Nomad: The Warrior

2005 "Courage know no limit"
Nomad: The Warrior
5.8| 1h52m| en| More Info
Released: 17 July 2005 Released
Producted By: Wild Bunch
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

The Nomad is a historical epic set in 18th-century Kazakhstan. The film is a fictionalised account of the youth and coming-of-age of Ablai Khan, as he grows and fights to defend the fortress at Hazrat-e Turkestan from Dzungar invaders.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Wild Bunch

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Rodrigo Amaro 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
justdim I am a huge fan of warrior movies. Some of my favorites are Braveheart, Troy, The last samurai and Gladiator. And after watching Mongol, which is absolutely awesome, and which i strongly recommend, i had high expectations from a Sergei Bodrov movie. But it was terrible, awful, even pathetic is not a strong word in this case. The whole movie i was waiting for something exciting to happen, but it didn't, then i was at least expecting a big epic battle at the end, but even that was a huge disappointment, just some random running around, waving with the swords... There are so many good warrior movies, this one is not one of them.
dimagic Pathetic. This is what happens when director comes to work just because someone is paying him to. The intentions were good, great locations and settings for a film of epic proportions. But the performance, damn! I swear, in some shots you can see extras on the background staring in the camera, or looking at the actors because no one told them what they should do when they hear "Action!". The battle scenes are so bad you wonder - are these people for real? They could've done more damage just by hugging each other. In the slow-mo scenes you can see people on battle field walking around or just standing, waving their hands. Only action in the foreground is somehow emphasized. But for what? The story is so illogical and discontinuous, it seems like random situations in chronological order, sometimes not even that. The dialogs are dumb, the love plot is more embarrassing and ridiculous than in Hong Kong action movies. With a budget of 40 million, and you can see every dollar invested on the screen, in best case scenario, the final result of all this enormous effort is a shiny round laser disk in the thin cover placed on the shelf in video store.
shwanzi I knew nothing of this film before I was convinced to see it by a friend who had heard it was a "non-stop epic battle scene from beginning to end". That couldn't have been further from the truth. This was one of the most boring, poorly written, amateurishly directed, horribly acted films I've ever had the misfortune to lay my eyes upon. I'd rank it up there with the movie I consider to be the worst film of all time... Battlefield Earth. There basically is no story, it's hard to believe that the makers of this film thought that this cheesy soap opera crap would be taken seriously as actual historic fact. It also features some of the worst dialogue I've ever heard... like this little gem... Guy tells girl "You smell like the moon.". Girl replies "What does the moon smell like?" OMG! You have to be kidding me! The scene where the guy was drawn and quartered got some good laughs from the audience since it looked so ridiculously cheap and the sound FX of the guy being ripped apart reminded me of someone making a fart sound with their mouth. If this is playing at a theater near you, avoid it at all costs. This movie is so bad that I actually made the decision about 45 minutes through that I needed to catch up on my sleep... and I did. Awful.