Tuntematon sotilas

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.