Rukajärven tie

"Rukajärven Tie" is set in the opening stages of the "Continuation War." In 1941, the Finns sought to take advantage of the German invasion of the Soviet Union to seize back--with interest--the territory the Soviets had captured from Finland in the Winter War of 1939-40. The main protagonist is Eero Perkola, a subaltern commanding a platoon of Finnish bicycle infantry which is participating in the invasion. Once in Russia, Perkola is surprised to run into his fiancée, Kaarina, whom he thought to be safe in Helsinki, but who has joined the women's auxiliaries. Perkola requests his battalion commander to transfer the auxiliaries away from the front. The battalion commander agrees, but asks Perkola to take on a special mission in return; Perkola's platoon is to reconnoitre forward of a gap in the Finnish lines to ensure the Soviets are not preparing to counter-attack in that sector.

This puts "Rukajärven Tie" into the "Lost Patrol" (as in the 1934 John ford film) category of war movies: a small unit making its way through hostile territory, harassed by groups of hostile fighters. Of course, this film is about Finns. It helps to have some knowledge of the historical situation to comprehend this film, but it's not vital. The soldiers do not see the war as some "crusade against godless communism," they're looking for payback, and while ideological differences within the unit are touched upon, the Russians (note: the Russians, not the Soviets) are clearly the common enemy, and the bitterness (in varying degrees) of the Finnish soldiers is clearly evident. War movies of this kind depend on suspense rather than spectacle, and this film has suspense in spades.

The soundtrack contributes to the highly evocative atmosphere in the movie, from the excellent musical score to the buzzing of mosquitoes whenever the action takes place near any body of water. Otherwise, this film is an anorak wargamer's delight, featuring weapons very rarely seen in war movies (such as an SVT-40 Tokarev rifle in the hands of a Russian sergeant, and several Lahti-Saloranta M26 light machineguns), bicycle-mounted infantry (ubiquitous in many early 20th-century armies, but rarely seen in movies), and displaying the highly informal nature of the Finnish armed forces (the only salute in the film is a mark of respect, not of regulations). Incongruously, the platoon behaves amateurishly on occasion, e.g. bunching up while exposed to possible enemy machinegun fire, etc. but this is a minor distraction.

This film has almost everything most people could ask for; sex, violence and though the plot is a little thin in places, there's lots of character development to make up for it. I loved it.

A good portrayal of the Finno-Russian conflict. What is really thrilling is that it also, in my opinion, gives a good view of the Finish character referred to as "SISU". The movie also isn't plagued by the typical American film clichés. Don't miss this one, and I hope that subtitling outside Scandinavia is good enough to do the Finnish soldiers justice. Their temperament really comes alive with their lines.

Very well done film about the battle between Finland and Russia in the early stages of World War 2. Well shot, well acted and exceptionally moving. I found this film on DVD at Vidiots in Los Angeles. Never had heard of it before and found it to be a big treat. The label lists Vanguard Cinema has the distributor. I highly recommend it.

ABOUT MOVIE:

I mainly agree with other writers here. Some explosions could have been better, some serious tactics planning would have helped and they could have left out the "look, we fight in slow motion with tragic soundtrack, isn't war just hell?" part. But altogether a good war movie. Beautiful photography, good acting, good actor directing, good screenplay, raises healthy questions of war etc.

I liked this one when I first saw it, although I was a bit disappointed. Few years earlier Director Olli Saarela made about hour long short movie called Lunastus, which is still in my top 50 (of the 15,000+ movies I've seen).

ABOUT HISTORY:

A Danish writer summarized couple years ago: "...and the Finns were heroic, after all (which they were, but was it worth the losses?)" Well, the Finns could not just surrender and wait for somebody else to free them.

I was born in 1969, and I'm happy and grateful that I've been able to live relatively free life, in an independent and a democratic government country. Finland went through three different wars during the World War II, and every time it was about staying independent.

The Soviets started the Winter War by attacking Finland. During those days the Allies, the British and the French offered to send troops, but this was canceled since the Swedish would not let those troops travel trough Swedish soil. After 105 days peace was met and _Finnish soil_ (meaning PART OF OUR COUNTRY!) was given to the bullies. People were driven from their homes. During the peace Soviet Union continued to make more demands. I am always amazed how our neighbors in Scandinavia seem to think Finland, a country of 3 and 1/2 million, was provoking here and attacking there to gain more land and power just because they were so greedy back then.

Hello?!

Finland was friendly with Germany, who had already helped the Republic during the Civil War of 1918. The Germans told the Finns of their plan to attack the Soviet Union. Finland and Germany signed a pact of war against the Soviet Union, who continued to make their demands trough the whole peacetime. Continuation war started in 1941, few days after Germany attacked Soviet Union. Finnish troops took back their land and some more, and then ceased advancing to hold lines which held until the major Soviet offensive of 1944. The Finns first retreated with speed, but after few weeks stopped the offensive, and destroyed few Soviet divisions again. Peace was met, but the Soviets demanded that the Finns had to turn against their comrades in arms, the Germans. The Lapland War ended when last Germans retreated to Norway just before the end of war in Europe.

Few sane points to keep in mind:

1. Without Soviet aggression there would not have been war in the first place.

2. Without the Soviet Union taking land and demanding for more the Finns would not have made pacts with Germany and advanced to Russia. Think about a part of your country where lives about 15% of your people, would you be very willing to let it just go?

3. Germany and Finland were friendly before Nazis, Germany helped Finland in Civil war of 1918. Finland relied to Nazi Germany as their only friend to help against the Soviet threat during the peace between the Winter and the Continuation War.

4. Finland did not help Germany against the Western Allies. Finland did not help Germany with the siege of Leningrad or with other German strategic goals.

5. For the Finns it was only about staying independent. That they achieved. Was it worth the victims? Well, yes, if the whole country including even the great majority of Finnish communists wants to stay independent and free and is determined to fight for it.

It's a shame they made a "Hollywood" movie out of it. Even though it does tell something about the situation Finland was in during that time, the movie looks like one made in Hollywood.

The battle scenes were unrealistic with the characters heroically running in the forest even though the air is full of bullets and kill many of the Russians while at it (pretty much like a Rambo or Commando but not that far out). Also, the love story plays too big a role in the movie.

I don't mean it's a bad movie but if you want to really get an idea of the Winter War or the Continuation War, try to see The Unknown Soldier (Tuntematon sotilas, 1955) or The Winter War (Talvisota) or read the books.

Of the American depictions of war (in films), only Band of Brothers comes close to what The Unknown Soldier and The Winter War deliver.