Tuntematon sotilas

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!

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.

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.

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