I enoyed this film very much, i saw it in the theatres here in Sweden. This kind of movie was very new to me since im not used to this kind of realistic film. There was raw emotions and alot of sadness in it, picturing the war as close as it was. This movie has no gloryfication, it showed loss on both side and the horrible sides of war. I very much enjoyed the fact that the war scenes had alot of realistic deaths in it. Not just explosion everywhere but the camera showing us the soldiers' fear and their deaths and letting us see that. We usually do not see this vournable side. Walking over your fellow sodier's body that just got shot in the head and the camera is not looking away . This movie was grim, with a lot of feelings, pain, But it felt intelligent somehow. It felt like a real movie.

Just to make it clear, the movie in swedish theatres was cut shorter so there are some scenes I haven't seen yet. The movie we saw was just over 2 hours while it is actually 3 hours long but theatres here thought it would be way too long and not attract enough audience.

The people of Finland, me included, had high expectations for the third film adaptation of Väinö Linna's novel Tuntematon Sotilas (The Unknown Soldier), boldly made by celebrated Finnish director Aku Louhimies for the 100-year anniversary of Finland's independence. I tried my best to block all positive and negative expectations out of my mind, so that I could watch the film with an open mind and form my own opinions. That isn't an easy job, as this story is something very iconic and personal to the Finnish people. After seeing the film and doing a lot of analyzing and over-analyzing about what parts I liked and didn't like, the strongest thought I have is still the one that I had for the movie's entire three-hour run time and in the moments after it: this movie is pretty great.

Everything that I say should be taken with a large grain of salt, as I haven't read the original novel. Therefore my opinions are based partially on a comparison with the original movie from 1955, and mostly on how I liked this as a film of its own and as a part of Finnish culture. The directing by Louhimies is decent, as modern film technology allows for more intense action sequences and realistic sound effects, thus capturing the atmosphere of war well. At times, the modern style was a bit more polished and Hollywood- style than I would've liked - for example I wasn't a big fan of the instrumental soundtrack, which relied on slightly cliché string melodies that took away from the gritty and realistic story. That is a minor complaint though, as for the most part the film did a good job portraying the story in a more modern fashion. Also, it was one of the most justifiable cases for a three-hour run time that I have ever seen - everything was relevant for the plot and character development, and I didn't feel especially bored even once.

The soul of The Unknown Soldier has always been considered to be in the characters, many of whom have a legendary status in Finnish culture. The casting department did an excellent job in finding suitable actors for these roles, as some of the characters are just as interesting or even better than their counterparts in the original film. A good example is lieutenant Koskela, wonderfully played by Jussi Vatanen, who is fleshed out and fascinating to follow throughout the film. Eero Aho fills the shoes of his predecessor Reino Tolvanen amazingly in the iconic role of corporal Antero Rokka, and Hannes Suominen is incredibly similar in his mannerisms to the original film version of the character Vanhala. I was a bit skeptic about the romantic subplot involving the character Kariluoto shown in the trailers, but the film did a great job with it. Having one of the major characters missing someone they truly loved back home added depth to his motivations, making it more relatable when considering what the soldiers were fighting for - and what they risked losing.

The actors must have had a hard job pulling off dialects that aren't typical for today's Finland, but most of them did a great job with it. I was a bit let down by the casting of Aku Hirviniemi as corporal Hietanen, as I felt he didn't come anywhere near the original film's Hietanen in terms of likability and character development. I was also a bit annoyed by the cameo of Finnish teen idol Robin, which took away from the emotion and darkness of an otherwise powerful scene in my opinion. But again, these complaints are small, especially in comparison to everything that the film succeeded in.

In many aspects, the original movie is better, but Louhimies's version also rises higher in quite a few categories. While the 1955 film is a great gritty exploration of Finnish soldiers on the front, the 2017 adaptation is more deep and layered. We see the characters grow through grim moments of pain as well as warm moments of humorous interaction, while certain scenes and story lines provoke thoughts of the larger picture at hand - what the job that soldiers like that did for Finland truly means. As a Finn, I can't view a film like this purely objectively, so the fact that it makes me emotional and grateful of my homeland adds very much to my opinion of the movie. Many moments in the film made me think about the society Finland has today, and how we have it all because men just like the fictional yet realistic characters in this movie once fought to keep Finland independent. That is what makes this film truly powerful and though-provoking, and I admire Aku Louhimies for managing to subtly convey that message into his film without getting over-patriotic about it.

