It's a very enjoyable film to watch. It has good characters and an engaging story about a unit surrounded by a superior enemy force. It does get a bit too melodramatic at times, and a bit too manipulative in terms of pushing propaganda, but it never disrespects the audience. The plot is well written, and while the flashbacks do at times retard the narrative a bit too much, and come across as intrusive, the payoff is that these flashbacks really do provide a good backstory for the characters and make them relatable. The action scenes are quite impressive for a TV-film, and have a realistic feel to them. They are a real treat to watch. All in all, it's one of the better Russian war films. I actually enjoyed it more than the big budget feature 'The 9th Company'. I can warmly recommend it to anyone who has an interest in Russian and/or war films.

This TV series is advertised as "critically acclaimed". I simply wonder why because it fails both as a drama and also as the modern war movie. Its story is filled with unnecessary flashbacks and very lame propaganda - the Russian cigarettes are better than the foreign. The bad wife does not care about Russia, she wants her husband to be promoted. The bad politician does not care about Russia so his son wants to joint the army and his rebellious girlfriend hates the politician as well, because "he does not care about Russian people". The only positive Chechen character in the movie is the collaborator who had his own vendetta against the Arabs. The tone of the movie creates mix of false historicity, state subsidized patriotism and very cheap "heroism". In can be easily compared to the most pathetic Soviet Union war movies.What is most interesting, the movie tries to show Russian soldiers in so heroic way that they actually look stupid and inept. Privates do argue with officers in an incredibly redneck way. The officers have to repeatedly instruct them to do very basic commands which should be done automatically. The commanding staff seems to be inept as well, as they would not teach from lessons in Afghanistan, so the Muslim partisans may simply repeat the old tricks again. The commanders invent the plan that the patrol force on the checkpoint should first lure "enough" insurgents, then the recovery force will come to help. This plan fails in the most predictable way possible: Two insurgents with one Stinger will down one of the two Hinds that should cover the recovery force tank column. Then the group of old insurgents blow the car filled with explosives so they block the only way for tanks that might help the stranded soldiers. The command staff seems to be surprised and seems not to have any plan "B"! So the guys on the checkpoint are destined to die heroically at that point. They then decide to use their armor force (four BMPs) in the most silly way imaginable - they will let them run into the partisans equipped with LAWs so they lose all of them in a few minutes! The checkpoint is lost then an the only solution for the Russian army is to basically level it with heavy artillery. Fortunately some of the heroes will survive so "heavily paid victory" is here for celebration as it is usual in every bad Russian war movie.But come on - I can accept such lame military actions in WWII movies, because Russians really lost about 10 men for every single German. But who could possibly celebrate such losses today, especially in the army that was supposed to threaten even NATO? I mean, come on - modern army must be able to kick asses of lightly armed partisans in known positions easily. Why the artillery fire had not been directed to the advancing lines of enemy? (This is super old tactics mastered already in WWI!) Why there was no alternative plan what will happen if the single route to the checkpoint is blocked? Why the guys on checkpoint had not used their armor as "the mobile bunkers" to strengthen the defenses? Why the Hinds had no IR decoys against so old anti air missiles? Why the soldiers do behave as there would be no discipline whatsoever? Have the authors considered how lame the Russian army looks in the movie? The only guy who seem to be professional soldier there was the Chechen collaborator. You know one can understand movies like 9th Batallion which do happen in war already lost where such tactics were new and unexpected, but here and now it seems silly to use the same "twists". The Russians had great difficulty to stop lightly equipped partisans even with the help of tanks, artillery and helicopters. I really had the bad feeling that if these terrorists somehow managed to get a single tank then nothing would stop them from conquering the Moscow.Seriously, Russian filmmakers should just drop these 50 years old tricks from Soviet Union, crazy nationalism, "down to regular village folks" approach and the idea that "suffering for the country is a sign of heroism". It is not. The movie is sad, ideologically outdated and one feels sorry for these naive poor soldiers that are driven not by reason but only by emotion. What about making movie about some modern military operation that is prepared by capable planners and professional soldiers? I think it would not hurt the image of Russia even without plenty of self sacrificing soldiers...

Not having seen the full-length miniseries I can not comment on the merits of the original version, but the 2-hour version sold under the title "War Fighter" on DVD is really not worth the money you might spend on it... even if it's sold out of the bargain bin...The biggest flaw is the random editing - e.g. people who are in one place one second, all of a sudden show up in a completely different place the next moment; many scenes are non-coherent, with a little side-storyline being set up, then abandoned immediately.Assuming that the acting and FX do not miraculously improve in the miniseries version, the characters' motivations do not make a lot more sense (Why do the "bad guys" stand cheering in a line to be gunned down by machine gun fire at one point of the movie?) and the mysterious lone soldier (Shah) continues to do a poor people's Steven Seagal-impersonation (wooden acting and spouting pseudo-philosophical platitudes), I think I'll pass on the long version.

The movie starts quite well, giving a sad, darken atmosphere when the separatists attack the "Ded Moroz-fair" trying to set the start for a typically "one man with nothing to loose"-concept, but the rest is just awful. The cuts seem to be random, a leitmotif doesn't really exists and the dialogs could be from a discounted "ACME: Simple War Dialogs -Iss.1" (1,99$). Some scenes as the "we-are-standing-around-just-two-shoot- dead-on-exposed-position-and-stating-that -there-must be-a-sniper--scene" or the "happy-recruits-dancing-to simple-techno-music-next-to-the-trench-scene" are more than just stupid. "less realism, maximum patriotism" should be the expression of choice for this movie. (even every chechnyan looks like to have spent more time in the gym than elsewhere) If you liked the film "Target (2004)" and its "realsitic and enthralling story", then you gonna love "War Fighter"