Tali-Ihantala 1944: A review of a movie
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:07 pm
I went to see this movie last sunday with my father-in-law and my wifes grandfather (who kept reminding us that "I wasn't actually in Tali-Ihantala, I was in Suursaari fighting the Germans..."). We thought that the movie would be an interesting experience for him (the grandfather that is), and it seemed to have done the trick.
Looking at the "professional" reviews this movie has received in newspapers and the like, it seems that the movie has some flaws. The characters are shallow. Consider yourself lucky if you can remember the names of the people. And the reviews are 100% true in that regard. There's zero character-development. There's no real plot in the movie either. It just tells the story of a battle. The plot was written over 60 years ago by actual events. It's like the guys making the movie thought "why do we need to have a story about brothers in war, or love-triangles or some other crap like that? We have the biggest battle in Nordic history, that should be enough story for everyone".
Also, if you want to ogle at some pretty ladies, this movie is not for you. I don't think I saw ANY women in the movie. Not one. If you felt that the sex-scene in "Enemy at The Gates" was cheesy and tacked on, you can breath a sigh of relief: there's no sex here. Just warfare. This movie does not try to sell itself with sex.
So, so far we have no tits & ass, no plot, paper-thin characters etc. etc... And you know what? I don't care.
In many ways, this isn't a movie. It's a 2-hour documentary that's masquerading as a movie. I have read some literature on Tali-Ihantala, and many of the scenes in the movie are 1:1 accurate with what actually happened. A movie based on actual events that does NOT distort history? That seems to be quite rare these days.
I think that this movie is the most action-packed movie in the existence. There are few peaceful scenes that last for few minutes here and there, but other than that, it's warfare in different forms. Tanks vs. tanks, tanks. vs. infantry (was that an ISU-152 I saw in one scene? I believe it was!), infantry vs. infantry and artillery vs. everyone.
This movie has a budget of few million euros. Similar Hollywood-productions have budgets that are about 10-20 times bigger. And looking at the end-results, I can't help but wonder "what are they doing with all that money?". This movie can easily battle with the best of them. And what's more, there's LOTS of it. "Saving private Ryan" has great battle-scenes, but it spends lots of time building up the characters (which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your perspective), with handful of battle-scenes here and there. T-I 1944 does not. It focuses on combat. I could say that in "Private Ryan", Tom Hanks is the leading star, but in T-I 1944 the leading star is the battle itself.
My verdict: *****/*****. Just look at it as a semi-documentary, as opposed to traditional movie with characters and character-building.
Looking at the "professional" reviews this movie has received in newspapers and the like, it seems that the movie has some flaws. The characters are shallow. Consider yourself lucky if you can remember the names of the people. And the reviews are 100% true in that regard. There's zero character-development. There's no real plot in the movie either. It just tells the story of a battle. The plot was written over 60 years ago by actual events. It's like the guys making the movie thought "why do we need to have a story about brothers in war, or love-triangles or some other crap like that? We have the biggest battle in Nordic history, that should be enough story for everyone".
Also, if you want to ogle at some pretty ladies, this movie is not for you. I don't think I saw ANY women in the movie. Not one. If you felt that the sex-scene in "Enemy at The Gates" was cheesy and tacked on, you can breath a sigh of relief: there's no sex here. Just warfare. This movie does not try to sell itself with sex.
So, so far we have no tits & ass, no plot, paper-thin characters etc. etc... And you know what? I don't care.
In many ways, this isn't a movie. It's a 2-hour documentary that's masquerading as a movie. I have read some literature on Tali-Ihantala, and many of the scenes in the movie are 1:1 accurate with what actually happened. A movie based on actual events that does NOT distort history? That seems to be quite rare these days.
I think that this movie is the most action-packed movie in the existence. There are few peaceful scenes that last for few minutes here and there, but other than that, it's warfare in different forms. Tanks vs. tanks, tanks. vs. infantry (was that an ISU-152 I saw in one scene? I believe it was!), infantry vs. infantry and artillery vs. everyone.
This movie has a budget of few million euros. Similar Hollywood-productions have budgets that are about 10-20 times bigger. And looking at the end-results, I can't help but wonder "what are they doing with all that money?". This movie can easily battle with the best of them. And what's more, there's LOTS of it. "Saving private Ryan" has great battle-scenes, but it spends lots of time building up the characters (which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your perspective), with handful of battle-scenes here and there. T-I 1944 does not. It focuses on combat. I could say that in "Private Ryan", Tom Hanks is the leading star, but in T-I 1944 the leading star is the battle itself.
My verdict: *****/*****. Just look at it as a semi-documentary, as opposed to traditional movie with characters and character-building.