UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Action >

Nomad: The Warrior

Nomad: The Warrior (2005)

July. 17,2005
|
5.8
| Action History War

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.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Reviews

Matialth
2005/07/17

Good concept, poorly executed.

More
MoPoshy
2005/07/18

Absolutely brilliant

More
TrueHello
2005/07/19

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

More
Keeley Coleman
2005/07/20

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

More
nuijel
2005/07/21

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.

More
Rodrigo Amaro
2005/07/22

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

More
Rorschach02
2005/07/23

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."

More
shwanzi
2005/07/24

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.

More