Mongols

[Mr Pickles]

I thought the movie was great. I watched it on demand last night and I was very impressed. Movies that are about people from the past are really interesting to me, no matter how far fetched wise-tale-esque they are.

Anyone else see it? What did you think?

 

[KeithTalent]

It's Mongol, no s.

I have been waiting for this movie to come into my online rental place for a while now, unfortunately missed it in the theatre by 1 day. As soon as it comes in I'll be getting it and apparently it looks amazing on Blu-ray.

I know zin has seen it, hopefully he'll see this thread and chime in.

KT

 

[pontifex]

I want to see it. the trailers i've seen look pretty good.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Weren't they a WWF tag team?

 

[nakedfrog]

Is this a Blazing Saddles spin-off/sequel?

 

[0roo0roo]

well lets see. a large percentage of asians have genetic link to this man. yet he is portrayed in a rather different manner in the film.
his rise to lead armies that invades and occupies china, russia and would eventually reach the edge of europe is not portrayed in any real manner. he just time jumps and you have to take it for granted that he goes from a few huts with horses to a massive army basically. mongol society isn't really shown on a scale that lets you believe anything could come from it. the fighting is rather lame and cheap. everyone dies from a shallow torso slash.
the duel wielding cavalry tactic was especially laughable. the more you know about khan the less you'll like mongol.


much better off watching the bbc production. gives you more in 50 minutes than this film does in over 2 hours.

 

[puffff]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well lets see. a large percentage of asians have genetic link to this man. yet he is portrayed in a rather different manner in the film.
his rise to lead armies that invades and occupies china, russia and would eventually reach the edge of europe is not portrayed in any real manner. he just time jumps and you have to take it for granted that he goes from a few huts with horses to a massive army basically. mongol society isn't really shown on a scale that lets you believe anything could come from it. the fighting is rather lame and cheap. everyone dies from a shallow torso slash.
the duel wielding cavalry tactic was especially laughable. the more you know about khan the less you'll like mongol.


much better off watching the bbc production. gives you more in 50 minutes than this film does in over 2 hours.

I thought it was entertaining. Most movies of historical figures make up a lot of the details. But the historical outline is there.

Like you said, it did make a lot of time jumps. It's a two hour film already, but I think the director should've extended it another hour to flesh out those bits.

 

[Baked]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
How I missed the entire point of the story.

I agree, you totally missed the premise of this film. It wasn't about how mongols can possibly come up w/ that many people to conquer Europe, it wasn't even about Mongols making Europe its bitch, or about the details of how people can die from slash wound. Oh no, this film, if you read the subtitle was about The Rise to Power of Genghis Khan. This movie was all about Genghis Khan's personal life. From his childhood as the son of a Khan (tribal leader), to the betrayal and outcast, the collapse of childhood friendship, revenge, love, respect, unity, and greatness.

I thought the film was great. It's worth the rental if you haven't seen it. I'll give it 8/10.

 

[OCGuy]

Great movie. Put aside the historical inaccuracies, and you will have a good time.

 

[Homerboy]

I just watched it on a flight to LA. Pretty good movie I have to say.

0roo0roo, you need to lighten up a bit. Hollywood movies are not history lessons. They are meant to entertain. I didn't watch Last Samurai and think "Oh... so that's how it all went down." I love historical documentaries as much as the next person, but I do not recall anyone advertising Mongol as such.

 

[Cabages]

Added to my netflix queue. Should be good, always was interested in the mongols.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Homerboy
I just watched it on a flight to LA. Pretty good movie I have to say.

0roo0roo, you need to lighten up a bit. Hollywood movies are not history lessons. They are meant to entertain. I didn't watch Last Samurai and think "Oh... so that's how it all went down." I love historical documentaries as much as the next person, but I do not recall anyone advertising Mongol as such.

last samuri was obviously not totally historical. it had tom cruise for christsakes. and he wasn't even playing a famous historical figure anyways.

this was different. they are speaking mongolian and trying to appear authentic. and no, they weren't all mongolian actors! the lead guy was japanese. my gripe wasn't that it just historically inaccurate, it was that it failed to depict his rise to power in a believable way. it failed to depict the scope of his life and achievement. as for baked claiming it was just about his personal life...his personal life and his rise to power are inextricably linked. can't use that as a cop out.

