Screen Scene: “Day Watch”

“Day Watch”

Director Timur Bekmambetov

FOX SEARCHLIGHT

(Out Of 5)

Thousands of years ago, storytellers were not judged according to their originality, but according to their skill in making old stories sound newly exciting. Though I doubt this movie will mark any sort of retrograde movement towards this concept, it is the freshness in the telling that allows this otherwise stale narrative to flourish.

“Day Watch” is the second part of a supposed horror/fantasy trilogy directed by Timur Bekmambetov (the first part being 2004’s “Night Watch”). It hails from Russia ““ where the franchise is ridiculously popular ““ and is based on the novels by Sergei Lukyanenko.

As usually happens in horror films, the forces of light and the forces of darkness are at odds with each other. Except this time, there’s a truce between the two. So to ensure the continuation of said truce, both parties keep a police force. The light side has the Night Watch, while the dark side has the Day Watch.

Our Moscow-based hero is the contemplative Anton (Konstantin Khabensky), a member of the Night Watch. In typically dramatic fashion, his son, Yegor (Dmitry Martynov), appears to have switched over to the Dark side (you know, like “Star Wars” in reverse). This is bad enough, but to compound the problem, Yegor’s prophesied mastery of dark powers might (predictably) change the fate of the world entirely. Will Anton be able to keep this from happening? The plot thickens.

The wonder of this movie is that it takes this setup and literally runs all over the place with it, courtesy of an incessantly active plot. Characters are always either doing something, thinking about doing something, or remembering something they did before.

Fittingly, Bekmambetov utilizes the entire spectrum of cinematic techniques with borderline-careless audacity, merging more-than-competent special effects with a restless amphetamine-fueled pace.

“Day Watch” is like a remote-controlled plane driven by a small wizard of a child who forgot to read the instruction manual. It careens toward all sort of genres ““ even skirting the farcical at the strangest moments ““ and succeeds at many of them. Yet often it bumps into the wrong note, leaving the audience in limbo as to what it should be feeling.

Throughout the film the intertwined hints of surreal strangeness, broad comedy and tragic catastrophe play and switch places with random glee. But should we be scared? Sad? Melancholy? Excited? Who knows? It’s all certainly entertaining. And that’s the ultimate goal, isn’t it?

““ Guido Pellegrini

E-mail Pellegrini at gpellegrini@media.ucla.edu.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *