Framom främsta linjen

I'm so looking forward to seeing this film about the Finns fighting along with the Nazis against the Sovietunion. To the remarks from "xaggurat from Vantaa, Finland", I just want to say, the Finns did what they had to do to keep Soviet out.. and the Swedes did what they had to do to keep the Nazis off Sweden and stay neutral and peaceful during WW2. Recent studies has shown that we Swedes where not so "neutral" with the allied as to training Police forces and granting US Air force to set up a base at kalax airport, among other thing. Beides, how would Germany invading Sweden helped Finlad during the War? I'm hoping to see a film about this subject matter in the near future...

I met Mr. Harry Järv at a lecture (about these events) at the Gothenburg City Library, sometime around the shooting of the movie. In the audience there were (my feeling), many other Strong, sharp veterans, with similarly sharp wifes.... This movie seemed 100% true. Not Rambo guys. Just like the rest of us But the best of us.

Dont expect "Wheels of Terror", "Fury" or "Hunde Wollt Ihr Evig Leben.". More, perhaps Bergmans "Shame". At least they looked like Max Von Sydow.

Same as North Africa, this was an Honourable front, from all sides. Far enough from the Chancellery, Saurons eye lost its might. Cant imagine how different history would have played out if the 20 july plot had succeded..

This is a movie about how your best and most pleasant neighbout almost single-handedly prevented his country from beeing occupied by Soviet.

I would consider this a realistic description of war. As always, in critical situations some people tend to stand out as heroes more than others, and this movie gives a nice picture of one of them, Harry Järv, the group leader of a group patrolling deep behind enemy lines. The war scenes in this movie are quite authentic, as opposed to many a Hollywood movie, those who have seen the German movie Stalingrad know what I mean. The actors are good, they give the impression of being real persons who you can relate to. Also, Finland had to ally with the Germans for a while (they actually used them to get weapons) but refused to be ordered around by the Nazis. The reason for this was that no western country helped Finland as the Soviets tried to conquer the country. This movie sets in the time when the Soviets pushed hard on the Karelian isthmus, with an overwhelming number of troops and material, and the Finns tried to hold the front. As a Finn, I am of perhaps overly patriotic in my review, but I would really recommend this movie for everyone who likes a historically correct, humane war movie.

..he doesn't understand German and watching a movie in a language he does not understand might be funny, but only if he was with a group of friends who do not understand it either and have around the same level of mildly intoxication as he had.

But Henry was neither intoxicated nor with a group of friends, but only accompanied by Kristl, who can understand German very well, her being Austrian, and that makes for one hell of a disadvantage in a review.

So here follows a review written by Kristl.

It was not easy to find this movie on the IMDb as the movie I saw was called 'Beyond the Frontline. The Battle for Karelien' instead of 'Beyond Enemy Lines'. Despite the English title the movie was voiced in German and I am unsure if there were any English subtitles so I question if it would be of any use to an English audience.

This movie is from Finland and depicts remembered events from the war between Finland and the Soviet Union that coincided with the Second World War. I say remembered events because at the beginning we see a pair of grizzled veterans adorned with medals talking about that war with a young woman, who seems to be writing down their stories. It is their recollections thus that we are witnessing.

I also say remembered, because a movie like this is more about what people remember then about what actually happened. Someone once said that of all the evidence one can submit to court, personal memory is the least trusted because people tend to recall things in a subjective manner and thus memories can be - and often are - changed because of wishful thinking, peer pressure, trauma and self delusion.

The movie shows us the times and trepidations of a group of volunteers that are part of the infantry regiment 61, a Swedish volunteer unit in the service of the army of Finland. It is mid 1944 and the Soviets are on the move. Their aim is to advance through the Karelian Isthmus and thus gain access to the more open lands beyond. Karelia was an area hemmed in between the gulf of Finland and Lake Lagoda. It was an inhospitable land, with few roads and a lot of lakes and forests. A land more suitable to the defense than to conquest. Hence the Finish decided to make their stand there and with the aid of German (anti-tank) weapons, some German troops and volunteers from countries like Sweden, the Fins managed, for a while, to halt the Russian onslaught, which included tanks, massed artillery and sizable infantry forces.

