Rukajärven tie

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.

I saw this film at a Finnish cinema, with only swedish subtitles. As I can only speak a small amount of Finnish and no Swedish, I expected it to be an uncomfortable film to watch, but I found it uniquely interesting to watch a war film in which everyone spoke their own language, instead of an American with an accent. I would recommend this film to anyone.

This is my first Finnish film and I will acknowledge at the outset that my review may be influenced by subjective cultural factors. However, there are certain universal elements to good filmmaking, and that is where I will try to direct my criticism. I haven't read any of the other reviews before writing this.

Ambush follows a Finnish reconnaissance unit at the beginning of the Continuation War in 1941. For me, the pace of the film was painfully slow, with very little suspense, even during the battle scenes, which I found to be unrealistic. It takes more than explosions to film a compelling battle scene and the director just didn't do his homework in filming the combat scenes in this film. You are informed at the beginning of the film that most of the platoon members were veterans of the Winter War, yet they never behaved like experienced soldiers would under real combat conditions.

The cinematography was mediocre throughout the film. The director and cinematographer failed to take advantage of the beauty of the natural scenery available to them, which would have been one of the stars of the film if someone like Lars Von Trier had been directing. The recon platoon is searching for Russian soldiers in a vast isolated wilderness and you never get the sense of how small they are and how big the wilderness along the border is. This was my biggest disappointment with the film since I had eagerly anticipated seeing the natural beauty of Finland's wilderness.

This is the first time I've seen bicycles used by a recon unit in combat, which was interesting, although I don't know why they wouldn't have been using horses instead of bicycles when it seemed as if they were covering quite a bit of terrain. I can see why the practice didn't catch on with most armies, as reflected in the scene where one of the soldier's bicycles is disabled and he is unable to continue with his unit. In another scene the recon unit is being shelled from the opposite river bank and they have to drag their heavy bicycles with them as they retreat. Finally, they must abandon their bicycles as they are being blown to pieces by what appears to be mortar fire. How a recon unit winds up drawing such intense shelling in a forest is a mystery to me.

Overall, the film reminded me of a big stale limppu that you have to soak in water before you can choke it down. The FInns are rightfully proud of their country's fierce resistance to both the Soviets and the Germans in WWII, but this film didn't do the subject matter justice.

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.