day3.jpg
Back in the USSR, Don’t Know How Boring You Are

Day Watch / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | June 8, 2007 | Comments (30)


Russian-Kazakh writer-director Timur Bekmambetov, who has the second-most enjoyable name to type or say out of all modern international film directors (the winner being Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck), has let me down in a big way. My first exposure to the man was last year’s Night Watch, an epic horror-fantasy that entertainingly merged the battle for good and evil with a healthy dose of bureaucratic irony, and I was sufficiently impressed. Based on the novel by Sergei Lukyanenko, the film was a frenetic take on an ornately realized universe, and unique in its ambiguity regarding moral absolutes. The story revolved around the Others, a group of supernatural beings who dwell among us and are split into two groups, Light and Dark, and whose respective members keep watch over the opposing party in order to maintain an uneasy truce that was struck a thousand years ago. The first film followed Anton (Konstantin Khabensky) as he joined the Light side to become a member of Night Watch, so named because they keep the Dark side in check; the bad guys, pretty obviously, are called Day Watch. But it was that ambiguity, and the film’s willingness to flirt with the odd mundanity of what magical police forces would look like, that gave it such a unique sheen. And, well, Bekmambetov has pretty much shot all that straight to hell with the sequel Day Watch: It’s long where the first film was tight, it’s sloppy where the first film was focused, and it’s aimless where the first film drove powerfully toward the goal of unspooling a grand story. I wasn’t really aware that watching vampires blow stuff up for a couple hours could be boring — stupid, maybe, but never really boring — but Bekmambetov proved me wrong. Day Watch is one dull slog through a series of pointless battles set to unimaginable thrash metal and serving no point but to sully whatever small joy was left in the memory of the original.

The film picks up an indeterminate amount of time after the first movie’s climactic finale, in which Anton’s estranged 12-year-old, Yegor (Dmitry Martynov), was revealed to be an Other and chose to join the Dark side. Actually, back up: The film opens centuries ago in the snowy frozen waste of what I think was Eastern Russia, where the Asian warrior Tamerlane led his army in storming some kind of castle in order to retrieve the Chalk of Fate. The Chalk of Fate, despite having a regrettably lame title, actually has the ability to grant the user whatever he or she wishes by writing, granting Tamerlane near-infinite power for the rest of his life. Back in present-day Moscow, Anton is busy training Svetlana (Mariya Poroshina), who was revealed to be an Other at the end of the last film and has apparently signed up with the good guys. She’s also spoken of as a Great Light Other, a gift not hinted at last time at all. This is part of the problem with the film: It feels only tangentially connected to the events of the previous movie because most of the conflicts feel retroactively created. First the Chalk of Fate (man), then Svetlana having all kinds of super-superpowers, and then the addition of extra levels to the Gloom, which is a kind of alternate dimension the Others can slide into when they want to pass humans undetected, and which is barely worth explaining except to say that the groundwork for all this mythology was pretty neatly delineated in the first film, and now the second film isn’t embroidering on that story, it’s rewriting it.

Anton and Svetlana respond to a call that a Dark Other is killing people on the street: It turns out to be Yegor, exploring his newfound freedom living with the bad guys. Fearing that the evidence of the crime could be enough to get his son in trouble, Anton decides to help him out by sneaking into the Light side’s archives and destroying the traces of Yegor left at the crime scene. Anton has always been reluctant to bow to the authority of the supernatural laws that govern the Others, and his willingness to completely ignore those rules in order to save his son could have made for an interesting through-line in the film. But Bekmambetov never follows through with the emotional component, instead upping the energy and adding more plots: Soon after the evidence swap, a Dark Other is killed and Anton is framed for the crime, but then he also tries to get his hands on the Chalk, and there’s also some body switching, which is when the entire plot just eats itself. Night Watch wasn’t a somber affair by any means, but Day Watch has exchanged the former film’s darkly cheerful brio for what could only be classified as wackiness, and instead of coming off as an action movie with a sense of humor, it just feels cheesy. What’s worse, the slide from levity to laughable renders the drama that much more impotent. It’s impossible to care about the romantic and emotional travails of the characters when the entire film feels like a farce of some better, truer story.