 

[Homerboy]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Homerboy
I just watched it on a flight to LA. Pretty good movie I have to say.

0roo0roo, you need to lighten up a bit. Hollywood movies are not history lessons. They are meant to entertain. I didn't watch Last Samurai and think "Oh... so that's how it all went down." I love historical documentaries as much as the next person, but I do not recall anyone advertising Mongol as such.

last samuri was obviously not totally historical. it had tom cruise for christsakes. and he wasn't even playing a famous historical figure anyways.

this was different. they are speaking mongolian and trying to appear authentic. and no, they weren't all mongolian actors! the lead guy was japanese. my gripe wasn't that it just historically inaccurate, it was that it failed to depict his rise to power in a believable way. it failed to depict the scope of his life and achievement. as for baked claiming it was just about his personal life...his personal life and his rise to power are inextricably linked. can't use that as a cop out.

And so was Mongol obviously totally not historical. I don't see why ANYONE would expect it to be.

What does speaking Mongolian have to do with it? They spoke Japanese in Samurai too. THey spoke Wookie in Star Wars!!!. FYI Cruise's character was based on a real person (Jules Brunet)as was the basis of the movie itself too.

I think Mongol did a great job of showing the PERSON that Genghis Khan was and that he wasn't just some blood thirsty animal. It showed what most people fail to see about him that he was unifying Mongolia, not just trying to become powerful. I FULLY understood from watching it that it took his personal life to allow him to rise to power. It was pretty painfully obvious throughout the movie. I think you totally missed the boat.

 

[Excelsior]

I watched it the other day in 720p on my projector. I give it a 6.5 out of 10. The action was pretty good but overall the story felt disjointed. Like someone else mentioned, the jumps in time happened too often.

 

[zinfamous]

I saw it in the theater and was disappointed. Wrote some long post about it in KT's movie thread, I believe.

Previews advertise it as a completely different flick. I like that it's a different perspective on the Genghis Kahn of history, but the previews make you think this will be about ass-kicking Ghengis Kahn.

If you understand that the 1 minute or so previews showing nothing but battles represent the entire 1 minute of battles in the actual film, then you would be less disappointed.

Not that I dislike it....but I kind of want a flick about Genghis to include a lot of asskickery and whoring and less running away. If you're into extended running away sequences, then this film is for you.

 

[morkman100]

I thought it was pretty good.

I think some of the gaps in the story are the result of the director's plan to make this movie part of a a trilogy.

 

[Farang]

I really liked it, probably my favorite film of 2008

 

[Phiasko]

I haven't watched yet but a friend of mine think it's okay.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Homerboy
I just watched it on a flight to LA. Pretty good movie I have to say.

0roo0roo, you need to lighten up a bit. Hollywood movies are not history lessons. They are meant to entertain. I didn't watch Last Samurai and think "Oh... so that's how it all went down." I love historical documentaries as much as the next person, but I do not recall anyone advertising Mongol as such.

last samuri was obviously not totally historical. it had tom cruise for christsakes. and he wasn't even playing a famous historical figure anyways.

this was different. they are speaking mongolian and trying to appear authentic. and no, they weren't all mongolian actors! the lead guy was japanese. my gripe wasn't that it just historically inaccurate, it was that it failed to depict his rise to power in a believable way. it failed to depict the scope of his life and achievement. as for baked claiming it was just about his personal life...his personal life and his rise to power are inextricably linked. can't use that as a cop out.

And so was Mongol obviously totally not historical. I don't see why ANYONE would expect it to be.

What does speaking Mongolian have to do with it? They spoke Japanese in Samurai too. THey spoke Wookie in Star Wars!!!. FYI Cruise's character was based on a real person (Jules Brunet)as was the basis of the movie itself too.