In itself this subject could be quite interesting as it shows a part of World War II of which not much is told and, to be honest, I feel some sympathy for a small country facing a big one such as the Soviet Union, even if Finland happened to be on the wrong side in the war.

The challenge for a director working in such small country as Finland is to somehow make his movie interesting while lacking a sizable budget. Such a movie inevitable can only do this by substituting quantity for quality which means: using good acting, a well written script and camera-work to offset the lack of three b's, being: big boys, loud bangs and bouncing boobies.

This movie only partially succeeds. The problem lies with the lack of story. This movie is like a drawn-out dramatized documentary that focuses on warfare and assumes that simply moving forward through time is enough of a plot device to keep people interested. It lacks drama and the personalities thus are flat. This is underscored by the fact that none of the soldiers seem to get worse for wear. They remain clean shaven and properly dressed despite the chaos of war. It is as if they are playing at warfare instead of actually undergoing it.

Another problem with this movie is that the soldiers are sometimes too much cast as 'heroes'. The Russians, being the enemy, are depicted as the usually non-entities whose only role is to get killed in droves. At one moment a group of seven volunteers infiltrate a Russian position killing thirty soldiers. During this fight three 'heroes' manage to survive the blast of three hand-grenades with barely a scratch while the Russians fly through the air when the favor is returned. And when two battalions of Russians soldiers take on a company of these Swedish volunteers, the latter hardly suffer any losses at all, while the first get exterminated.

It is all a bit too much.

Why is it that in movies 'our side' is superior in all respect except for the amounts of men, of course, while 'their side' consists of a multitude of carbon copy dregs that can't shoot straight? Does a movie become less of a movie when the enemy is not just a shadowy figure in a landscape, but a person, like you or me with an equal fair change to kill one of us, as we have to kill one of them? Is it more heroic that a man, portrayed as superior in every respect, kills one who is inferior in everything? Is that what a 'hero' is?

The bottom line is that this movie is interesting because it depicts events that I have not heard much about, but if the Swedes and Fins had been American soldiers and the context had been a battle in Western Europe like say, the battle of the bulge or the landing in Normandy, I would not have given this movie a second glance.

And thus the final verdict. An interesting movie but not very impressive.

I liked this film for it's document-like story telling, and the fact that two veterans: Järv himself and another man from the same unit were involved in making it, as advisor's. This shows in true story told exactly right and in the way death is described and fake blood is not spared on the wounded.

Järv's own photographs - taken by himself with the camera he carried with him in the war - are shown as he takes them in the film, and some black and white documentary clips are added to remind the viewer, this war really did happen. It's a nice touch, and a brave move, which could've flopped the movie. But it works.

What I didn't like, was that Rambo-style Super Soldier Heroism shown on some battle screens. Also Russian head on attacks are quite common in the film: "Don't use the trees or dive for cover! Just run at them! CHAAAARGE!" Then again. Soviet's were known to use such tactics (especially early in the war). Järv's groups heroic raids on enemy positions are also a fact of history.

I will comment Triathlonwest's earlier comments, to correct a few facts. First of all Soviet Union didn't attack Finland in The Winter War because "Russia needed land around Stalingrad to defend the city against possible German attacks" - as Triathlonwest stated. There's plenty of land around Stalingrad. They demanded a buffer zone for LENINGRAD. Soviet Union also demanded Finland's nickel mines at Petsamo, and several military bases inside Finnish borders, and close to the capital Helsinki, which would've basically given the Soviets free pass to enter the city, if war would've been later declared. And to this comment: "The reason the Fins lost territory to the Russians were their stubbornness and refusal to compromise". Behind the scenes, and before Winter War (or the Russo-German war), the Soviets had a pact with Germany (The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) to share Europe between them. Germany would get Western and Central Poland, and Western Europe, while Soviet Union had "claims" on Eastern Poland, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and it's other western neighbors. So the war would've most likely started even if Finns would've accepted Soviet demands. Out of all countries included in this pact only Finland remained independent during and after the war. All thanks to Finnish stubbornness.