A comedy about a veteran NYPD cop whose rare baseball card is stolen. Since it's his only hope to pay for his daughter's upcoming wedding, he recruits his partner to track down the thief, a memorabilia-obsessed gangster.
Juan Carlos Hernández
Danila Bagrov meets his army buddy Konstantin Gromov in Moscow, with whom he fought in Chechnya. The friend tells Danila about his twin brother Dmitry, who is a professional hockey player in America. However, the team owner in cahoots with his Russian partner have swindled the young star into an oppressive contract, allowing them to rob him blind. Several days after this conversation Danila finds Konstantin dead. In order to straighten things out and avenge his friend, Danila goes to Chicago... Written by
Serge Aksenov <email@example.com>
I usually read the 'Hated it' comments when I like a film, only to get a different point of view. This time though most of the comments just made me laugh. Racist? Insulting? Are you guys serious? I mean sure, there were a lot of parts that could be interpreted as such, but come on- they were in a context, they were supposed to be understood from a certain perspective. Sure there were many stereotypes, but that's not the same thing. Then again the characters expressing racist views- like Danila saying in Brat 1 he doesn't like Jews, or his brother shooting the Ukrainian ('You'll pay for Sevastopol!')- does not mean the film promotes those views. Maybe some people are hyper-sensitive and require immediate and thorough moral condemnation of every non-PC phrase uttered on screen. I for one like to watch films without the plot constantly reminding me of what is right and what is wrong, as if I was a kid- I can make the judgment myself. I welcome morally ambiguous characters, and I don't feel the urge to take offense at any given occasion. Also if this film was racist then so are 90% of American action-movies with their completely stereotypical and ridiculous portrayals of virtually every other nationality from Germans to Chinese. But we all get the point there. So what's wrong here?
On the other hand this was not necessarily a great movie. I loved it and I was entertained- but it obviously has its flaws. Compared to the first one it was certainly not very realistic- Pop star-girlfriend, shooting scenes, TV-reporter etc.- but I didn't feel they went out of line. Still its success is not due to its artistic quality, but due to that it's cool- which was of course the purpose and which is totally OK.
One final point. Maybe it is difficult for people in the West to understand the often exaggerated success that a film of this type can have in other countries- from Russia to Brazil, from Mexico to Turkey, or in Romania-my country. I have grown up watching mostly American movies, as did all of my friends, as did all my generation. I've never been to America and yet I've seen countless movies set in New York, LA or San Francisco, sometimes it seems I know those cities like I've walked their streets for real. And yet there are only about a handful of films about the places where I really do live; about the people here, about our point of view. Of course it feels great, of course it is something significant when an actually cool film is made locally- a mainstream film, with a little national spirit, with a little self-irony, with some making-fun-of-Americans well placed. It is still a strange feeling - for me at least- to see a mainstream movie with all the American action ingredients but with familiar places and familiar kinds of people who are speaking my language; to look at the whole thing as an insider. I guess this mix between the American way of entertainment and a kind of local pride is responsible for the success of a great number of films in many countries. I for sure liked Brat a lot partly because I could relate to the situations and the people very well.
5 of 6 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?