea of the original novel in the 80's: You will first get to know all the main characters, you really start to like them, and then, suddenly, one by one they are taken away from you. Now, in this film, I finally understood what my literature teacher wanted to make us to see in the Unknown Soldier novel.

In Finland, the reviews of the film have been really polarized, which reflects the unique importance of the Unknown Soldier for Finns. It is the story of endurance and suffering. This is not as good as TV series Band of Brothers, not as good as Unsere Mutter Unsere Väter (Generation War) or Saving Private Ryan. However, this is a solid war film using Finnish perspective and with two amazing actors in main roles, Jussi Vatanen and Eero Aho.

This year is the 100th anniversary of the independent Finland. The film is humble but strong, like the story of Finland, as I like to see it. My rating 7/10 aims to be objective but as a Finn, the objective rating of the Unknown Soldier is impossible. Yet, I recommend the film for everybody who aims to understand Finnish history and the way we see the world.

Realistic, Unknown, Visceral and Emotional

[zaxxxppe · 10/10 · 25 August 2019]

A must watch for fans of history and World War 2. An overview of a lesser known theatre of war, done without the glorification of war itself. You can really see why it is Finland's most expensive movie, the combat scenes are amazing, the landscapes, uniforms and weapons authentic. Very different from Hollywood-styled movies and really makes you think about the war as a whole, not only combat and fighting, but the way it affects individuals and the community, Again a must watch!

This is an impressive "you must watch it" movie.

[OzMovieWatcher · 10/10 · 12 August 2020]

Absolutely Brilliant.!! This is a movie for WW2 history buffs as it provides authenticity and accuracy.

This WW2 movie is far better than anything i have seen coming out of Hollywood with their multi-million dollar budgets.

The movie is raw and gutsy and holds no barriers in showing the realities of war. Friendships and relationship destroyed in war... the frustrations, the agony, the carnage and the futility are all very accurately dramatized...

Speaking of accuracy, this has to be the best... authentic uniforms, weapons and military hardware. The forest warfare was filmed very close to the actual battlefields. The landscape you see is exactly that of the battles between Russia and Finland providing impeccable authenticity. I do however question the Russian tanks... I am not sure of the accuracy there as in my eyes, the shape of the tank did not quite look right for the T-34's so common in 1944, there year this movie is set. , The T34 built from 1940 and widely used in Finland. I think they are the much earlier T28's which almost entirely ceased use by 1941 and were not used in Finland. Given the movies in Finnish and Russia had previously supplied T28, I think the latter is more likely, albeit slightly modified.

The acting and camera work was 100% brilliant.

I give it a solid 10 stars !!

Loved it

[riittasuokko · 10/10 · 6 December 2018]

Saw it twice and it is definitely not boring. Great actors. Music and cinematography were impressive.

Powerful

[kstjerna · 10/10 · 13 November 2017]

A powerful movie of a powerful story with many lawyers. Authentic, illustrating the pain and brokenness that resulted from the "all or nothing" war. A visually compelling movie about people, about love of your country, and about the love of your family. Heroes, like my grandparents, deserve movies like this that keep remembering the full story.

Very realistic, Not just one battle but 4 yrs of battles

[Blumanowar · 7/10 · 26 August 2021]

At the front, in the thick of fire, for year after year... so realistic. Really feel the length of the war and how worn out soldiers were but kept fighting for 4 years right in thick of things. Hard to imagine what they went through. Hell on earth and not just a battle or two...(which is enough to break many men) but WW2 lasted so long for those that survived. About the most intimate look at war I've seen. We see so many war movies .. the battle of this or the battle of that but again this makes you realize just how long the soldiers were in this war and how they endured it is beyond belief. We never see that... you either die or you survive and if so you continue on into infinite battles with no end in sight.

Unknown Soldier 2017

[sbasilmf · 8/10 · 20 March 2018]

First of all, this movie might not be for everybody. There are no super heroes, no super villains, no glorifying the war; it's a movie about the war between Finland and USSR that took place some 70+ years ago (resulting over 300 000 dead).