Although the movie has an almost celebratory tone at times (which is proper considering the year of its release), it certainly doesn't fall into the trap of over-romanticizing or glorifying war. Though there are moments of heroics and bravery, there are themes of cowardice, conflict within the Finnish side and human cruelty throughout the film. It gives a gripping account on the lives of Finnish soldiers during the Continuation War, and doesn't try to hide painful facts like Finland's partnership with Nazi Germany or the one-time execution of own troops for disobeying commands. All in all, Louhimies's films manages to capture the audience with a deep and powerful story, filled with memorable characters, great acting and a brutally honest depiction of war.

In Finland, we have a tradition to tell the story of WW2 as we actually almost won the war against the Soviet Union which is of course true in the sense that Finland was not occupied by the Soviet Union. After the painful war, the Unknown Soldier was a novel that was appreciated therapy for the wounded nation and it introduced dozens of catch phrases and iconic characters that were needed for the healing process. Every Finn can quote the book, often in a cheerful manner. Ask any Finn in the late hours in the bar and they will keep going forever.

The novel has been filmed twice before but the present version is the best and the most ambitious. Here, in the modernized version of the Unknown Soldier, the war between Finland and the Soviet Union is brutal, exhausting and devastating, and definitely Finland does not almost win the war. The humor used by the characters is a coping mechanism and is not used as a national therapy.

We see a beautiful and melancholic film that is very sincere. Finland fights side by side with Germany which may have been necessary to fight the Soviet Union, but usually the fact is hidden beneath Finnish pride of independence. Now, we see Hitler visiting Finland, we see Nazi flags.

We see how men are gradually broken. The heroes die, and in the end, the most unlikely characters still need to fight. The four main characters, Koskela, Rokka, Kariluoto and Hietanen are all played very well by leading Finnish actors. I was especially moved by Koskela played by Jussi Vatanen, who reminds me of Damian Lewis as Richard Winters in Band of Brothers. However, Rokka played by Eero Aho is the center and the heart of the movie. The opening scene with two swimming boys, filmed like in a Terence Malick movie, is the starting point for the story of Rokka who is brave, keeps the good spirit, encourages and teaches younger ones. In the end, he shows in one last scene how the defeat feels after several years of fighting. He endures but is not anymore the same cheerful happy farmer. Eero Aho tells the story of losing the war in a superb way. He should definitely be nominated for Jussi, the Finnish Oscar.

The film is a bit long and has some scenes like the compulsory "Finns getting really drunk" scenes that I always found rather boring. However, the film is so much better than the original war novel. My Finnish teacher tried to explain the idea of the original novel in the 80's: You will first get to know all the main characters, you really start to like them, and then, suddenly, one by one they are taken away from you. Now, in this film, I finally understood what my literature teacher wanted to make us to see in the Unknown Soldier novel.

In Finland, the reviews of the film have been really polarized, which reflects the unique importance of the Unknown Soldier for Finns. It is the story of endurance and suffering. This is not as good as TV series Band of Brothers, not as good as Unsere Mutter Unsere Väter (Generation War) or Saving Private Ryan. However, this is a solid war film using Finnish perspective and with two amazing actors in main roles, Jussi Vatanen and Eero Aho.

This year is the 100th anniversary of the independent Finland. The film is humble but strong, like the story of Finland, as I like to see it. My rating 7/10 aims to be objective but as a Finn, the objective rating of the Unknown Soldier is impossible. Yet, I recommend the film for everybody who aims to understand Finnish history and the way we see the world.

First of all, this movie might not be for everybody. There are no super heroes, no super villains, no glorifying the war; it's a movie about the war between Finland and USSR that took place some 70+ years ago (resulting over 300 000 dead).

The film is a little slow paced, so if you're into Rambo and that sort of stuff, don't bother. If you don't know anything about the history between these two countries, it might feel a bit long-winded and boring. In order to get the most out of it, I suggest you to take a look at "Winter" and "Continuation War" in Wikipedia for example.

Special effects, acting, directing, music were all good and on par with bigger productions. Compared to the two previous versions of the same movie, this one has a darker tone to it and is a little bit "less national" which, in my opinion, is a good thing.

