Add a Review

  • Tasku14 December 2004
    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.
  • Lindman's film shows a story of a Finnish platoon leader Harry Järv, who during the Fenno-Russian War of 1941-44 led several successful raids against Russian strongpoints. Instead of any artistic ambitions, Lindman has meant his movie to be a true-story documentary about one historical person. While the film is a documentary drama, it lacks the horror and excitement one could expect from a war film. This approach has its reasons, because the film starts from the period of war during which only small-scale action was carried out between Finns and Russians. The action in the Finnish front during period of 1942-43 mostly consisted of Finnish patrols making havoc at the Russian lines, Russian snipers annoying Finnish watchmen and such.

    The Finnish platoon leader Harry Järv appears in the film as one of the most valiant soldiers there could be. He is not only good soldier. He is also cultivated. He reads classical philosophy and is eager to share his knowledge with his men. As a platoon leader he is unlike those USMC centurions, because he leads by his example. He never says "go!" but "come!". He speaks with his officers and men both Swedish and Finnish.

    I call this film propaganda only because it is so clean, although faithful depiction of actual events. Lindman has had an intention to teach the Swedes about war and explain why Soviet Union did not end up as a new neighbor for Sweden. It was rather geography and not politics at all that dragged Finland into the war! It should be admitted, that there was much worse in war, more blood and screaming, and all of the Finnish officers were not like Järv. There was however, plenty enough like him.

    As a whole, this is a unique film. Not great, but good and serves well all those who want to know about history. Framom främstä linjen has many little details that didn't surface up during watching it for the first time. I only began to like the movie only after watching it for the fourth time. For weapon freaks this movie offers a real rarity: the German StuG IIIg appearing at one scene. The DVD should have had a commentary and/or trivia track, because only Finns are enough familiar with their history and nature of their army.
  • Finland was the only country during world war two to fight both for the Axis and then later against it, alongside the Soviet Union.

    This films focus is opening stages of the war which sees the Finns fighting with the Axis. That said, this film looks only at the conflict between the Finns and the Soviets. It accurately displays the Finns role as defenders attacked by the Soviets and their defense against a much larger enemy force.

    This is an interesting, well acted film. It pulls no punches in showing the horrors of war and its easy to empathize with the Finns, whilst feeling sympathy for the men who die on both sides.

    This film occasionally shows a patriotic side, especially in the latter half of the film. Thankfully, its not overdone and doesn't descend into jingoism. That said it is a little corny at times and some scenes of this kind might have been best left on the cutting room floor.

    In summary this is a good quality film. Its polished and well directed. the sets are top notch and the battles scenes are convincing and at times, shocking. Its refreshing too, to see films that step outside the US/UK mold and for this reason alone, its worth a look. Seven out of ten from me.
  • This is a dramatized true story about a Swedish speaking unit in the Finnish army, during the Finnish "Continuation war" which Finland fought against the Soviet Union, in 1941-1944 to regain the territory that the Russians had gained in their attack on Finland in 1939-1940.

    Don't look for an elaborate plot, bigger than life storyline or any romantic involvement in this film. It doesn't really have a storyline and absolutely no romantic subplot. This is a description of a group of young men on the front and their escapades. Everything has been done with the veterans to achieve maximum authenticity. If that means that the movie is lame, so be it. I find it refreshingly different. However one needs to appreciate before watching this that this is a sort of drama documentary.

    The director who is also the producer wanted to make a true life film while the veterans still were alive. He has done this, but some viewers seem to have expected a Hollywood drama.

    You won't get that. You'll get grueling scenes as they happened. I rather enjoyed this movie.

    PS. The fact that about 80 % of the spoken language in the film is Swedish also seems to annoy some, but not the majority of the local Finnish viewers. But what can you do, this unit comprised of Swedish speaking troops, so this part needs to be accurate also.
  • emppu-17 December 2004
    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.
  • 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...
  • Warning: Spoilers
    BEYOND ENEMY LINES – 2004

    This interesting war film is set during the conflict between Finland and the Soviet Union during 1941 to 1944. It follows the true life experiences of a regiment of Swedish speaking Finns.