Day Watch runs a full 20 minutes longer than its predecessor, and suffers from far too many plots with not enough direction on any of them. The first film was remarkably streamlined for the amount of backstory it had to incorporate as it followed Anton’s pursuit of his son across Moscow and attempt to reclaim him. But the sequel is bloated and overlong, and lacks the clear vision of the original. Many of the details feel the same — the English subtitles are still interactively rendered, often blurring behind actors or objects or changing color or altering themselves in other ways to emotionally match the Russian dialogue. But even this charm has been diminished from the first film, replaced by louder music, choppier editing, and some action sequences that make Jerry Bruckheimer look like Wim Wenders. Left to its own devices, Day Watch is merely a weak film, but when paired with its forerunner and considered as a sequel meant to further that weird and fascinating story, it becomes a crushing disappointment.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.









The Pajiba Monologues | Hostel: Part II













Comments

I loved Night Watch so much. I am crushed to read this review...guess I'll wait for the DVD.

Posted by: Sharon at June 8, 2007 7:27 PM

Daniel Carlson:Crusher of Hope and fluffy bunnies.

Posted by: Manny at June 8, 2007 7:34 PM

I thought Night Watch le sucked and the only reason I could understand what in the H-E-double hockey sticks was going on was because someone who had read the book was sitting right next to me. Before you cry "Philistine!" I'll give you full disclosure. The version I watched was dubbed in English. Apparently this was a HUGE mistake. Eff you very much, Netflix.

Posted by: rebeaniegirl at June 8, 2007 7:46 PM

I thought Night Watch le sucked and the only reason I could understand what in the H-E-double hockey sticks was going on was because someone who had read the book was sitting right next to me. Before you cry "Philistine!" I'll give you full disclosure. The version I watched was dubbed in English. Apparently this was a HUGE mistake. Eff you very much, Netflix.

Posted by: rebeaniegirl at June 8, 2007 7:46 PM

Oh crap.

Posted by: redbeaniegirl at June 8, 2007 7:47 PM

Noooooooo! I've been counting the weeks to the Day Watch release - and now I'll have to apologize to my friends for making them see it with me. Worse, they won't believe in the Night Watch greatness, if the sequel is as bad as you say. That's a damned shame.

Posted by: megan at June 8, 2007 7:54 PM

Night Watch was so totally overrated.

Posted by: Leaf at June 8, 2007 8:20 PM

I saw and liked Night Watch. That film was shot on a budget that in Western terms would be called "shoestring" (though I read it was a big budget for a Russian film). It went on to bust box-office records in its native country. It was more popular in Russia than Lord of the Rings (the Watch books are hugely popular there).

It sounds like the first movie might have benefited from those tight purse strings and uncertainty over whether it would be a hit. It was tight, visually busy without being overwhemling, and the story was fascinating--and easy to follow (I saw it with subtitles. I always watch foreign-language films with subtitles).

I had been looking forward to Day Watch and I hate to hear it was a dud from a reviewer who has seen and liked the first one.

Bummer.

Posted by: Jerce at June 8, 2007 8:46 PM

Night Watch was one of the most amazing films I saw last year and I waited so long for Day Watch and cursed Fox when they released it in the U.S. so late.

The car scene was the only thing that was entertaining. The rest was disappointing. It's a shame they screwed up a good story.

Posted by: Lex at June 8, 2007 9:02 PM

Okay, I think there should be a rule. If you make a really good film and somehow it becomes a huge success, think VERY long and VERY hard about making a sequel or prequel. And just because you can make a sequel/ prequel, doesn't necessarily mean that you should! Really, has no one learned from the Matrix, Star Wars, or the Pirates of the Carribean debacles? And, I was so wanting to share the love with this movie.

Posted by: Gigi Worthington at June 8, 2007 9:27 PM

Dammit, dammit, dammit!

An addendum to Gigi's rule: If a director makes a halfway-decent film on a relatively low budget, and decides to make a sequel, he should NOT BE GIVEN MORE MONEY. Small budgets are the grand limiter, especially when it comes to fantasy and sci-fi movies. If the budget is small, the filmmakers have to come up with ways to fit their vision into it; this causes them to streamline the really out-there ideas they might have been tempted to foist upon us and keep the crux of the story intact.

Samples of this "more money/more problems" theory include:

1) Equilibrium and Ultraviolet. Regardless your feeling for the former, you can't argue that it was worse than the latter.

2) Star Wars OT vs. Prequels

3) Matrix vs. Reloaded and Revolutions

4) Spider-Man 1 or 2 vs. Spider-Man 3

5) Superman vs. Superman Sequels

Basically, nobody should be given more than $20 million for a fantasy/sci-fi/comic book movie until they can prove they are competent. After that, they will be given bonuses for each movie they can make that aren't craptastic.

Posted by: Vermillion at June 8, 2007 10:17 PM

Well I read the book. Then tried to watch Night Watch, then went "huh?!?!" about 50 times, then stopped watching the film. I'm just going to say it: read the bloody book, it's about 37 times better than the film. The 17 of the 37 is just because books are generally better. I just invited film lovers to give me hell, didn't I?