The film is a little slow paced, so if you're into Rambo and that sort of stuff, don't bother. If you don't know anything about the history between these two countries, it might feel a bit long-winded and boring. In order to get the most out of it, I suggest you to take a look at "Winter" and "Continuation War" in Wikipedia for example.

Special effects, acting, directing, music were all good and on par with bigger productions. Compared to the two previous versions of the same movie, this one has a darker tone to it and is a little bit "less national" which, in my opinion, is a good thing.

It's not the best movie I ever saw, but a good solid 8 out of 10.

Refreshed classic

[tuomo_karvonen · 4 January 2019]

First of all I watched the lengthened 5 part TV- series version of it and enjoyed it very much especially towards the end. So that in mind I am not reviewing the cinematic version here. I really think watching it this way really benefits the movie and I continue referencing it as "movie".

This movie is really hard to review since it's the same story I've read few times in a book and seen the 1955 movie version almost every year since the early 2000's at least and I think it's a perfect classic. So all the performances I can't help but compare them with "originals". That fact really blinds my eye to some degree and I think in my head "oh he said it wrong and it wasn't as funny or convincing". And yes, in some instances the performances aren't as convincing and it feels like actors are just reading the script. But mostly those are the case of minor roles and all of these problems really are in the first part of this movie. The 1955 classic has some of the best and funniest dialogue of any film I know! The start of that movie is so strong it's impossible to top. It's like trying to remake the start of "Full metal Jacket". There is no way any actor could top the performances you see in that film either.

I think they should've given the start a little more drama or tension since they can't compare with the funny side of things. Or just build up the characters more. After the start which in my opinion is little too short the movie starts to show it's strengths. The action scenes are really awesome. Perhaps they aren't as big and epic as in some huge war movies but this is told in a perspective of a platoon mostly. Scenes are intense, realistic and just brilliantly filmed! They are perhaps not huge but instead they are really detailed if that can be said. For example you see soldiers reloading their weapons and preparing their grenades and just doing all the little things you rarely see in a war film. I think the actors were really well trained (most likely and firstly in Finnish military if they served their duty) to do these actions.

One last thing is the weaponry and armament used in this movie. In my knowledge there is EVERYTHING correct about the weapons in this movie. The biggest things at least. I haven't compared the common rifle if it is 100% correct but that doesn't matter to me. To me matters the other small arms types and most importantly armor or tanks as some calls them. They are correct type and they ARE actual working vehicles which really shows. And I think this is one of the best usage of tanks in any movie because it is realistic and very intense. The movie "Fury" is million times worse than this.

My conclusion is that it's great movie with great acting, action and drama. Everything that is "new" in this movie compared to the classic is great. And things directly compared are good as well. Especially after the start it really is great.

Quite realistic

[chuckxx · 7/10 · 28 May 2021]

I first got the French version which is heavily censored, so the subtitles did not match.

Better get the Finnish original, thougthe english subtitles were in horrible English.

The Nature of War

[Tweetienator · 8/10 · 15 April 2020]

Tuntematon sotilas (Unknown soldier) tells us the story of the Continuation War - a war between Finland (sided by some German troops) against the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1944 during World War II. We follow through these years a unit of Finnish soldiers with the focus on some characters. What we get are some well made and rather realistic combat scenes, some even funny moments of peace and rest between the battles - all supported by an superb playing cast and a top production. A must-see that beats every Hollywood war movie of recent years. Strong.

Average war film

[severajaaho · 6/10 · 5 December 2020]

The third adaptation of Väinö Linnas Uknown Soldier Epic, is technically good achievement without much artistic ambitions or new perspectives to the classic. The film flows well with well studied, though also, well seen cinematography, from one battle scene to another, showing the brutal realities of war. The scenery of arctic nature is gorgeous, but feels a bit unnatural due to strange lighting effects that dont work well with the overall realistic style of the film. The script restrains from taking any risks and fails to build any real depth to most of its characters, despite attempts to build romantic stories with minor characters in the film. Made mainly for domestic audiences, it does not open well for viewers who are not familiar with the source material or the previous adaptations.

