Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

This title COULD HAVE BEEN one of the greatest films ever made in Latvia (naturally after Zvejnieka dēls/Fisherman's Son from 1930s :)) but it failed. It lacked in accuracy, in clear storytelling, in fantastic plot turns the historical sources provided and acting.... The cast was really inappropriate. What was the face Mārtiņš' bride-to-be showed him when he returned home? I couldn't believe my eyes. And the personal battle between Mārtiņš and the villain mano a mano in the end of the film (as finalizing the war) was ludicrous. The history and events that took place were much more fun and entertaining in comparison with this film. There is almost no mention of Estonians (especially,) and other allies like British who helped to hold the ground. This would add the film international cue and it really was a phenomenon to win two superpowers with one blow - long-endured Germans AND Bolshevik and Imperialist Russians.I'm not saying - don't watch it, it will give you some sort of insight in one of the most inspiring victories of the inter-war period in Europe but take it with a large pinch of salt and check out some publications and photos of the Latvian Independence War first. A lot better Latvian history film (and entertainment) is Baiga Vasara (Horrible Summer), 2005 made by the same team this film was.

Okay, it's not a perfect movie, so what? Very few are. This film attempts to tell its story from a point of view very rarely seen. Of course, it's not entirely accurate historically, but then I can't think of a single historical film from Hollywood that ever was either. Besides, it wasn't meant as a documentary, but as historical drama, where very often some liberties are taken with the facts in order to create a more personal story. However, where it is accurate is from the point of view of the people that participated in this historical time. I should know, because I'm an American of Latvian descent, and I heard these stories from my parents, grandparents and older relatives. In the greater context of this film, these events happened. I found many of the negative criticisms of this film unfounded and rather biased. Personally I think it's quite a good movie, and in the context of Latvian film, it is better than most. I did not find the characters as shallow as another reviewer did. They are all portrayed as human beings with aspirations, human strengths and weaknesses, doubts, etc. So what if certain clichés are used, like we are heroic and noble, and THEY are bad, cunning and manipulative. One reviewer accused the film of demonizing Germans and Russians. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Hollywood been demonizing them in films for many years? Besides, considering the fact that historically speaking, when the events of this film happened, The Russians ruled the country, and the German nobility owned the land, treating the indigenous population as serfs or slaves. There was no love for them, and in the context of history, why should they have felt it? Should a freed black slave love his white master? Why? This film accurately reflects the feeling in the country at the time, including the internal squabbling that did exist. Those that wanted independence and those that were afraid that there were powers greater than themselves that could destroy their dreams. The movie addresses this well. What's with the fistfight near the end between Martins and the one-eyed German? A reviewer complained about it. However, in the context of the scene, it fit. Martins disarms him of his bayonet, and what's left is their fists. If this was a Hollywood movie, there would be lengthy unrealistic overdone karate fights instead, but this was how men settled it then so I don't see the problem. Bottom line, it's a good movie and the fact that it portrays a time in history that most people know nothing about makes it even more interesting. I recommend it.

Its not often the Latvians, like most of the smaller nations of the world, get to tell their side of the story and when they do the tendency is to make up for lost time. Aigars Grauba's Rigas Sargi (The Defenders of Riga) sets an ambitious agenda, the retelling of Latvia's 1919 war of Independence against the forces of Russian General Pavel Bermont-Avalov and German General Graf Rüdiger von der Goltz. Defenders focuses on the pivotal battle for Riga and the events leading up to it when Latvian forces, outnumbered 5 to 1, held on to Riga on November 11, 1919. The date is now celebrated as Lacplesa Diena (Bearslayer's Day), Latvia's equivalent of the USA's Veterans Day. Like Grauba's Baiga Vasara (Dangerous Summer) this is a big budget (at least by Latvian standards) crowd pleaser which doesn't aim for either subtlety or historical accuracy. It aims squarely at its primarily domestic audience and plays on some of their most firmly held mythology and themes and as such delivers on all accounts. Defenders to date is Latvia's highest domestically grossing film. The events of November 1919 are framed by a love story between Martins (Janis Reinis) and Elza (Elita Klavina). Janis, an idealistic everyman, leaves his Elza on their wedding date to answer the Tsar's call to defend the Russian empire (of which Latvia was a part of at the time) against German forces. As that war draws to a close Martins returns to Latvia, which by now has declared independence, and once again finds himself in the middle of a war. Elza unfortunately has gotten tired of waiting for him. While still retaining some strong feelings for him, her life, and she along with it, has changed and she's no longer sure of her love for the idealistic Martins, who once again is preparing to leave her behind to fight in a war which most likely can cost him his life. In Defenders Grauba again displays his talent for knowing his target audience and which emotional buttons to push. And push them he does none too subtly. The film's characters come across as two dimensional caricatures and the script sets the story in the starkest black and white, good v. bad, us against them, terms. The us are heroic and noble. The them are either murderous goons, incompetent buffoons or devious manipulators. This is not unusual in war films, but unfortunately, while extremely satisfying for the us portion of the audience, the film probably will not find much of an audience for those who have no emotional stake in either side. Having broken the box office domestically its highly unlikely that the film will find much of an audience outside of Latvia. Grauba, as in Vasara, certainly knows how to deliver a punch line, but the set up is unfortunately lacking. And it's the set up which makes punch lines most effective. His actors don't have much to work with, or perhaps its better to say that they have too much to work with. The script expects them to play to the last row in the house, and at that to the one person who sits in that row who is hard of hearing and near sighted, and play they do. The cast delivers as well as it can. There is real chemistry between the actors and when the script works, usually during its smaller moments which are unfortunately too few, the story comes alive and transcends its two dimensional themes. Overall, Defenders is a better film than Vasara and Grauba certainly shows promise. If not necessarily as a writer and director then perhaps as a producer. As a side note, it would be interesting to see Grauba working as a producer for such Latvian directors as Varis Brasla (Ziemassvetku Jampadracis) or Viesturs Kairiss (Leaving by the Way). By Latvian standards this is an epic film with a budget of $4 million and Grauba milks it for its worth. While by Hollywood's standards, where the average cost of a film can run over $50,000,000, this wouldn't qualify it even as a low budget indy, but by local standards its about as good as it can get. Too bad that once it leaves the friendly confines of its domestic market it will be lost on the global stage as a solid B film which international audiences wont find of much of interest since they have no emotional investment in the subject matter.

Of course, the movie wasn't perfect. Movies seldom are. Some special effects weren't as good as in big budget Hollywood blockbusters but they were pretty impressive considering 4 million dollar budget this film had (i think many will wonder how it's possible for 4 million only). Also i liked the fact that the main characters weren't some kind of Rembo who kills everything and everywhere around. It was clearly seen that these guys were ordinary Latvian people who made their own contribution as they could make Latvia happen. Love story (stories) weren't too cheesy also and overall the movie was pretty believable. Of course, as always there will be some who will shout against historical imprecision but in that case if all would be true to the facts, movie would be far from being so close emotionally to viewers. Also i liked the fact that the grand battle wasn't the most emotional moment in this movie and wasn't going on for a half an hour as often in foreign movies. Main emotional moment was the last scene in my opinion. You should see it, Latvians and foreigners too because everybody knows the story behind Troy, King Arthur or Pearl Harbor but this story is unknown to foreign people, story about little nation struggling to keep its newly gained independence after 700 years under foreign rulers.