Posted by: joker at June 8, 2007 10:48 PM

I loved Night Watch. I will go see this as I don't agree with the author's recollection of the last film: Svetlana was shown to have great but unknown power, I'm sure "Chalk of Fate" translates less lamely in Russian...and it is just a concept - you don't have to get hung up by words/bad translation, and on a site where twee rules I'm not scared off by "unimaginable thrash metal", a phrase which kind of makes me feel sick inside. Also, someone here claimed that 28 Weeks Later might be better than 28 Days Later; a claim we now know to be fraudulent.

This may not be a masterwork, but I look forward to seeing a different take on light/dark fantasy/scifi tale before the imminent crapfest that is Harry Potter.

Whatever, let's just go see Waitress again!

Posted by: seth at June 9, 2007 2:31 AM

It runs in my mind that the CHALK OF DESTINY was mentioned at the beginning of Night Watch. Because I remember laughing really hard about it.

Posted by: Rob at June 9, 2007 12:21 PM

Vermillion, though you make great points and I agree with your post pretty much 100%, I'd like to point out that, according to Wikipedia, Day Watch was given the same $4.2 million budget as the original Night Watch. I can't comment on the quality of either film (not being familiar with either), but the budgets were identical.

Though I could be wrong on this. Anyone who's more in the know than myself, feel free to kick my ass, then correct me. Coz it's not like Wikipedia is always an entirely reliable source of info... But that's a whole nother subject altogether.

Anyway, great review, Daniel. I missed the boat on Night Watch, but this review and its praise for the original film has elevated my interest. A drunken Netflix some time in the near feature mebbe? Sounds like a date.

Pity the sequel couldn't live up.

Posted by: Gina at June 9, 2007 12:27 PM

Dammit. I was so anxious to see this one.

It doesn't much matter anyhow, because I live in BFE and it will probably never come here anyhow. I've been trying to figure out release dates/cities for this movie, but the official website hasn't been helpful. Any suggestions, y'all? I think I still want to give it a shot...

Posted by: big red at June 9, 2007 1:07 PM

awww, man! i was really looking forward to this movie, and now i don't even want to watch it.
booooo-urns.

Posted by: sme at June 9, 2007 6:39 PM

I'm just going to say it: read the bloody book, it's about 37 times better than the film. The 17 of the 37 is just because books are generally better. I just invited film lovers to give me hell, didn't I?

That was exactly what I wanted to ask: If the second film is bad, can I go to the book. Afterall if there's a good story out there, then I don't care what the medium is.

Small budgets are the grand limiter

My favourite example of this is in Buffalo Soldiers where the psycho dad follows his daughter on her date. They were planning to have a huge car chase scene on the motorway to shake him off. Then they ran out of money and changed it to him wearing white trainers and not being allowed into the night club!

Posted by: ChrisD at June 9, 2007 6:57 PM

Saw this, was totally bummed due to my massive love for Nightwatch. It had some neat moments but overall it was so lacking compared to the first. But I had no problem with looking at Konstantin Khabensky for a couple of hours. Tasty.

Posted by: chriso at June 9, 2007 10:03 PM

Ok... I totally disagree with your review Daniel! So much so, that I'm actually writing for the first time ever, to say so...

As an avid reader of Pajiba, I often take your reviews as gospel... Pajiba has saved me from many a bad movie, like "Marie Antoinette" (spelling?) even though I was forced to endure the movie visually on a trip back from China, groggy and out of my mind from the jet lag.

I actually think this movie builds upon Night Watch. Visually, I think it's on par with the first film, the opening scene circling what looks like a mountain range, which turns out to be the Chalk of Fate, was simple, but kick ass, and I wasn't even high.

The addition of another level of the Gloom, helps to separate the regular "Others" like Anton, from the "Great Others" like Svetlana. I also liked how they also show how, just because they are "Others" doesn't mean they don't have to practice at it. And the thrash metal music is similar to the music of the first film, though the heavy drums are new to the soundtrack. The film does move a little slower with all the additional plot lines, but I think they help to emphasis the main plot of Anton trying to do right by his son.

Really, if you liked Night Watch, you need to see Day Watch, even if you turn out to hate it, because of the massive cliffhanger at the end of the film, leading up to Dusk Watch.

I actually saw both films within a week of each other, thanks to the power of the internet and I've been waiting almost a year now, for Dusk Watch to come out...