What a waste. Description of problems of Finnish film industry.

[peteoikuri · 3/10 · 6 November 2017]

First of all, there are reasons why movie classics aren't produced several times. How would Godfather 2017, Star Wars 2017, Titanic 2017, Schindler's List 2017 sound? Not very good in my opinion. Right thing to do would have been to produce a completely new film. To follow the same story line/dialogue/characters as in the original and remake of the 80's sets the foundations of the film wrong. And here we come to the problem. This is a "safe play" in film making. You will get funding for this kind of project in Finland but the end result is lame. How about making a new story line? Hundreds of thousands Finnish solders fought the war - there is lot of stories to be told.

Original film was produced in the fifties with actors that were veterans of the war themselves, some of them being high ranking actors of the time. This sets the bar unreachable for any remakes.

The film tries to reach new perspectives adding home front, abuse in conquered territories, war crimes etc. which is a good idea but feels glued because the foundations of the old version. In one scene Finnish soldier shoots a surrendering Russian, this is not correct. Finnish soldiers were lacking ammunition those days so murdering of surrendering Russians did happen, but mostly with an knife or an back of a rifle. Hatred for the Russians grew also from the partisan attacks in the north where Finnish civilians were murdered, and soldiers had their revenge to surrendering opponent. How much powerful scene would have been shown this way and how many layers that would have added to the scene? In one scene Finnish soldiers meeting a pet rabbit in forest is just comical.

In the end description of the war is OK (could have been much more brutal), acting is excellent at times. Too bad it was wasted in re-make, not in new film.

An exploration of war, independence and grit

[Vartiainen · 8/10 · 25 November 2017]

In the year of this film's release, Finland celebrates its 100th year of independence. As such it was decided that a remake of The Unknown Soldier was needed. The original book by Väinö Linna was the first book about the Continuation War written by an actual veteran of the war. It has now been turned into a movie three times, this film by Aku Louhimies being the latest. The story follows a machine gun company from the early days of the mobilization to the eventual cessation of hostilities and the signing of armistice between the forces of Finland and Soviet Union. All three years of battle seen through the eyes of few men.

I shall try to be objective as I talk about this film, but as a Finn it's going to be a bit difficult. Winter War and Continuation War are still seen as Finland's proudest moment as a nation. We held back a giant. We didn't win, exactly speaking, but it was a victory nonetheless, unlike few others seen during World War Two. Linna's novel is still almost compulsory reading during our schooling. So how to make a movie about something like that? Especially if you're the third one to do so.

I have to admit I like this film a lot, especially in comparison to the two previous films. Louhimies has the courage to take a step back from the source material and expand upon it. We, for the first time in an Unknown Soldier film, focus rather heavily on the happenings back home. We see what it was like for those that stayed behind and kept Finland running even as their husbands, sons and brothers fought and died on the battlefield. It's good to focus on those stories as well and they're told well.

The film also looks phenomenal. Rarely have I seen my own country showcased so beautifully. And in a war movie of all things. No matter your nationality, you'll get why someone would want to defend a place such as this. Why someone would want to die for it.

The film has also reaped praise for its historical accuracy. Many veterans of the war have remarked how real the battle scenes seemed, how it captured the claustrophobia, intensity and grittiness of the battle as you crawled through mud and moss, over fallen trees and through grenade craters. The costuming, sets and props all look really good and it's hard to find any flaws in the narrative without having a degree in history.

Then the stuff that could be improved upon. While I for the most part do enjoy the new casting, there are some things I would have changed. The film focuses heavily on Rokka (Eero Aho), one of the soldiers of the company, and that's fair as he is the best character in the book as well. I'm however somewhat disappointed that they reduced the role of lieutenant Koskela (Jussi Vatanen) as he was my personal favourite from the book and a good counterpoint to Rokka. There are also some minor casting hiccups, Finland not having all that many actors to begin with, but they are really minor in the grand scheme of things.

There are scenes added to the book that I don't enjoy quite as much as the scenes focusing on the life back home. Most of these scenes are near the end of the film so I shall not spoil them, but I don't feel like they added enough to merit inclusion.

