I just wanna remind the Letterboxd audience, this is a film made by a rightist-nationalist, who often made hostile xenophobic remarks towards the peoples of the Caucasus and Central Asia. Here's what he said about immigrants in general:

I don't like them [...] these people should live in their historical homeland...

There's a scene in this film, where the main character tells to a Caucasian:

"You're not my brother, black-assed scum."

Well, that quote is often used by radical rightists in Russia. Think of it what you want. Not to mention, the whole scene is a straight-up rightist propaganda. I mean the only time it portrays immigrants from the Caucasus, they are depicted as evil, uneducated criminals. Whereas a German character, as well as a literal neo-nazi in the sequel are portrayed as quirky, but good guys that assist the protagonist, who btw has no qualms about collaborating with the nazis. [The reason I bring up the German is because the movie also views his Germanness through the lens of supposed antagonism between Russians and Germans, constantly referencing WWII. And yet, in that light still chooses to portray him positively] In fact, if you watch the sequel, it becomes pretty obvious that Balabanov's worldview, as well as his "artistic" vision always boils down to the good Russians vs. the bad others. Ironic, considering his own surname betrays Turkic origins. Whenever Danila in the film talks shit about America, it's not just a fictional character, it's Balabanov talking to the audience. Say what you want about how well executed the film is, it's still a propaganda piece. It doesn't matter how much you polish a turd, it's still gonna be a turd. And once you start rating style over substance and denying the context in favour of the appeal, you're a potential fascist. I mean, I don't have to remind you of Riefenstahl and how her movies were received in the Nazi Germany, do I? Post Scriptum: When I first wrote this review, I had no idea it would gain this many likes. I'll be the first to admit, the review was written poorly, I didn't put much effort into it. I have edited it once since, but it's kinda flawed even structurally or in how things are phrased, so I'm not gonna attempt to fix it. However, I'd like to add a bit more context for the people who aren't convinced by my point: Balabanov, when speaking about one of his earlier movies, said the following: "The film didn't turn out well. The script wasn't mine. It was an anti-Russian, pro-Jewish script." To people who think the protagonist is not intended to be viewed positively, here's an excerpt from an interview with aif.ru: The interviewer:

"where are such heroes now?"

Balabanov:

I don't know, don't ask me.

Notice how he has no problems with the interviewer calling Danila "a hero". To expand on the quote I mentioned in my review proper: The interviewer:

how do you feel about the growing number of immigrants?

Balabanov:

Bad. I don't like them. [...] Most of them are dim-witted people. They hinder the country I live in. [...] It is wrong that these days there are immigrants everywhere.

In the same interview later he complains that the borders are too open and calls for a stricter control. In another interview he complains that in Irkutsk the Chechens control the gambling industry and the Chinese control restaurants and trade: Balabanov:

When we ourselves allow people with a completely different consciousness (which is more rational and strong) into our territory, it is easier for them to conquer everything. And they conquer. These are people of a different structure. They are different. That's how they are built. There is no use talking to them. You can't come to agreements. They'll outwit you. They can't be allowed in. They will defeat us.

The interviewer:

So what should we do?

Balabanov:

Either surrender or kick them out of here lawfully. But lawfully nobody will do it...

So many people here defend the movie, saying the prevalence of racism and anti-Western sentiment here is just an accurate depiction of Russia in the 90s, that you're not meant to agree with. From Balabanov's interviews it's clear that he adores the rural Russia (which he calls "the REAL Russia"), as opposed to the big cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg. In this movie the protagonist comes from such "REAL Russia", embodying Balabanov's own ideas of goodness, heroism and patriotic Russian spirit. He goes into the city corrupted by foreign influences to rescue his brother (who, like him, comes from the idealized rural Russia and thus is inherently good) from the corruption. On his journey he meets stupid women who are too emotional to stay away from corrupting influences and attachments. E.g. he gets involved with a woman who has an abusive husband, but after he "heroically" injures the husband, it is revealed that she would rather stay with the horrible husband than go with this "nice guy" protagonist. I think Balabanov views women as being weak and in need of guidance and protection from men. Which makes it all the more surprising how many women in other reviews claim to like the protagonist so much. If you watched this movie and still think it doesn't embody a repellent ideology, you're blind. There are more red flags than in the Soviet Union.