It's not the best movie I ever saw, but a good solid 8 out of 10.

A powerful movie of a powerful story with many lawyers. Authentic, illustrating the pain and brokenness that resulted from the "all or nothing" war. A visually compelling movie about people, about love of your country, and about the love of your family. Heroes, like my grandparents, deserve movies like this that keep remembering the full story.

Saw it twice and it is definitely not boring. Great actors. Music and cinematography were impressive.

I haven't seen the earlier versions, not to mention have read the book so I had nothing to compare to this masterpiece. And I think it was a good thing. Since have read too many negative reviews based on arguments about how this movie was too strictly or too insufficiently following the book, I want to say a few things.

PROS: -I am NOT a fan of Finnish film production, overall quality of the movies are just horrible (excluding couple of gems) but this film made me think otherwise.

-Cast did a very good overall performance, I am not even going to start to worship Eero Ahos' execution, other than 10/10.

-Special fx were normal standard in global comparison, in Finnish movie industry comparison 9/10 (maybe it tells smth that this movie is the most expensive movie ever made in Finland).

-Movie is 3 hours long, but doesn't feel like it; there was only one boring/stupid scene about getting drunk for like 20mins.

-I loved how the characters evolved during the movie.

-Sacrificing main characters is always a sign of a good movie.

-Small clever glimpses of humour from the main character Rokka.

CONS: -I know this is just a minor thing, but year 2017 and it is a rare case to see realistic recoil in rifles, e.g. scene where Finnish soldier executes Russian soldier with the Finnish version of Mosin- Nagant, which fires 7,62x54 cartridge. Is it just laziness or stupidity?

-The stupid long drinking scene...

-Sometimes cut scenes were too fast in the fight, which seems to be the most common curse of action movies made lazily.

ASENTO! LEPO! over and out!

Right away I must say that this is one of the best movies of the year. Every single actor gave their best performances. Every scene was beautiful. All the battle scenes were well directed and edited, they were realistic and brutal. This is hands down probably the best Finnish movie ever made. I can't say any negative things, I've been thinking about any negative things that may have been in the movie but I just can't find any. I loved this movie and it really deserves a 10/10

In the year of this film's release, Finland celebrates its 100th year of independence. As such it was decided that a remake of The Unknown Soldier was needed. The original book by Väinö Linna was the first book about the Continuation War written by an actual veteran of the war. It has now been turned into a movie three times, this film by Aku Louhimies being the latest. The story follows a machine gun company from the early days of the mobilization to the eventual cessation of hostilities and the signing of armistice between the forces of Finland and Soviet Union. All three years of battle seen through the eyes of few men.

I shall try to be objective as I talk about this film, but as a Finn it's going to be a bit difficult. Winter War and Continuation War are still seen as Finland's proudest moment as a nation. We held back a giant. We didn't win, exactly speaking, but it was a victory nonetheless, unlike few others seen during World War Two. Linna's novel is still almost compulsory reading during our schooling. So how to make a movie about something like that? Especially if you're the third one to do so.

I have to admit I like this film a lot, especially in comparison to the two previous films. Louhimies has the courage to take a step back from the source material and expand upon it. We, for the first time in an Unknown Soldier film, focus rather heavily on the happenings back home. We see what it was like for those that stayed behind and kept Finland running even as their husbands, sons and brothers fought and died on the battlefield. It's good to focus on those stories as well and they're told well.

The film also looks phenomenal. Rarely have I seen my own country showcased so beautifully. And in a war movie of all things. No matter your nationality, you'll get why someone would want to defend a place such as this. Why someone would want to die for it.

The film has also reaped praise for its historical accuracy. Many veterans of the war have remarked how real the battle scenes seemed, how it captured the claustrophobia, intensity and grittiness of the battle as you crawled through mud and moss, over fallen trees and through grenade craters. The costuming, sets and props all look really good and it's hard to find any flaws in the narrative without having a degree in history.

Then the stuff that could be improved upon. While I for the most part do enjoy the new casting, there are some things I would have changed. The film focuses heavily on Rokka (Eero Aho), one of the soldiers of the company, and that's fair as he is the best character in the book as well. I'm however somewhat disappointed that they reduced the role of lieutenant Koskela (Jussi Vatanen) as he was my personal favourite from the book and a good counterpoint to Rokka. There are also some minor casting hiccups, Finland not having all that many actors to begin with, but they are really minor in the grand scheme of things.

