IMDb user comments for
Nomad (2005/II)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Index

26 comments in total

---

15 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Beautiful photography, sweet action, and it's in English!, 17 March 2007

Author: Deepfried-Egg from U.S. of A.

Other reviewers before me saw this in Kazak language with English subtitles. My review is for the English version which was released in 40 US theaters this weekend. Only the greetings were in the Kazak language. Being a fan of Hong Kong flicks, I've seen my fair share of bad dubbing, and I could not tell that this was dubbed, period! Maybe it wasn't as most of the main actors are American. It was a wonderfully filmed historical epic that contains some minor ripoffs from Return to Snowy River, Gladiator and Musa(2001), but those scenes worked very well. If you're a fan of warriors on horseback this is definitely a must see for you. To be honest I wasn't expecting it to be so good, and the only reason I drove out of my way to see it was because Mark Dacascos was in it. He plays a menacing warrior and was definitely cast well as his character! Way to go Mark! The girls in this flick are pretty and their acting is well done! This film is definitely soft on the eyes and full of epic eye candy. They spent the 40 million production dollars well. The actors' performances were believable even the unknowns. My only complaint with this film is the 2 main heroes. You could tell they'd been trained well with sword fighting as I'm sure Jason Scott Lee and Mark helped out with that. But I really didn't think the two main heroes were cast well as Kazaks seeing how most everyone else in the film at least looked half Oriental including the Kazaks. Aside from that, I have no complaints and only praise for this foul-language-free and nudity-free sweeping historical epic shot on location which is a definite plus in my book!

---

15 out of 22 people found the following comment useful :-
A visually spectacular, but far from original epic, 28 January 2007

Author: Max_cinefilo89 from Italy

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

---

23 out of 39 people found the following comment useful :-
Review on Kazak version of "Nomad", 31 March 2006

Author: QAZAQ_Qasqir from Kazakstan

Overall, the movie is not bad, but, in my opinion, it could have been better.

I don't think that this movie truly exposes the theme of Kazak nomads and their 300-year struggle against Jongar (Oirat) aggressors. I'm quite disappointed here.

But for non-Kazaks, the movie can make a whole different impression. They may like it a lot, because of the 'freshness' of Central-Asian nomadic theme in the international cinema.

Let's wait for the American (international) version of the movie. I believe it will be in some ways different from the Kazak version.

P.S. For those in Kazakstan, I recommend to watch old Kazak-Soviet movies like "Batyr Bayan", "Jawshy" (Gonets), and "Qyz Jibek". These are one of the few movies that truly show the essence of Kazak nomadism and Kazak-Jongar wars.

---

7 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Good historical war film, 3 October 2007

Author: RedKnight07 from United States

If you've seen all the Hollywood blockbuster war films and are looking for more, this is an interesting period film with loving care put into costumes and sets. True, it didn't have a huge budget, but they clearly put a lot of time into it. If you only want blockbusters, you can skip this film. But if you want to see some history (and learn a little, too, if you're not Khazakh), then it's worth watching. It might be noted that Mansur appears to be an important historical figure for Khazakh - and a lot of their national agencies are listed in the credits. This makes it historical in more than one way - such a film probably wouldn't have been possible during the days of the USSR.

---

5 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Scenery/Action Over Character ...A Shame, 29 January 2008

Author: fwomp from United States

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.

---

5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Not one of the greats but a delightful movie, 25 August 2007

Author: rlange-3 from United States

The setting, cinematography, and historical period really are unique to movies that I have seen, and while not on a "cast of thousands" scope, sufficiently epic to provide a thoroughly entertaining film. One can quibble with the acting, and the slightly less than superlative battle scenes but this is a war movie worthy of an entertaining and at least moderately educational evening.

I hope we see a lot more movies focusing on the less common historical periods and places. It is better to build on a movie like this and seek improvement than to tear it down over relatively minor drawbacks. The scenery alone is worth the cost of a rental.

---

6 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
According to the DVD case, "One Enormous Action Sequence After Another", 4 September 2007

Author: Rorschach02 from United States

Yeah, right.

I spent the first hour waiting patiently for the movie to take off. It was horribly boring, and consisted mostly of people riding randomly around the hills with no apparent direction. Then the hero comes into the picture. Born as an Asian, but when he grew up, he became white. Obviously white. He wasn't even close to passing for Asian. He looked like Justin Timberlake. It was extremely distracting, and the story did nothing to help the cause. Pointless battle sequences and lame dialogue. It's an hour and forty five minutes long, and by the end I was trying to eat my own face. I watched this because people at the video store where I work are always asking me if this movie is any good. Now I have an answer. It goes something like this: ahem. "NO! GOOD GOD NO! IT'S HORRIBLE! DON'T DO THIS TO YOURSELF! I would recommend another movie, perhaps one that's entertaining."

---

6 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Not a terrible "epic" style movie., 3 August 2007

Author: Zor Prime from United States

I would argue that there weren't many genuinely original concepts, other than simply shedding some light on Kazakh history. Basically a live action, feel-good version of the Prince of Egypt cartoon, trading Egyptians and Hebrews for nomadic Muslims. But that being said, it was decent and crisp.

Filming locations seemed really great, like LOTR - The Two Towers without any need for CGI! As for rating/violence, it could have almost been PG13 in the US, but I liked this fact. It was a clean-ish film that likens back to the spaghetti western. No over-the-top violence, sex, swearing, or embellishing for the sake of a Hollywood audience. While this generally comes off slightly cartoonish, it was refreshing.

As for the language, I would swear that it seemed to be filmed in English and dubbed in Kazakh. In fact, I don't usually mind a dubbed movie (especially Spanish or Japanese for some reason), but half-way through this film, I realized there was an English audio track and switched it over, and I was more engaged.

The horse work was pretty amazing, I thought.

Again, overall, this film seemed to have all the filming quality of an expensive Hollywood movie, but brought a niceness that's less common in contemporary film (Note: guaranteed NOT to hold the attention of most American youth).

---

the worst, 3 September 2008

Author: corybrox from United States

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.

---

1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
awesome, 20 November 2007

Author: v-i-p-777 from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

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.

---

---

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Ratings	Awards	External reviews
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history