Even still, this is a good film, great even if you're asking a Finn. It works very well as a war film and as a piece of history. Very well acted, very well shot and a beautiful piece of film making as a whole.

Fantastic!

[ellinorandersson86 · 10/10 · 20 April 2018]

I loved this movie. This is the best war story I came across since "Matterhorn" and "Band of Brothers". Such amazing actors who reflect all the emotions you go trough in war; officers crying while knowing they have to push the entire pluton forward .

For does who do not like this movie I think it is because they never did military service. If you have done military service in the Scandinavian countries this movie really make you cringe! You really can relate to the anxiety due to terrain and weather in, and all I did was being educated in how to war.

Summary: fantastic movie if you like deep war movies!

Amazing movie with stunning performances and beautiful cinematography.

[eetuhein · 10/10 · 6 November 2017]

Right away I must say that this is one of the best movies of the year. Every single actor gave their best performances. Every scene was beautiful. All the battle scenes were well directed and edited, they were realistic and brutal. This is hands down probably the best Finnish movie ever made. I can't say any negative things, I've been thinking about any negative things that may have been in the movie but I just can't find any. I loved this movie and it really deserves a 10/10

Excellent.

[jakobsson-robin · 9/10 · 27 May 2019]

This movie was just excellent. Kudos to everyone involved, thanks for making such a gripping experience. I will need to watch it again. The acting was top notch!

Superfluously sensual

[FrankNSteinSinatra · 7/10 · 8 July 2019]

This could have been a film of 9/10, but... In the finnish film industry sexuality has been a taboo until 90´s, when Finland joined European Union. This event refreshed and americanized finnish movies that had been long and largely subsidied by government by marxist principles. I want to say: why to add innecessary erotic scenes to this third version of the film, meanwhile in the book or in the first version sexuality is not shown (told) at all? Apparently the third version of "Tuntematon sotilas" wants to approach Harlequin romance-books. Väinö Linna´s "Tuntematon sotilas" is a hell of a book, and it´s greatness lies upon in ascetic life of the men who had to for years survive in brutal conditions- one of the survival methods was humoristic dialogue. The director in this new movie- that however flows nicely and interestingly- has decided to tell something about private lifes of soldiers that does not seem to me relevant. And by the way, the "playboy" Rahikainen´s sexual life is ignored. If you disagree with me about greatness of asexuality you have to remember movies like" Paths of Glory" and "Das boot". Another thing that seems to me tendencial are rasistic comments about eastern race that don´t appear in the original book, but have been added to the screenscript. This is not only sign of no-taste but also an act of violation to the Väinö Linna´s political convictions because he was a leftist.

Amazing story and amazing acting

[tvryhanen · 10/10 · 29 October 2021]

Perfectly pictured what war is like, not just blood flying everywhere. The movie didn't dehumanise the enemy like in "Saving private Ryan" which had all the germans bald and one looking. It had very good camera angles, sound effects and a feel of realism to it. No doubt the best world war 2 film.

Great action, garbatge acting...

[jukkaturune · 7/10 · 28 June 2023]

In the original all of the acting was natural and realistic. But here it's all Helsinki kids with the most wooden trash dialogue of all time.

Worst offense of this movie is that everyone speaks wooden garbage dialogue like rich kids from Helsinki (who all fled to Sweden) but when people STFU it is a half decent depiction of WW2 combat.

So if you can watch it for free maybe its doable when you fast-forward past all of the "talking" and go to the combat scenes where its still implied that only kids from Helsinki defended our country which is just stupidity.

So yes the scenes with any combat are 7/10 but every single time anyone opens their mouths it is -666/100.

Amazing

[mlynch5187 · 10/10 · 18 June 2022]

This is the only Finnish movie I've ever watched. One of the best war movies I've ever seen, and I love war movies. There are echoes of The Thin Red Line. Very moving and Powerful. I saw clips of thos on YouTube before watching, and had no idea it would be this good.