There are scenes added to the book that I don't enjoy quite as much as the scenes focusing on the life back home. Most of these scenes are near the end of the film so I shall not spoil them, but I don't feel like they added enough to merit inclusion.

Even still, this is a good film, great even if you're asking a Finn. It works very well as a war film and as a piece of history. Very well acted, very well shot and a beautiful piece of film making as a whole.

I loved this movie. This is the best war story I came across since "Matterhorn" and "Band of Brothers". Such amazing actors who reflect all the emotions you go trough in war; officers crying while knowing they have to push the entire pluton forward .

For does who do not like this movie I think it is because they never did military service. If you have done military service in the Scandinavian countries this movie really make you cringe! You really can relate to the anxiety due to terrain and weather in, and all I did was being educated in how to war.

Summary: fantastic movie if you like deep war movies!

It will always be an exceptional historical movie. Respect for the Finnish people!

Director Louhimies has succeeded in presenting Väinö Linnas' novel into 21st century and two more generations. Thank You to all who made this happen.

In Finland all too many lousy movies are released based on national subsidy -system. Their subsidy/number of viewers -ratios can be up to hundred euros. Aku Louhimies' 'Unknown Soldier' is wonderful exception, a total success with over million spectators in few months time only.

Tuntematon sotilas is a huge, almost 3-hour long war epic which depicts lives and fates of Finnish solders and officers during so-called Contuniation War between USSR and Finland in 1941-1944. The title means The Unlnown Soldier and it served to commemorate many lost lives of Finnish soldiers who died during this bloodbath. The movie does not portray just one main her, instead, there are many who fight as they can all through this hell on earth. We witness their suffering, pain, hopes, wounds, even deaths. The movie is especially powerful in delivering its crucial message that any war is a brutal, messy, bloody affair which is never fun, or adventure or blessing. This is a messy horrid cauldron of evil and malice. The movie is not devoid of its weaker moments. There are quite slight female characters with not enough depth or ersuasive features. Some senes are outright silly in their amateurish efforts. In many ways, Tuntematon sotilas reminds heavily of another war epic, Talvisota, or Winter War. That one cae earlier and here we see obvious borrowings from older one. Yes, and still, the movie does its job and does it well.

My English is not so good so I'll try to keep this review short. Watching this movie from a foreigner's perspective, this movie has many striking similarities with Terrence Malick's 1998 war movie The Thin Red Line (the Soundtrack, the struggle to stay alive, how nature blends with men etc.) This movie is on par with Nolan's Dunkirk. Maybe even better. Overall 8/10 for me.

First of all I watched the lengthened 5 part TV- series version of it and enjoyed it very much especially towards the end. So that in mind I am not reviewing the cinematic version here. I really think watching it this way really benefits the movie and I continue referencing it as "movie".

This movie is really hard to review since it's the same story I've read few times in a book and seen the 1955 movie version almost every year since the early 2000's at least and I think it's a perfect classic. So all the performances I can't help but compare them with "originals". That fact really blinds my eye to some degree and I think in my head "oh he said it wrong and it wasn't as funny or convincing". And yes, in some instances the performances aren't as convincing and it feels like actors are just reading the script. But mostly those are the case of minor roles and all of these problems really are in the first part of this movie. The 1955 classic has some of the best and funniest dialogue of any film I know! The start of that movie is so strong it's impossible to top. It's like trying to remake the start of "Full metal Jacket". There is no way any actor could top the performances you see in that film either.

I think they should've given the start a little more drama or tension since they can't compare with the funny side of things. Or just build up the characters more. After the start which in my opinion is little too short the movie starts to show it's strengths. The action scenes are really awesome. Perhaps they aren't as big and epic as in some huge war movies but this is told in a perspective of a platoon mostly. Scenes are intense, realistic and just brilliantly filmed! They are perhaps not huge but instead they are really detailed if that can be said. For example you see soldiers reloading their weapons and preparing their grenades and just doing all the little things you rarely see in a war film. I think the actors were really well trained (most likely and firstly in Finnish military if they served their duty) to do these actions.

