Night Watch

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)

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)

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)

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)