VividSimon Simply Perfect

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

WakenPayne This is by far the best War film I have ever seen. It truly grips you with the horrors (I have only seen the 195min version) and it is pulled off brilliantly.The story follows the Hakala brothers Paavo and Martti, Both have signed on to the army to defend against the Russians from invading. The truly unique thing about this film is that it actually humanizes the Russians whereas with other war movies it is always biased towards the side that won, most of the other movies set during WWII just say "every Natzi was evil" when not only is that an overused plot element but its just idiotic, most foreign movies are SO much better at making war movies - like Germany made Rosenstrasse a great attempt at filmmaking.This movie truly is one of the greatest of the genres (I have not seen the 125min US version nor the 265min Miniseries). This movie expresses the horrors of War in such a good way that after this I wanted to watch a light-hearted comedy to take my mind off it.Calling it the 81st best War movie is a little Harsh, since when in War movies do you see them not only take on the violence accurately but also focus on the Shellshock? How many times in a war movie does it set a character up for 2 hours only to see him being blown apart with his brother watching? How many times do you see a War film to find out that the side that they intended to root for win but neither the main character or yourself seem too happy about it? All the people that like Saving Private Ryan should watch this to REALLY see the horrors of War (only seen the first hour of SPR and that didn't make me feel the horrors of war as much as this did).EDIT: For anybody who's interested I have a recommendation, the 1985 Tuntematon Sotilas - It's not as good as this though.

N. N. Honestly, I can't understand why Russia was unhappy with the release of this film. After all, there was only one unfriendly line about the Soviet Union in the whole film, namely the complaint about the use of explosive ammunition, deemed forbidden by a Finnish soldier and probably was that too, but I don't know the Geneva Convention that well.On the other hand... after a Finnish soldier decides to use a communist pamphlet for wiping purposes, he gets blown up as the appropriate form of punishment for that kind of sacrilege, I presume...And that's not the only politically cautionary measure here. The Soviet Union wanted only to secure Leningrad and if the Finnish would have been more reasonable and less mistrustful the bloodshed would have been avoided. That pretty much is the political take on the events back then and it is awfully close to a fairytale.That becomes clearest during the discussion of military support. First the soldiers express hope that Sweden might help, later there's talk of America. But for whatever weird reason the word "German" or "Germany" isn't uttered a single time in the whole film. Just for your information, Ribbentrop's own son was actually fighting in a Finnish unit during that time, as a personal guarantee that the Ribbentrop-Molotov-treaty wasn't meant that way. Plus the fact that Germany build its submarines in Finland already during the Weimar Republic, in secrecy, since the treaty of Versailles forbade it.Both sides are shown by far more innocent here than they were and that is an important misrepresentation for the message of the film to make sense.But o.k., enough of that. Considering the action, I must say that the film I alluded to in the title of this comment was a pretty strong source of inspiration too. It's not black and white and it's set in snow and pine and birch forests, but that sums up the differences pretty much.The strongest part of the film is actually the psychological presentation of its main characters and the spirit of the Finnish army. That is done skillfully, I have to admit. But that is about it. Honestly, the war scenes in "A very long engagement" were by far better, but the budget of that film was also bigger, granted.All in all I can't give more than 6 out of 10.

Michael A. Martinez In my opinion, this is exactly what a war movie should be. It sticks almost entirely to the facts, and even though there is a main character, the action is not glued to him. But furthermore, it all feels very comprehensive - beginning with the mobilization of the Finnish army to fend off the Soviet invasion, and ending with the armistice. The ending, while pretty brief, communicates more with a facial expression than any big final speech could. It's absolutely brilliant.Every element of war is shown or at least hinted at - the poor conditions of the front line, the morale of the troops, the bitter trench fighting, air raids, suicidal charges, sacrificial sapper destruction of tanks, etc. The tanks, uniforms, armament, AT guns, and planes all look historically accurate, and there's plenty of battles and explosions to keep even attention deficit viewers like myself awake through the 3 hour running time. Also exciting are the numerous Russian massed assaults with thousands of extras filling the screen, plus artillery blasting fleeing troops and dead bodies into the air.This is directly what inspired the Germans to make their similar violent and bleak anti-war film STALINGRAD (1993) with lesser results, which took another 5 years for Spielberg and Hollywood to digest, before we got hit with the current crop of war films from SAVING PRIVATE RYAN to THIN RED LINE, WHEN THE TRUMPETS FADE, to DAYS OF GLORY, Eastwood's IWO JIMA flicks, and "BAND OF BROTHERS". All these are done in a style which originated with this movie, the first real bloody hard-hitter of a world war 2 movie (even though the Soviet-Finnish war of '39 was not technically part of World War 2).Totally recommended to even the casual war movie fan. A semi-sequel TUNTEMATON SOTILAS (aka THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER) made in 1955, is not as good but also worth watching, and covers the continuation war which came a year and a half after the close of this film. Avoid the 1985 remake though.

tjuva I think this movie is one of the most realistic war-movies ever made. My grandfather fought in Taipale and Kollaa and wrote a book about it, and i think this movie portraits the conditions and the nature of the warfare there very well. The only thing that bothered me a bit is that the freezing weather doesn't really come up... the winter when this was shooted was one of the mildest (warmest) for years, while the winter -39 was one of the coldest in history. Of course, there was not much the crew could do about it. Anyway, a great movie, which i warmly recommend for everyone. I hope someone would also make a good picture of the ultimate frozen hell, the motti-battles in region of Suomussalmi, maybe of the point of view of the menaced Russian 44th or 163rd division. That would be interesting to see...