I think Mongol did a great job of showing the PERSON that Genghis Khan was and that he wasn't just some blood thirsty animal. It showed what most people fail to see about him that he was unifying Mongolia, not just trying to become powerful. I FULLY understood from watching it that it took his personal life to allow him to rise to power. It was pretty painfully obvious throughout the movie. I think you totally missed the boat.

lol why would anyone expect a historical epic about a famous man to be accurate? you kidding me? genghis khan was a famous historical figure that had an empire. his character wasn't based on some "guy"... yeesh.

and thats the total failure. it DIDNT show what a person genghis khan was at all! all it showed was a fictional cleaned up version of the man. it didn't show him uniting, it was more like...man has a pretty wife...loses her, finds her again...yada yada yada..and then the mongols were united

 

[puffff]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Homerboy
I just watched it on a flight to LA. Pretty good movie I have to say.

0roo0roo, you need to lighten up a bit. Hollywood movies are not history lessons. They are meant to entertain. I didn't watch Last Samurai and think "Oh... so that's how it all went down." I love historical documentaries as much as the next person, but I do not recall anyone advertising Mongol as such.

last samuri was obviously not totally historical. it had tom cruise for christsakes. and he wasn't even playing a famous historical figure anyways.

this was different. they are speaking mongolian and trying to appear authentic. and no, they weren't all mongolian actors! the lead guy was japanese. my gripe wasn't that it just historically inaccurate, it was that it failed to depict his rise to power in a believable way. it failed to depict the scope of his life and achievement. as for baked claiming it was just about his personal life...his personal life and his rise to power are inextricably linked. can't use that as a cop out.

I think the movie had more historic accuracies than you're giving credit for.

Temujin's manner of choosing his wife - historically accurate.
Borte's kidnapping and Temujin going to war for her - also historically accurate.
His fairness for those who were loyal to him.
His intolerance of insubordination.
His belief that Mongols needed more law.
His acceptance of illegitimate children.

Note that these are all personal traits that are often swept aside when talking about his military conquests. I think the movie did a great job in presenting a side that most dont consider.

 

[jjones]

The movie was good, I liked it. The movie was about the man, not the conqueror. It portrayed the things in his life, the events that influenced his beliefs, which shaped him into this great uniter of the Mongol tribes, and ultimately into the conqueror he became. The message of the movie was not to show how he united the tribes and created his empire, but to portray how he came to be driven to do so.

 

[BladeVenom]

The movie is a decent movie, but it is a warm fuzzy Disneyfied version of him. The movie doesn't convey that he is world histories' most prolific rapist. Rape was his favorite hobby. 8% of Mongols are descended from him, and .5% of the world's population.

 

[LS21]

tried to watch in local theatre but missed it. its on my netflix q

 

[Homerboy]

Originally posted by: puffff

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Homerboy
I just watched it on a flight to LA. Pretty good movie I have to say.

0roo0roo, you need to lighten up a bit. Hollywood movies are not history lessons. They are meant to entertain. I didn't watch Last Samurai and think "Oh... so that's how it all went down." I love historical documentaries as much as the next person, but I do not recall anyone advertising Mongol as such.

last samuri was obviously not totally historical. it had tom cruise for christsakes. and he wasn't even playing a famous historical figure anyways.

this was different. they are speaking mongolian and trying to appear authentic. and no, they weren't all mongolian actors! the lead guy was japanese. my gripe wasn't that it just historically inaccurate, it was that it failed to depict his rise to power in a believable way. it failed to depict the scope of his life and achievement. as for baked claiming it was just about his personal life...his personal life and his rise to power are inextricably linked. can't use that as a cop out.

I think the movie had more historic accuracies than you're giving credit for.

Temujin's manner of choosing his wife - historically accurate.
Borte's kidnapping and Temujin going to war for her - also historically accurate.
His fairness for those who were loyal to him.
His intolerance of insubordination.
His belief that Mongols needed more law.
His acceptance of illegitimate children.

Note that these are all personal traits that are often swept aside when talking about his military conquests. I think the movie did a great job in presenting a side that most dont consider.

yeaaaap

 

[Noirish]

watched it on blu-ray.
thought it was very well done.

they did say it's a different perspective than the usual khan description though.