Unknown Soldier

The Northerners are scoring points this year and they are certainly not slacking off. Unknown Soldier brings us up to speed on the conflict between Russia and Finland, which hasn't been talked about much, so as history lessons go, excellent. We don’t get to know much about the characters though, only as they go along. Antero Rokka gets the most space as the most brazen of the whole battalion, and the scene where he single-handedly shoots up an entire Russian unit is one of the best of the film. There is quite a lot of action, especially in the first hour and the last one, but the middle part seemed tedious at times (the 2:20 director’s cut seems to me to be the right choice, but only the three hour version is available). The war is realistically filmed, nicely alternating locations – snow, the water, trenches and forests – but it’s a shame the director didn't care much for the gore. Plus point for the excellent visuals complemented by the beautiful Finnish countryside. Solid filmmaking and a decent war movie, where the only downsides are the running-time and the fatigue that sets in after the end. However, I liked the Norwegian 12th Man a bit more. 80%. (06/13/2018)

It is remarkable that one of the most significant war films of this decade, filmed on the old continent, was produced by the small film industry of sparsely populated Finland. It paid off the debt it felt toward the soldiers who fought in the so-called Continuation War for the territory that Finland lost in the Winter War of 1940 due to its tenacious defense and the exceptional performance of its armed forces. It must be said that the Finnish filmmakers did not bring any shame to themselves. Unknown Soldier, with its vividness, visual richness, and meticulousness, easily surpasses productions from countries with much greater resources, and even the Czech film Tobruk does not come close to the level of this film. However, I have three minor reservations about it. The story of the combat unit takes place between June 1941 and September 1944, and such a wide range inevitably leads to significant condensation and an episodic nature. The significantly shorter wartime engagement on the Western Front was addressed by the creators with a ten-part series called Band of Brothers. This is also associated with insufficient development of characters, with only the eternal rebel, Sergeant Rokka, portrayed by the likable Eero Aho, getting more space (presumably, thanks to this role, he became a favorite of the Finnish audience). True, I only saw a trimmed version of the film at Febiofest, but I don't believe that three-quarters of an hour of additional material could fix these shortcomings in a significant way. Thirdly, I think that the film loses its pace in the middle section, which it regains in the final third, where it depicts the relentless battles of retreat from Eastern Karelia in the hot summer of 1944. This part, by the way, is where the film reaches its climax. Overall impression: 85%. In conclusion, just a small note regarding the content on FilmBooster. Finland's struggle against the Soviet Union was, understandably, a David versus Goliath battle due to the size, population, and economic power of the Soviet Union, but the Finns were certainly not armed only with small arms. It was a modern army that also had its own armored vehicles and, not least, knew how to acquire significant war booty from its eastern adversary. Finland felt in a similar position towards the Soviet Union as the Czechoslovak Republic felt towards Germany, and this had a similar impact on society's thinking and logically also on investments in the armed forces. The Finnish army had a truly remarkable performance during World War II, especially during the previous military clash. (03/19/2018)

[180 min. cut] Episodes from the life of a Finnish soldier very loosely linked into some sort of chronology, held more or less together by the distinctive character of the brilliant but problematic soldier Rokka. We are indeed introduced to over a dozen other key characters, but they disappear from the story, only to reappear after their two-hour run around the film's battlefield, only for someone to pump them full of lead and they’re gone forever. I definitely wouldn't fault the pathos of this film. My most important comment might sound pejorative, but I don't mean it that way: If you're not interested in war movies, or war in general, there's really no point in watching this movie, because it has no artistic merit. It has clear cinematography, good colors and make-up. The explosions, the cutting down of trees, the tanks, the technology, the sound, all of it is a bravura documentary of the Finnish war. But there's nothing more to it. A war that, incidentally, is unique in that it was almost entirely fought in swamps and forests, which the film doesn't hold back from, so don't expect crumbling churches and street warfare here either. If I were being a naughty genderist, I'd label this film Mamma Mia for men; the roles of the few female characters are pretty clearly drawn here. Anyway, even at three hours long, you can feel the frantic editing and the resulting somewhat clumsy episodicity. The fact is, so much material was shot that a 4-part miniseries on the Finnish War will be released on Finnish TV this winter, with an hour each episode, and it's just an even longer version of the film. That's what I call squeezing the absolute maximum out of a film. (08/01/2018)

I watched the alternate version, so I spent three hours with the film, but I don't regret it at all. It was a really weird war film. Although there were plenty of battle scenes, the enemy was almost invisible, which surprisingly did not detract from the film’s action, tension or atmosphere. The battles between the Finns and the Soviets had their peculiarities. Instead of huge tank division battles, there were combats in dense forests similar to what took place in the Pacific islands, which was quite interesting. American filmmakers could learn a thing or two about how to show the soldiers’ family background without the viewer suffering a severe allergic reaction to pathos. (09/02/2018)

I've seen a few war movies, even those from the Nordic productions, but Unknown Soldier was quite a disappointment for me. The battle scenes are really well-shot, no doubt about that, but the film lacks a more prominent storyline, and it loses a lot due to its drawn-out nature. Watching almost three hours of nothing but war, with no chance to form an emotional connection to at least one character, didn't excite me. On the other hand, from a historical point of view, the film has undeniable value and it is certainly good that it was made at all. (04/23/2020)