    After training, the group are assigned to a quiet area of the front. The soldiers spend their time avoiding Soviet snipers. They also become quite good and raiding the various Soviet outposts dotted along the front. These raids are needed to grab prisoners for the intelligence officers to question. This helps keep the Finns up to date on Soviet plans.

    The raids continue for the next few years and casualties mount. Things turn desperate when the Soviets launch their big offensive during 1944. They are trying to knock Finland out of the war. All available troops are thrown into the front to prevent a Soviet advance. They cause such heavy losses that the Soviets sign an Armistice with Finland. They then withdraw their forces to send against the retreating Germans to the south.

    A rather well done war film, that keeps Hollywood style heroics to a minimum. The men do what has to be done to save their country. The Finns cost the Soviet Army losses all out of proportion to the troops Finland had.

    Of note here is the use of real veterans of the regiment to relate stories of their time at the front. The film is peppered with actual photos taken by the men. Well worth the watch.
  • stensson24 April 2004
    This film is about the real life Finnish war hero Harry Järv, who is still alive in Stockholm and started a career as a literature scientist after the war. The film starts in his home (?), where Järv, wearing lots and lots of medals, together with a friend who hasn't really that amount of medals, tell the beginning of the story for a young woman.

    When we move back to Russia in 1943 and the drama begins. Of course you can make a war movie like this, but it can be done much better. It is rather bad acting on many hands, although Ilkka Heiskanen passes as the lieutenant colonel. Although the battle scenes appear realistic, there is a kind of heroism here, which you thought died even before John Wayne did. Of course Finland's struggle was heroic, but the fact is that Finland 1941-1944 fought beside the Germans. They were brothers in arms. That might rise some questions, but hardly in this movie.

    One did expect more. No medals for the director here.
  • I am a collector of movies about war and this film is a must have. I got some other titles about the Finnish winter war and i love them. The last weeks i have been sweeping the Internet for someone that sells the movie but with no luck. Well, i guess ill have to keep searching for it then. I recommend some other titles about the war in Finland during the WW2.

    "Winter War" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098437/

    "Ambush" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0162625/

    These are two very good movies that i really recommend to watch.
  • ..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.
  • DVD was released lately and just saw this one. Åke Lindman, the director has made a life long career as a film maker in Finland. He started in 1944, when the war was still on. He acted furiously in 1955 version of The Unknown Soldier (Tuntematon Sotilas).

    In this light it is somewhat strange, that the movie is such a dull war movie, badly directed and worse acting. As a war movie lover and as a historical buff I was very, very disappointed. The soldiers are very nice, clean, almost cute and they don't like swearing. They fight calmly, intelligently, honorably and heroically. Russians have no role against them but do die. I bet the time has gild the memoirs of either Järv or Lindman.

    About the wartime politics in Scandinavia. I bet the Finns would have liked if their beloved neighbors, the Swedes, would have let the British troops, which the British Govt was sending to aid Finland _against_ the Soviets, through Swedish soil during the Winter War - so the Finns would have had a chance to ally with the British, not the Germans. But that must be because Sweden gave only pass-trough permits to the Germans during the WWII. Small country, which is forced to fight a war, has only so much options. Not every country can just maintain peace and sell iron and Bofors guns to every fighting side and grow rich, while others are being bombed.

    I give this movie 2 points, one for being a war movie and Heiskanen acted decently.

    edited addition: Recently watched another bad war movie, Windtalkers. Actually these two movies are very much alike in many ways.

    And there's no point to weap about heroism, bad movie is a bad movie, especially if it's message has something to do with heroism.
  • 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.
  • Yet another Finnish-Svedish war effort, this time another effort to depict heroic Finns and Svedes fighting those Russians. Could have worked but for obvious repetition of the same old trite cliches, same war depiction, same sound, same endless interchange of trench dialogs, battles, more trenches, more battles. Boring very soon. A bearded Soviet soldier was a very funny and unrealistic moment. They were never allowed to wear beards. Nope, never. Then, all those war scenes, wirh Russians attacking like a herd of cows so being slaughtered easily, while each Finn perishing is almost a miniature tragedy. No, not convincing. So, didn't persuade.