Posted by: Matt at June 9, 2007 11:51 PM

Manny - told you so.

Doesn't matter whether or not you watch it dubbed or subtitled - it's still incredibly dull. I suppose I can admire the concept, but this (and Nightwatch, which was equally dull, derivative and shallow) was just... well, just not a good movie.

Posted by: TK at June 10, 2007 7:33 AM

I too, disagree with this review. I saw Day Watch months ago thanks to the local independent video store. While not as good as Night Watch, it was still a very enjoyable film. I had high hopes for it, and I didn't feel disappointed.

My only problem with it was the deus ex machina ending. It tied things up, but it left the storyline in a very odd chronological place. It annoyed me. I've got absolutely no idea how the trilogy is going to be cohesive after that ending, but Dammit, I'm anxious to see Dusk Watch to find out.

Posted by: Melissa at June 10, 2007 7:49 PM

While reading a review trashing the movie i could not help notice a banner advertising the movie . that is irony at its finest . i might not spell well (hahahaha)but check it out they say the movie sucks yet here they are advertising for it . Way to get your point across this movie is a waste of time dont see it . wait a minute they already paid us to tell you to go see it. :)

Posted by: gil at June 11, 2007 2:51 AM

gil - the site doesn't get to choose the ads. Do a little homework first.

Posted by: TK at June 11, 2007 9:09 AM

I don't care wether you liked the film or not, but do please get your facts straight.

Before you go bitching about what happens to a director when he get a big budget, take the time to find out what the heck you are talking about. Bekmambetov made Nightwatch for around 4 million and turned around and immediately made Daywatch for around 5 million. Both films were made on a shoestring budget by American standards. Save bitching about the money at least until the 3rd film comes out, that one is being financed by Fox Searchlight and will have an astronomical budget.

Posted by: Mouse at June 11, 2007 10:16 AM

Ok, I loved Nightwatch, loved loved loved it. I couldn't wait to go see Daywatch. Ugh, what an utter dissapointment. It was crap, embarassing crap. The body switching scenes, where they realize they "love" eachother, ugh, it was so cornball.

Some of the movie was still good, but most of it was utter crap. It was no where as good as Nightwatch.

****Spoiler

And the big battle between the two great others? what a let down.

Posted by: lea at June 11, 2007 12:02 PM

Man, I *really* can't believe the wonderful things you wrote about Night Watch. Apparently we saw two completely different movies, or else the Russian film industry just paid your rent for the next decade. I looked forward to the movie for *months* befor eit was released here on DVD. I even watched that crap twice to try and understand it, and all I got was about 3 pages worth of story and EONS of needless special effects (bolt from airplane falling down a ventilation shaft, ..... anyone?). Apparently, somebody got their first taste of CGI and just puldn't put it down. Honest to God, all it needed to be a complete piece of shit was Anna Nicole Smith in a starring role.


So far, the story is totally trite -- pretty much the basis of everty contemporary fantasy novel, but with extra pretentiousness thrown in. The ONLY reason the first one got any attention was that it was the (second?) movie to come out Russia in decades. If that's the shit they're sending us, I call for a trade embargo. If that had been a US production, it would've been straight to DVD and disappeared into the cut-out bins as WalMart.


I think they should re-release it on DVD with a new name "Who Gives a Fuck Watch". Then the sequels could be "Nobody", followed up with "eh, just forget it..."

Russell

Posted by: Russell at June 11, 2007 1:08 PM

Russell:

Amen, brother. A-fucking-men.

If that's the shit they're sending us, I call for a trade embargo. If that had been a US production, it would've been straight to DVD and disappeared into the cut-out bins as WalMart.

That's good shit right there.

Posted by: TK at June 11, 2007 2:41 PM

I enjoyed Night Watch, so much so that when my old roommate downloaded Day Watch on his computer last year (sans the cool subtitles), I watched it hoping it would be great. I was pretty disappointed. I don't really remember why I was disappointed, but it has been quite some time since then.

Anyway, the rumor last year was that the director was forced to make the last two movies into one movie, which is why Day Watch sucked. People have mentioned Dusk Watch, so maybe the rumors were wrong. Does anyone know for sure if there really will be a third movie?

Posted by: Nanook at June 16, 2007 6:53 PM

Hey Russell and TK, just a quick clarification. The Russian film industry didn't make this movie for export to America. It wasn't made specifically for US audiences or film tastes. Get over your own hubris of American self importance because the Russians can say the same for 90% of the movies that are exported from the US. Keep your crap US movies in the US, they are not welcome.

Posted by: G40 at June 18, 2007 1:20 PM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time