One last thing is the weaponry and armament used in this movie. In my knowledge there is EVERYTHING correct about the weapons in this movie. The biggest things at least. I haven't compared the common rifle if it is 100% correct but that doesn't matter to me. To me matters the other small arms types and most importantly armor or tanks as some calls them. They are correct type and they ARE actual working vehicles which really shows. And I think this is one of the best usage of tanks in any movie because it is realistic and very intense. The movie "Fury" is million times worse than this.

My conclusion is that it's great movie with great acting, action and drama. Everything that is "new" in this movie compared to the classic is great. And things directly compared are good as well. Especially after the start it really is great.

This 2017 remake is really something. It manages to suck the life out of every character of the book and the performances of previous films. It tells also a sad story of the poor state of contemporary Finnish cinema.

The previous incarnations were the 1955 black and white classic with actors who had fought the war themselves and thus brought much of the genuine insight to their performances. This gave the film also a somewhat "light" and oddly jolly undertones that may feel out of place and dated to modern viewer. The actors were also older than their characters who were supposed to be of conscript age. However the film remains as monument and is to many "The only true Unknown Soldier".

The 1985 version is something different. The film has many then original aspects to it, such as hand held camera fight scenes and no background music at all. In its time itvwas criticized for being grim and gloomy but in all fairness, the 1985 Unknown is the one most true to the pacifist novel.

Most importantly the characters of 1985 Unknown are built carefully yet smoothly. The characters look and sound like they ought to so not only are the performances top-notch, the casting was done perfectly and in contrast to the times, favored new and literally unknown faces to seasoned actors.

Liutanent Lammios actor was even beaten on the street because of his likening to the unpopular character!

The social differences of the men, their brotherly banter and even the bully-masochist relationship of corporal Lehto and private Riitaoja is however something this new film lacks completely. Probably because few of the cast or crew have even experience of any band of brothers sort of male bonding and because the focus has been shifted from this ESSENTIAL and crucial aspect to more feminized direction where main charactes dream of their wives in flashbacks instead.

So, the casting is totally off here - the more distant, higher officers who were belieavable and charismatic "old school" men of iron, be their judgement wrong or right when issuing orders or simply excercising their authority are reduced to yelling, frustrated weaklings so un-authentic they seem to be straight out of some comic relief or from Louhimies political propaganda.

The latter may be the reason to many an issue with this film - it is supposed to depict men going through thick and thin and sticking together situation they have no power over. They do what they have to do to come out alive. Cowardism is understood but not tolerated or excused. In 2017 film there is no trace of this to be found.

The visual side is also something that is off here. For some reason, the latter part of the 2010's Finnish films have had seemingly an obsession to visualize the reality to look like sugary postcard! Was this supposed to be an ugly and down-to-earth war movie or a tourist commercial?

Absolute travesty. See 1985 Unknown Soldier instead if you prefer ride in Mercedes Benz to Ford Pinto, so to say.

First of all, there are reasons why movie classics aren't produced several times. How would Godfather 2017, Star Wars 2017, Titanic 2017, Schindler's List 2017 sound? Not very good in my opinion. Right thing to do would have been to produce a completely new film. To follow the same story line/dialogue/characters as in the original and remake of the 80's sets the foundations of the film wrong. And here we come to the problem. This is a "safe play" in film making. You will get funding for this kind of project in Finland but the end result is lame. How about making a new story line? Hundreds of thousands Finnish solders fought the war - there is lot of stories to be told.

Original film was produced in the fifties with actors that were veterans of the war themselves, some of them being high ranking actors of the time. This sets the bar unreachable for any remakes.

The film tries to reach new perspectives adding home front, abuse in conquered territories, war crimes etc. which is a good idea but feels glued because the foundations of the old version. In one scene Finnish soldier shoots a surrendering Russian, this is not correct. Finnish soldiers were lacking ammunition those days so murdering of surrendering Russians did happen, but mostly with an knife or an back of a rifle. Hatred for the Russians grew also from the partisan attacks in the north where Finnish civilians were murdered, and soldiers had their revenge to surrendering opponent. How much powerful scene would have been shown this way and how many layers that would have added to the scene? In one scene Finnish soldiers meeting a pet rabbit in forest is just comical.

In the end description of the war is OK (could have been much more brutal), acting is excellent at times. Too bad it was wasted in re-make, not in new film.