James Ryan without blood

[DLochner · 6/10 · 11 April 2021]

The film doesn't show anything that hasn't been seen before. Unfortunately, the connection to reality is missing somewhat, since hardly any blood is shown, the film looks like a toy land in which actors shoot around with pistols and rifles and blank cartridges. It's a shame, the story sounded exciting. James Ryan without blood.

How to hijack a classic and ruin it

[savoy_brown · 1/10 · 30 March 2018]

This 2017 remake is really something. It manages to suck the life out of every character of the book and the performances of previous films. It tells also a sad story of the poor state of contemporary Finnish cinema.

The previous incarnations were the 1955 black and white classic with actors who had fought the war themselves and thus brought much of the genuine insight to their performances. This gave the film also a somewhat "light" and oddly jolly undertones that may feel out of place and dated to modern viewer. The actors were also older than their characters who were supposed to be of conscript age. However the film remains as monument and is to many "The only true Unknown Soldier".

The 1985 version is something different. The film has many then original aspects to it, such as hand held camera fight scenes and no background music at all. In its time itvwas criticized for being grim and gloomy but in all fairness, the 1985 Unknown is the one most true to the pacifist novel.

Most importantly the characters of 1985 Unknown are built carefully yet smoothly. The characters look and sound like they ought to so not only are the performances top-notch, the casting was done perfectly and in contrast to the times, favored new and literally unknown faces to seasoned actors.

Liutanent Lammios actor was even beaten on the street because of his likening to the unpopular character!

The social differences of the men, their brotherly banter and even the bully-masochist relationship of corporal Lehto and private Riitaoja is however something this new film lacks completely. Probably because few of the cast or crew have even experience of any band of brothers sort of male bonding and because the focus has been shifted from this ESSENTIAL and crucial aspect to more feminized direction where main charactes dream of their wives in flashbacks instead.

So, the casting is totally off here - the more distant, higher officers who were belieavable and charismatic "old school" men of iron, be their judgement wrong or right when issuing orders or simply excercising their authority are reduced to yelling, frustrated weaklings so un-authentic they seem to be straight out of some comic relief or from Louhimies political propaganda.

The latter may be the reason to many an issue with this film - it is supposed to depict men going through thick and thin and sticking together situation they have no power over. They do what they have to do to come out alive. Cowardism is understood but not tolerated or excused. In 2017 film there is no trace of this to be found.

The visual side is also something that is off here. For some reason, the latter part of the 2010's Finnish films have had seemingly an obsession to visualize the reality to look like sugary postcard! Was this supposed to be an ugly and down-to-earth war movie or a tourist commercial?

Absolute travesty. See 1985 Unknown Soldier instead if you prefer ride in Mercedes Benz to Ford Pinto, so to say.

Overall impression: Nice movie

[sebu-vilkman · 9/10 · 10 November 2017]

I haven't seen the earlier versions, not to mention have read the book so I had nothing to compare to this masterpiece. And I think it was a good thing. Since have read too many negative reviews based on arguments about how this movie was too strictly or too insufficiently following the book, I want to say a few things.

PROS: -I am NOT a fan of Finnish film production, overall quality of the movies are just horrible (excluding couple of gems) but this film made me think otherwise.

-Cast did a very good overall performance, I am not even going to start to worship Eero Ahos' execution, other than 10/10.

-Special fx were normal standard in global comparison, in Finnish movie industry comparison 9/10 (maybe it tells smth that this movie is the most expensive movie ever made in Finland).

-Movie is 3 hours long, but doesn't feel like it; there was only one boring/stupid scene about getting drunk for like 20mins.

-I loved how the characters evolved during the movie.

-Sacrificing main characters is always a sign of a good movie.

-Small clever glimpses of humour from the main character Rokka.

CONS: -I know this is just a minor thing, but year 2017 and it is a rare case to see realistic recoil in rifles, e.g. scene where Finnish soldier executes Russian soldier with the Finnish version of Mosin- Nagant, which fires 7,62x54 cartridge. Is it just laziness or stupidity?

-The stupid long drinking scene...

-Sometimes cut scenes were too fast in the fight, which seems to be the most common curse of action movies made lazily.

ASENTO! LEPO! over and out!