It is the summer of 1941 and the Finnish army has been mobilized along the border with Russia. A platoon led by Lt. Eero Perkola is waiting for orders to go on the offensive. The platoon receives orders for a recon mission through the wilderness around the Lieksa lake to search for possible Russian defensive positions.
- Stars:Peter Franzén, Irina Björklund, Kari Heiskanen, Taisto Reimaluoto, Kari Väänänen, Tommi Eronen, Pekka Heikkinen, Pekka Huotari, Tero Jartti, Rauno Juvonen, Arttu Kapulainen, Matti Laitinen, Petri Manninen, Kristo Salminen, Kari-Pekka Toivonen,
- Director:Olli Saarela,
- Writer:Olli Saarela, Antti Tuuri (novel), Antti Tuuri (screenplay)
Set during the World War 2. In the summer of 1941 the Finnish army crosses the border of Russia. A platoon led by Lt. Eero Perkola goes through the wilderness around the Lieksa lake to ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Ambush torrent reviews
(ca) wrote: Very...abnormal. What feels like the product of quite a few acid trips, the message of Trolls is nice, and the movie itself was alright, but it never quite surpassed that level for me.
(ag) wrote: Couldn't even get past first five minutes, poor acting.
(ca) wrote: Dull, pretentious crap. So, basically your average French movie.
(br) wrote: One of the Coens best
(kr) wrote: Hecha con 4 duros, Vivir Rodando gustara especialmente al que haya tenido algun contacto con el cine, y a los que no, la divertida narracion de las peripecias tras las camaras narra estupendamente lo que debe ser la odisea de hacer cine.
(mx) wrote: This movie is definitely one of the most underrated movies that I've ever seen. Not really a popular movie but the story is just great. Full of twisted dark humor. There's also a sick chase scene during a time when car chase scenes were apart of almost every movie. Cop movies may not be your thing but this one will definitely bring out a few laughs.
(fr) wrote: just watched this. good the whole way through. almost need to watch it again, to see things and clues you miss. very good movie. 3 stars in my book.
(ag) wrote: This is typical Disney. Unrealistic nature fantasy about a guy that studies wolves. I kept expecting bluebirds to swoop down, land on his shoulder, and start singing "zippity doo dah". If that's your bag, then this is your flick. Also suitable for a unsophisticated or more nave audience (think 8 year olds). If any of the 1st 30 minutes of this story were true, we would be watching a film about a dead scientist. It does pick up in the middle when he's actually studying the wolves, but then slides off the deep end during the finale. Top this off with terrible sound editing where all dialog is at level one, then the music or foley effects come in at a ten (or 11 if you're a Spinal Tap fan) and you have a most unpleasant experience. Oh, unless your looking for full frontal of Charles Martin Smith. Then you are in luck.
(br) wrote: Our favorite start of summer vacation movie! It's not Hemmingway, it Murray!
(au) wrote: It pales in comparison to Melville's earlier more intriguing crime stories. It has everything you'd expect from Melville: photography, editing, music, his cast (who I've grown to love), except this film is missing our ability to understand the characters and a lack of a good story. Like what Scorsese has become, a director recycling technique and putting something new out there that isn't quite new or exciting, but just more of the same. Part of the issue maybe was that I have a hard time believing in a character when Alain Delon is supposed to be on the good side of the law. Maybe I just can't quite wrap my brain around that possibility. The suspenseful thing about Melville is that he really carries out scenes of characters just doing things, prepping for a job, doing the job, escaping the job. It's done with nicely done camera moves, no traditional pulsing music, but just the sound of the given atmosphere. And also back when the editing wasn't flashy with cuts every 5 seconds to gain tension, but when the idea of something actually unfolding on screen in mostly real time was gripping enough for the viewer.
(au) wrote: Monday, April 28, 2014 (1964) Sance on a Wet Afternoon PSYCOLOGICAL THRILLER If viewers were to take the first half hour of this movie, and then watch the last thirty minutes should be able to pin point it's major flaw on the way they were caught. Written and directed by Bryan Forbes adapting the novel by Mark McShane starring the great Richard Attenborough as Billy married to his sance practicing wife, Myra played by Kim Stanley plotting to kidnap the young daughter of a wealthy family for a specific amount of money. If there's any reason to watch this, it would be because of the brilliant acting of Kim Stanley and Richard Attenborough, but in terms of consistency it would only get 50% which is the rating I'm giving it right now. Now, I would've liked this movie, had producers had not cowered into doing the right thing. As a realist, and if viewers are not made aware, the way the young girl was kidnapped in the first place was a little queer, since in this movie all Bill had to do was send the chauffer driver on a wild goose chase, and that was it. I mean, it's not like Bill was wearing a disguise upon talking to the chauffer before stealing his car with the girl inside, conveniently leaving the keys inside. And that their was no description made by the chauffer to the police or anything else for that matter. Therefore, the movie is asking viewers to concoct that part away just for a little bit just so the girl can be successfully kidnapped, and to me that isn't possible. Perhaps, back on those days a description for a possible interest wasn't even considered. (Spoilers) And viewers also get to see the correlation between the girl that was being kidnapped and the psychological connection Bill and Myra had upon losing their own child which the room they had used to keep her in was initially supposed to be used for their child's room had it not died. For instance, there should be more grasp into common sense about what child they had lost and how it had died in the first place which was never revealed. 2 out of 4 stars
(br) wrote: Great chick flick entertainment.
(ru) wrote: Forget the tecnical aspects, the fact that the sun won't burn out for another 5 billion years, and the thought of making a nuclear bomb the size of Manhattan AND getting into outter space; after all that is said and done and you suspend disbelif, this is one of the best Sci-Fi pics I have ever seen. Visually stunning, acting was amazing, the direction was on point and the story itself was filled with so much insight into the human psyche that this could have been written by a theologist. Def recommended.