Straż nocna

The Russians are playing in the sandbox while keeping an eye on the creations of Americans or New Zealanders, and their end product bears a resemblance to those in terms of its fundamentals. Yet it is also somewhat less polished, dirtier, and sharper, and the mere sight of it evokes quite contradictory reactions. Timur Bekmambetov indulges without any scruples in all the tricks and gimmicks currently available in filmmaking. The sped-up and slowed-down camera, which additionally captures everything through dark filters, the excessively rapid editing that could trigger an epileptic seizure, and the sharp musical accompaniment full of thundering samples would make even the guys from Media Ventures bow their heads in humility. However, the screenplay, despite its potentially original premise, sometimes strongly lacks coherence. The connections between the characters often lack even basic logic, and as a whole, it feels incredibly chaotic. This, combined with the aforementioned storytelling style, confuses even the most attentive viewer. And the final nail in the coffin, in my opinion, is that it's actually extremely boring at times and that two hours is perhaps a bit much. Even though the number of main characters is quite limited, the only one who truly stands out is the main protagonist, Anton. He has something captivating about him and can genuinely confuse the audience with his actions in a style of "what the hell is he doing?" Despite giving it an average rating, it's mainly because everything feels somewhat "weird" (and also because I can't comprehend how the idea of Pan-Slavism could work when the Russians have completely different perceptions). Hopefully, the director will improve in the second installment (which I eagerly anticipate), and it will be much more digestible than this one. Чарасо? (07.08.2005)

Compared to the book, the film is terribly uneven, confused and simplified, not always to the benefit of the cause. I like the civilian actor types in the main roles, well-done intimate scenes (nice dialogues, jokes here and there), the atmosphere of dark Moscow... Things are much worse in terms of the visual aspects, which take place in the spirit of "give a Russian money and he will give you borsch". The horrible mess of hypermodern effects and camera tricks mixed with senseless accelerators often feels tragi-comical and completely kills the atmosphere. It unintentionally feels quite amateurish and clever. The action sequences that were supposed to be the visual highlight are therefore solid, cold, tasteless and odorless. The story completely lacks gradation and any sort of construction, everything happens in a strangely chaotic rush, and the camera doesn't stop at anything long enough for the viewer to create an overview. Nevertheless, a few scenes are nicely captured, the acting is satisfactory (I liked all the central characters), the music is appealing and the Russian desire to be westerner cool has some merit. I hesitated between two and three stars. Out of respect for the original, I round up to three. (14.10.2006)

Excellent in places, in some places unbelievably dumb, here and there a good idea, sometimes pretty lame and confused. Simply a standard offering, but it has ingenious technical aspects, it’s decently paced and has a likeable aura. The first half is a head above the second half in terms of quality. If the director learns from his mistakes, the sequel could be really great; particularly if Bekmambetov follows the path taken by the impressive books that this is based on. (09.04.2005)

I saw the movie again eight years later, unfortunately right after reading the book, so it didn't have the same impact on me as the first time I saw it. Still, it's still a movie to watch and again shows something different. So as I read my teenage commentary from "that" time, I thought I was being a jerk for so casually spoiling the thing, even though you can figure it out, that’s not right. And that's why I'm writing this introduction. Warning: teenage rant and spoiler follows. The movie didn't allow me to think much about why such and such was happening, as there was always something else going on. I didn't mind, on the contrary, I liked this "style" ... The best experience for me was the ending, when Anton learned that Yegor was his son, why Zavulon was playing Playstation and what the vampire with the disfigured face had to do with it all. The creation of the overall look of the film when the credits started left me with a thoughtful expression on my face, and I like that. :-) Just an interestingly expressed Russian view of the battle between Good and Evil. Mr. Lukyanenko, I'm going to go read your stuff! (17.10.2007)

The protagonist of the sci-fi story "The Perfect Robot" is diligently trying to construct a robot that would be equal to humans. He fails again and again, as there is always something human that robots lack. In the end, after a long struggle, he comes up with a solution. For the robots to be equal to humans, they must be damaged. They cease to be perfect and, just like humans, start making mistakes. A similar analogy applies to Night Watch by Timur Bekmambetov. In reality, this film has several shortcomings. It lacks a bigger budget and some scenes shamelessly imitate well-known foreign models. The main character lacks charisma and the script deserves further refinement. However, despite all these flaws, the film is very likable. In the United States, they would not be able to shoot a film like this. The hopelessness of panel houses, the dirt in the streets, and the austere environment of the power plant all feel authentic in the film. The fact that the film is not cast with movie stars also benefits it in the final reckoning. The film is based on the novel of the same name by Sergey Lukyanenko, which was already a big bestseller in Russia before the film was released. Night Watch combines two worlds - the Russian reality and American film ideas about the fantasy genre, taking the best from both. Overall impression: 60%. (08.01.2008)

A very inconsistent affair. On the one hand, Night Watch is a crazy, confusing, chaotic, and adrenaline-filled fetish and mess for the most hardened viewers. On the other hand, you have to bow down before Russian director Timur Bekmambetov because you will rarely see so many directorial and visual ideas and skills in one film. He managed to cram absolutely everything that contemporary modern hi-tech cinematography can offer. It’s a bit of a mess, but it’s not completely tragic. If they slightly adjust the ingredients (the script, the mythology), it would be amazing. (04.08.2008)

A rather demanding mythology of the whole story that, in my opinion, is better developed in the book version. However, Timur Bekmambetov captured me ten years ago, and I am curious about each of his next movies, actually enjoying them quite a lot. That guy wants nothing more than good-looking action, he is not afraid of the story, and overall, it's just rough fun. I'm in favor of it. Maybe I will finally watch "The Night Watch" as well. (19.02.2014)