Louhimies has been centrally involved, for example, as a director in nearly 20 different Finnish TV series and movie productions during the 2000s. His career has been versatile and a success in the contemporary movie scene of Finland. In addition, his works have gained at least a moderate cash-flow in cinemas throughout his career. It is clear that in some point there is going to be a total flop in his creations. It is so sad that this happened with The Unknown Soldier (2017).

The main problem of the movie is that it is maybe too traditional and follows the original text of the Väinö Linna's book too strictly. Louhimies does not usually work through scripts or text; instead he relies on improvisation. In the movie, this causes that dialogue parts are poor and they feel and taste like a piece of Finnish writing paper. The acting and dialogue are presumably intended to be serious considering the themes of the movie, but this goes horribly wrong.

Serious and shocking scenes seem simply amusing and there is no way to change this feeling. I wondered that am I really watching the final version of the movie or am I watching the gag reel or B/C takes of the production. Parts of the movie reveal that they had completed scenes in many parts and with numerous re-takes. Maybe to maximize perfection or make it even better re-take after re-take? Hard to say what had been the point of endless re-takes. In the public and in the interviews, the film crew revealed that numerous dialogue parts had been play backed and re-recorded in the studio during post-production. In short: acting was poor and dialogue lame till the end.

Another main problem with the movie is that it is not very plausible or authentic in general. In the original text, the main character posse consists of men who are from different parts of the country. This means that they talk in a rather different way and with their personal, unique dialects. In Finland, people talk very differently depending on from which part of the country you have grown up. In the movie, there is a lot of try to imitate and create soldiers' dialects as original and truthful as possible. The result is somewhere between awkward and shared sense of shame.

On the screen, everything fails miserably. It is impossible to create a character to talk Turku region's dialect with and actor, for example, with natural Helsinki region's accent. This is a very hard task for any actor anywhere because dialects are innate, it is not possible to change one's dialect. But I understand that the production crew and dialect consultants, experts etc. tried their best and that's all. Secondly, the military commands and orders shouted by the actors on the barracks scene sound miserably and 100% not plausible. They are far from the reality. On the other hand, nearly no one of the actors had took part in the Finnish military service.

Moreover, nearly all of the Finnish movie/TV series actors are grown up in the Helsinki area ie. they talk like people talk there and that is why it is hard to get famous actors with authentic and original dialects. This cold fact of the dialects is embarrassingly coming at you right from the start of the movie and there is no way to get rid of it. Luckily, some of the most annoying and lamest dialect characters die soon and they do not bother you till the credits.

Minor problems of the movie are narration and pacing. Movie follows rather strictly the original text of the book. I was expecting that Louhimies would have taken some more artistic liberties and given more power to his own, personal interpretation of the book. It is hard to say whether he had even read the actual book or not. I assume that maybe he had read it or at least a part of it. For some reason, the pacing of the story in the movie is draggy and slow. I wanted more fast-paced narration. Secondly, the narration and script are simply boring – or they are presented in a rather dull way. Everything happens so slowly. I was disappointed because his other works are maybe clearly more straightforward and of course I assumed that his style has not changed.

Action scenes are mediocre: they are short and feel that they are just cut from somewhere else where they actually belonged. It is odd and annoying that pacing bounces from the action scenes till the scenes where the home front is depicted. Maybe this was not director's decision to make it that way, but some of the producers or some other authority forced him to do it so in the final version.

The post-production crew and technicians have really put an effort (and money!) on explosions. However, the explosions and other special fx are still far from the world class movies. They are just mediocre and rather daunting. Soundtrack is original and nicely mixed. On the contrary, gun sounds and ambient effects sound crappy. Maybe all of the money was spent on explosions and fancy make-up gear? Namely, actors' make-up, apparel, rank insignia, hair styles, clothes, armory, weapon equipment are cool, they seem authentic and genuine. Well done! Maybe I will give the movie a new chance when they hopefully show it on television on 6.12.2017. That is the day when Finland's independence gains its glorious 100th anniversary.

No it's not a bad movie, but it's not good. The good things were Eero Aho's great performance as Rokka and Aki Louhimies's directing, but those were the only good things. Bad things were making it to action film. Original were just a movie that told things about war, but this is like action movie. In original Lehto was my favourite character and there ain't Kovennettua-scene in this movie. And I'm absolutely shocked that there were tons of russian crap in this movie. This movie was overhyped like a Quiet Place and I more likely recommend you to watch the original Unknown soldier from 1955 or just read the book.

