SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

nuijel 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.

fwomp Certainly NOMAD has some of the best horse riding scenes, swordplay, and scrumptious landscape cinematography you'll likely see, but this isn't what makes a film good. It helps but the story has to shine through on top of these things. And that's where Nomad wanders.The story is stilted, giving it a sense that it was thrown together simply to make a "cool" movie that "looks" great. Not to mention that many of the main characters are not from the region in which this story takes place (and it's blatantly obvious with names like Lee and Hernandez). If movie makers want to engross us in a culture like the Jugars and the Kazaks, they damn well better use actors/actresses that look the part.Warring tribes, a prophecy, brotherly love and respect, a love interest that separates our "heroes", are all touched on but with so little impact and screen time that most viewers will brush them aside in favor of the next battle sequence, the next action horse scene, or the breathtaking beauty of the landscape.It is worth mentioning that there were some significant changes made to Nomad during its filming, specifically the director and cinematographer. Ivan Passer (director) was replaced by Sergei Bodrov, and Ueli Steiger (cinematographer) was replaced by Dan Laustsen. In one respect, Laustsen seems to have the better eye since his visions of the lands made the final cut that we see here. Definitely a good thing. However, the changing over to Bodrov as director may not have been the wisest choice. From what I'm seeing here, the focus is on the battles and not the people, which I sense comes from Bodrov's eyes and not Passer's. A true travesty.The most shameful aspect is that this could've been a really fantastic film, with both character and action focuses. Unfortunately, the higher-ups apparently decided that action was what was needed and took the cheap (intellectually speaking) way out.Even though I can't give this film a positive rating, it is worth watching simply for the amazing cinematography work. But that's all.

v-i-p-777 A film I have seen recently that I really liked was NOMAD. It was directed by Talgat Temenov, Sergei Bodrov, Ivan Passer. It stars Azis Beyshinaliev, Jay Hernandez, Mark Dacascos, Kuno Becker, Archie Kao, Jason Scott Lee, Ron Yuan. NOMAD was written by Rustam Ibragimbekov. This film is a historical film set in 18-th century KAZAKHSTAN, where a young boy Abylai (Kuno Becker), who becomes a KHAN (KING) is destined to make one nation from three JUZS (GROUPS) who fought each other and free them from the Jungars. At the beginning the Jungars attack his mother and the Jungars kill everyone. But one man saves his life and teaches him science and how to fight. After that, Abylai (Kuno Becker) becomes a young man and starts to fight against the Jungars. Before he becomes famous the Jungars capture him. But the Emperor of the Jungars makes a deal with him and gives him a challenge. If he wins, he will be free. The challenge is that Abylai (Kuno Becker) has to fight with one warrior but it is his friend who he will kill by mistake. At the end he becomes a KHAN of all KAZAKH people and makes a KAZAKH nation and they fight against the jun gars together and beat them. But NOMAD is not only about war but also about the love between Abylai and a woman. A famous phrase of Abylai in this fight is 'ARUAK'. The film was nominated for a Golden Globe.

stormruston The reason I decided to rent this movie was because Mark Dacascos was in this feature. It was not his worse role by any means but he was only a Minor character, a slight disappointment for me on a personal level but really it only added to the movie as he was key in character development for the main cast.So on to the movie.The action was hit and miss. Some was absolutely wonderful, hold your breath type stuff,that generally was the one on one battles, some looked a bit weak. That said, this movie is no 300, relying strictly on action sequences to carry it. It had a great story to carry it along, some fantastic acting and beautiful sets. All in all a very watchable movie if you put aside the fact most of the characters where not of the ethnic background they represented. I had no problem putting that aside and just enjoying a great action/history flick for what it is: entertainment.