A Brilliant Conflict

I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

I write there is a spoiler, but actually, the story line is given up in the first minutes of the film, as a prophecy (hate those. I cannot tell the difference between a prophecy and a spoiler). And it is basically the old Moses story: oppressed people - Saviour has born - baby escapes death from evil tyrant - grows up, kicks his ass, takes his place. The trouble is that instead of a noble cause, like freeing the slaves, there is only crass nationalism. The goal is to replace a foreign despot by a locally grown one... The Kazakh longing to the old days where local tribes ruled the world under the rule of... Attila. This dubious moral is reinforced along the film, where local tribes foolishly prefer freedom to unity behind the divine right leader. No doubt Kazakhstan's 20 year "president for life" was an influential and enthusiastic "sponsor" behind this film. To the movie's credit, it is beautifully executed. Actors play well, action scenes are well done, Kazakh landscapes views are stunning, and costumes and historical rendering of nomadic camps are carefully made and convincing. There is even an exotic, non American centered scent to many scenes. These are the plus of the movie, for the scenario is entirely conventional, predictable and boring for anyone above 11. Dialogues, in particular, are indigent and inexistent, and characters are shallow to the point of being nothing more than a function (brave hero, loyal friend, loving princess...). The scenario, despite being conventional, manages to be inconsistent: the Kazakh are supposed to be submitted to the Jogars, so why on earth do those need to send spies, killers and invade them? The nomadic Kazakh king lives in a stone city... the Jugar warrior is about to storm the city, but stupidly offers a one on one fight instead, the evil king attempts to kill the prophetic child, but gives him many chances to save his life while grown up and having killed his best warrior. And so on... In the end, it is a movie with a Politburo script and imagination, but executed with Hollywood knowhow. The best way to enjoy this movie is probably to mute the sound and enjoy the beautiful pictures.

To make mistakes is something of the mankind, but to prevail with the error is stupid. Financial problems stopped the filming; one director was replaced for another and so does the crew; and the movie was released with delay. With all these problems the movie was made and the final result was a semi-epic in large scale that leads to nowhere. Prententious, boring, predictable and meaningless "Nomad" is another story about a powerful warrior that's gonna come and defeat his enemies in order to instate peace on his land and to his people the Cazakhistans. Obivously, it's gonna follow the same path of movies like "Rob Roy", "Braveheart" where someone brave fights enormous challenges and battles against his enemies to earn respect and live peacefully in his land but all this message was already used in many other films and it didn't worked here. Having recently watched "Mongol" (both movies are similar and "Nomad" even makes mention to the name of Genghis Khan) I watched this one, did some comparisons and both achieved in failing to caught my attention. The whole thing about the villain wants to kill the baby who's gonna be the future warrior was repetitive; all the movie is repetitive even the masqueraded fight between the two best friend (played by Kuno Becker and Jay Hernandez). "Mongol" was very weak too. This movies are missing value and importance because it's only a excuse to make violent movies and spend some money building incredible sets and it misses a good and more original story.The fights between the tribes are bad conceived, slowing down the movie's rhythm more than the dramatic scenes (which is good in some points especially when Jason Scott Lee is on screen). And even showing one of the most violent scenes ever made (a guy attached by four horses and then sliced in pieces, remember "The Hitcher" but this time the scene is more scary) this movie doesn't go very far with story or nothing.The choice of actors to play the main characters was interesting but it might be strange to see English language actors playing Cazakhistans with Cazakhistan actors. It was a good effort but if you want realism don't expect to get it with this film. Ivan Passer and Sergei Bodrov directed this disappointing film and one must wonder: Is it really true that two heads thinks better than one? Next time don't try to imitate David Lean, the only genius in making epic movies. 2/10

This is simply put, the worst movie I have ever seen. It ranges from like 2+ hours, and the box art was totally misleading. My friends and I rented it because, we thought it would be a poor man's 300. You know, to laugh at and make fun of. No. There is nothing funny about this movie, only pain. Then, the movie starts up, and they are speaking some sort of different language. We think, 'Oh its just the beginning.' But no, from there the movie plummets and becomes more of like a super boring book you had to read in grade school, where nothing literally happens for hours, and the battle scenes rival those of 2 kids fighting on a playground. Omit Cinematography, and this movie belongs in trash compactor. Movies like this will lead to the world we see in Wall-E, which by the way was a good movie.

Nomad is no different from American epics. Had the spoken language been English instead of Kazakh, it would have been impossible to distinguish this film from movies like Gladiator, Braveheart or Troy. It's just the latest entry in an overused genre. Still, I enjoyed watching Nomad. It entertained me for two hours even if I knew where the story was headed to, and that's all I demanded from it.Like so many other similar flicks, Nomad deals with a tyrant, the people he's been tormenting for years, and a "chosen one" who will eventually dethrone him. When he first hears of this, the cruel dictator orders that this child be found and immediately killed. Naturally, the attempt fails, and the boy is raised in a remote village by an old, wise father figure, a character clearly based on the Merlin/Gandalf/Obi-Wan Kenobi blueprint. As the years pass, our hero, named Mansur (Kuno Becker), becomes a skilled warrior, perfectly capable of leading his rebellious countrymen in battle against the evil monarch. While preparing for the conflict, Mansur also has to deal with his feelings for a girl and the effects said romance is having on his lifelong friendship with Erali (Jay Hernandez), a man willing to do anything for his country and, most importantly, his leader and best friend.The themes explored in epics are generally love, loyalty and freedom, and Nomad covers all of them them in a competent but predictable way: anyone who's ever seen this kind of movie will have no trouble figuring out how the various subplots, not to mention the big picture in itself, are going to end. But while it isn't exactly fresh, Nomad is a respectable film, its main quality lying in the visuals: the battle scenes are as great and gorgeous as in a Ridley Scott film, and the same should be said of the numerous shots concerning the eye-popping landscapes. In fact, with so much beautiful imagery (although a bit more violent than the average Hollywood blockbuster), it's a bit weird not to find the Blade Runner director's name among the executive producers, which do however include Milos Forman (the man behind the fabulous Amadeus).So, as usual, style prevails over content, but when it looks so good, why complain? Nomad is a piece of pure, simple, unadulterated fun; that's why I liked it, and the reason genre fans should embrace it as well.7,5/10