I welcome the fans of Finnish cinema! The film covers the events of 1941-45, when Finland fought on the side of Nazi Germany, and invaded Soviet Karelia, to return "its own" ("Great Finland", "Finlandia od morza do morza") ..... and until the complete collapse , surrender. Unequivocally, one can single out the stunning nature of the pluses, the combat actions (real tanks, soldiers' uniforms, ammo), the life of soldiers, humor are quite realistic. Of the minuses: enough delayed, if you squeeze to the Hollywood format, the film can be called: "The tragedy of Rokka Balboa", very primitively prescribed a Soviet soldier. Although the film asks the right questions, the viewer will not get an answer to them. The film is not outstanding, but the director's work at the height.

PS The game of actors is also on top.

This movie is a perfect example of local failing movie industry, and how one novel has been adopted for times like a broken recorder from same country in same language.

But it is alright to live in past glory to feed the pride (or whatever is remaining). The situation in present setting would be somehow different.

2/10 rating with a hint of generosity.

YEah,

Not one thing of the older movies, let alone the Book is here.

1 dimensional cardboard characters and not much else - this is BLASPHEMY

Sick and so twisted that it makes Linna want to move to Kreml Wall.

All characters are total BS - so it is hard to begin with. All the bad guys are like skinheads or bouncers that did not exist 1941.

This film is 100% about directors own bed wetting and traumas but only in name the grand pacifist war novel.

First part of the movie is good, with interesting story and characters, even combat scenes seem somewhat realistic and high produced. Unfortunately after an hour movie starts to fall down. Obviously director put too much of slow paced narrative into the basically war movie and then it's no longer a war drama, just a slow and broken movie with war as the historic context. It lasts 3 hours, if it was cut to half of its length, I think it would be really good. I guess the director was under the pressure to deliver much of it regarding great budget, it's a classic mistake to ruin hipothetically good movie with so much excessive and boring length.

Finnish soldiers sit in the woods and sing loudly.

Rokka does and says what suits him without any punishment.

In Svir (Syväri), the guard posts are sitting and doing everything but keeping guard.

It's a movie of just 3 hours that sneaks through World War II. Most of the film is that the Finnish soldiers march uncontrollably into the Soviet Union and from there 80% of the film is a long march, interrupted by a lot of trench talk.

One moment, the Finnish soldiers are walking into the Soviet Union, the second moment they are retreating and suddenly we are in a church and see a Finnish soldier getting married.

There's too much jump in the movie to make it as emotional as the instructor would like. When I read the text of this film, I had great hopes, but if the "horrors" Finland was exposed to, as they are in the movie, then it is not that big of a horror (relative to the rest of WWII)

Tip; Are you going to watch this film, take the time to read about the Winter War and Finland's struggle against the Soviet Union ... then you are better prepared for the things they talk about in the film.

When reviewing a remake of the Unknown Soldier it is almost impossible to ignore the previous (good and fairly good) films and the book and just focus on this film alone.

If you manage that feat you will find something pretty funny and pretty weird-This film contains scenes that make no sense whatsoever UNLESS you have read the book or have seen previous films.

For example the controversy between Riitaoja and Lehto, I know that it existed by having read the book, I have seen well acted scenes in which they have been in (the 1955 version has really good scenes). But who were they in this film? Did they speak and if yes what did they say? In this film these (and other) characters are cigarettepaper thin.

The first Unknown Soldier can be viewed without any knowledge of the book by Linna. It makes sense, the characters are well developed, war happens in all it's horror i.e. bad things happen to good men.Some humor (and booze) is found to keep our protagonists sane.

The second Unknown Soldier is a lot more pacifist and anti-war but still a well made movie, it can stand on it's own. No previous knowledge is needed to view this, the characters are introduced to us viewers as they usually are, motives are found for actions.

This latest travesty (sorry) is incomprehensible. Series of scenes which are hard to understand. If this was the very first film that was made in 1955, would Mr. Louhimies work at film industry ever again? The reason being -This movie makes no sense UNLESS you have seen the previous films. Now that is bad filmmaking...

And the big question:Why did the soldiers fight? To survive? To save your friends and brothers in arms? The motive was not clear to me when I watched this movie.

Took me 5 tries too, fell asleep that many times.Won't get those evenings back either...