Comments on: Mongol

By: donepezil tbi

donepezil tbi — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 03:01:31 +0000

IG2z8j looks strange in opera

By: Evan Derrick

Evan Derrick — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:05:23 +0000

Thanks for dropping by, Nik. Agreed, the actor playing Jamukha was terrific. He easily balanced joviality with ruthlessness, and was perhaps the most fascinating character on screen. Asano was great, no doubt, but mostly he was just stonefaced and regal. Jamukha had real depth…you could see the war raging inside of him over duty to his own pride and love for his blood brother. Very reminiscent of Paul Newman’s turn in Road to Perdition.

By: Nik

Nik — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:53:59 +0000

I didn’t even know this movie existed until a friend called me up yesterday and asked if I wanted to go see it after work. Glad I did. Neither of us realized it was part of a trilogy, so we came out of the movie saying a lot of the stuff you guys are saying. I wanted to see Subetai, I wanted to see frenzied, mounted plains combat, and I definitely wanted to see 200,000 furious Mongols rolling up on the Shah who executed Khan’s emissaries.

But finding out it’s going to be a trilogy? Great news.

Now that I know that, I can see why the movie was paced the way it was, and I definitely appreciate the slow-but-sure method of building up Khan’s character.

That said, it’s true there were a few transitions that seemed to skip over major developments, and the most jarring was definitely that last “unite the tribes” jump.

Also, no one’s mentioned it yet so I think it’s worth noting: the guy who played Jamukha was excellent. He reminded me of Ken Watanabe in his good roles, with that same type of noble swagger Katanabe pulls off so well.

By: Luke Harrington

Luke Harrington — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:48:59 +0000

This really is one that’s all about photography and choreography, not plot or character.

Hmmm…sort of like if Busby Berkley had briefly gotten into violent medieval warfare…

By: G

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:04:02 +0000

I always hate using that old line about admiring not adoring a film, because it’s such a cliche, and emotional investment is simultaneously deeply important and so impossible to quantify that it can be meaningless.

But I do use the line anyway, and I’ll agree with Evan that far: I admired this film very much, but was never deeply moved by it.

That said, I might have admired it a great deal less on DVD…

By: Evan Derrick

Evan Derrick — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 01:58:49 +0000

To be honest, Daniel, it would be nice to see it on the big screen (the landscapes are gorgeous, and some of the battle scenes are quite epic), but if you have to pass this one up until it hits DVD, don’t worry too much. It’s more interesting than moving, and while it held my attention the entire time (despite a few sluggish sequences), I was never invested in it emotionally. I’ve read a number of reviews online and they all seem to share that sentiment (and Luke’s to a a degree): admiration, but not adoration. It’s the kind of film that would easily be nominated for Best Foreign Film but would never win it (which is exactly what happened).

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 01:49:14 +0000

Just…too…many…movies. Maybe I’ll finally make the effort to see this before it’s gone. Everyone’s been high on it, but I just haven’t made the trip. And I imagine this is one that has to be seen in the theater.

By: Luke Harrington

Luke Harrington — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 13:48:10 +0000

Evan, I have to say that I agree with G on this one, as his thoughts were pretty much exactly what was going through my head while I watched it. In any case, something like this is hard to judge on its own, without seeing the other two thirds (much harder than judging the first chapter of an “unplanned” series, like First Blood or Star Wars). I definitely got the vibe that Bodrov was interested in Khan the man, rather than Khan the conqueror.

And Rick (and Cinexcellence), yes you do need to see this film. It’s pretty fantastic.

By: Rick Olson

Rick Olson — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 04:27:15 +0000

Gotta see this … sweeping plains, rumbling hordes, mongols … what more could anybody possibly want?

By: G

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:30:53 +0000

Evan, I have to say I completely agree with you; the biggest and most disorienting jump is when he goes from freed prisoner to leader of a horde, but you’re right that there are numerous other odd pacing choices.

Your practical explanations might be right, but I convinced myself there were artistic reasons. This was a film, as Luke says, interested in some deep historical and philosophical topics, and also interested in providing some sort of explanation for Khan’s conquest. Him gathering a horde doesn’t answer or explain any of those questions; him sitting in a prison does.

That being said, I wish Bodrov had smoothed some of that stuff out, although I may have thrown up if there was a montage.

Still, an excellent film – and Luke, a great review.

By: Cinexcellence

Cinexcellence — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 23:31:42 +0000

Dangit, why don’t I have theaters that show good films nearby?

By: Evan Derrick

Evan Derrick — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:19:18 +0000

Great work here, Luke. I think the only thing I would add is that at times, the narrative slows to a crawl, only to jerk forward with disorienting speed. Bodrov spends absurd amounts of time lingering on what appear to be somewhat inconsequential details, only to suddenly teleport the film into the future, skipping what seem to be crucial moments. For example, we spend an awful lot of time dwelling on Kahn’s time in his Chinese cage (granted, this is an important plot point for future films), but then once he returns to Mongolia, poor and alone, the films skips forward and he suddenly has thousands of men and is on the verge of going to war. As awful as this might sound, in the interests of narrative coherency they needed a montage in there.

I’ve thought about why the film could be so disorienting in terms of its narrative structure, and I think that either 1) they didn’t fully anticipate the transitions needed to carry them from one section to another (hence their reliance on voice over and titles) in the script stage, or 2) they shot waaaaaaaay too much material and had to cut it down, resulting in a film that feels a bit more artificial than it should. I would be interested in knowing how long Bodrov’s original cut of the film was.

Regardless, I agree with you that this is one to see on the big screen. We don’t get ambitious, epic filmmaking like this very much anymore, and if people are willing to sit through some of the slower sections, they’ll be richly rewarded.