To be honest I was expecting a low budget bodged effort with lousy period detail and an awful screenplay. In fact it frankly puts most Hollywood and UK efforts to shame. The uniforms, T 34's are really well done and the combat looks authentic, reminiscent perhaps of Cross of Iron. 1944 highlights the sheer randomness of war both in terms of which side you would be pushed into fighting for and graphically who makes it through..... I feel it emphasises loyalty to the platoon, rather than any ideal and how similar one infantry man is to another. Themes of guilt run through story no doubt echoing Estonia's own history in this period, with no options to offer between the two evils, the men could be conscripted into either side. The film pulls off a difficult task in showing realism, brutality and forgiveness within one of the most unforgiving conflicts in history, whilst avoiding the routine white hats black hats seen in most war movies.

Solid anti-war film told from the perspective of the Estonians who fought for the Germans and the Russians, blends the violence of battles with the emotional conflicts when your country is a pawn between two much more powerful neighbors. This film stands with some of the better war films ever produced but has it's own voice. I liked how the film switched sides half way through and told how, in these circumstances, the only "winners" are the survivors.I would like to address other reviewers comments that this film is anti- Russian/Soviet propaganda. Outside of the Soviet political officer (who seem to be an Estonia communist rather that a Russian) and the mention that the Russians, after they invaded, sent large quality of Estonians to the gulags (a true fact), this seems to be the only negative reference to the Russians. And is it propaganda when the the actual plan of the Soviets was to conquer and turn Estonia into a Russian client state?.Are the reviewers actual trying to convince us that somehow the Stalinites were better than the Hitlerites? Or the somehow the Russians weren't equally as bad as the Germans? Estonians, at the time, forced into service against their will and having to choice between to bad two options did what they had to do to survive. And if they had to choose, would have with the attitude that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The idea to focus on the tragedy of the Estonians in this war is a good possibility to show how war destroys humanity. But focusing can also cause a wrong picture. Focusing on destroyed German cities like Dresden, could portray simply all Germans as innocent victims of the British bombardments.A lot of Soviet WW2 war movies have a deficit in not showing that not everybody wanted to fight for their ideas. But they all have one thing in common. The defeat of the Nazis is the core objective that unites Eastern Europe. This movie instead focuses on the reverse perspective as if none Estonian wanted to fight against the Nazis and all who fought were forced to by the Red Army.Somehow I get the feeling the writer tries to tell us, it would have been better if the soviets didn't advance back in 1944. A short research about the writer confirmed this thought a bit with his justified antipathy of the soviet system. The interesting question is, could the Nazis have been defeated without the Soviets? And if not, what would Europe and Estonia look like? Would there be more human rights till 1991 or could it have been even worse? Additionally, his often advocating for a stronger Nato in the Baltics to defend it against the Russians completed the picture for me. Sad to see this looks like a promoting for a new cold war.For those who watched the movie already: Just imagine, you would cut 2 minutes of this film, where the soldiers didn't want to salute to the Nazi. Without this 2 minutes this whole movie could have been shown by the Nazi propaganda to rise the fighting spirit by showing how cruel the communists were. There is simply no more disapproving of the Nazis than this 2 minutes. I would even go further, that this movie would be close to be banned in a lot of countries without this 2 minutes. Following the arguments of 2 other reviews I think victorious fighting soldiers in Nazi uniforms followed by 90min of soviet cruelties is not an anti-war movie! If the Soviet Union still existed, it would be a call to fight against the soviets! I strongly disagree with any building up of a bogeyman nowadays, 70 years after WW2, no matter if against Germans or Russians! Today's Germans and Russians are not responsible for WW2!

Nothing special really, a no-nonsense patriotic war movie which apparently is supposed to prove that almost all Estonians who fought in WWII (be it for the Reich or the Red Army) were top notch individuals. It would be unthinkable that a movie as simplistic in message as this would be made in any Western European country nowadays but that's what you get when you are not allowed to tell certain stories during the 45 years of Soviet occupation era. Most countries got WWII movies like this out of their cultural system in 1960s-1970s I guess. In fact the director has also said that his main message was to make Estonians proud of their country and nation so maybe it can be excused that the movie never really rises above this level in terms of plot and characters.The most impressive thing was the budget: 1.9 million euros. They did get free support in mass scenes from the defense forces but still the movie looks excellent for such limited resources.