Review: Mongol
Filed under: Foreign Language, New Releases, Theatrical Reviews, New in Theaters
In an early scene in Iron Man, one of the evil terrorists makes a speech about Genghis Khan, explaining how impressive it was that he managed to take over so much of the world given the technological drawbacks of his time. That one moment says a lot more about the real Genghis Khan than the entire, bloated 126 minutes of Mongol. Directed by Sergei Bodrov (Prisoner of the Mountains), Mongol does a lot of "sweeping." It moves from sweeping vistas to sweeping battles and when it stops sweeping, it really has no idea what to do; it merely waits for the next opportunity to sweep. In one scene, our hero, Temudjin (Tadanobu Asano), returns to his family after some time in captivity, and he has brought his new bride with him. Bodrov films a quiet dinner scene inside a tent, but he's so impatient and restless over such an "ordinary" scene that the dialogue mainly consists of, "isn't it great to have Temudjin home again?" The film can't wait to get back outside and start sweeping again.
Of course, most people like "sweeping." It carries with it an implication of grandeur and greatness, even if it signifies nothing. So far the film has received stellar reviews and even wound up with an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Language film. Our own Eric D. Snider's review (from the Portland Film Fest) seems politely appreciative but not enthusiastic, as if it were verboten to actually give a movie this big a bad review. Inside all this impressive hugeness, we have the story of Genghis Khan, or the Genghis Khan-to-be, since this is the first part of a proposed trilogy (it's the Phantom Menace of the Khan story). He's mostly called Temudjin. We meet him as a child (Odnyam Odsuren) in the year 1172 when his powerful father takes him to choose a bride. His choice offends another tribe and starts a war. His father is murdered and young Temudjin is hunted and hounded. He meets a young prince, Jamukha, and the two become blood brothers.
He's captured and escapes (several times; I lost count) and during one escape, he finds his now-grown bride Borte (Khulan Chuluun). Then she's captured, and Temudjin and Jamukha (Honglei Sun) declare war to get her back. Everyone keeps telling Temudjin that it's not worth going to so much trouble for a woman, and that a horse is far more crucial to a man in Mongolia. But Temudjin and Borte's love is pure, perhaps a little too pure for my tastes. Their tale smacks more of legends and tall tales than anything really romantic or organic. Eventually Temudjin and Jamukha have a falling out, and the final battle is between the former blood brothers, each with their own giant army. Oh yeah... before that, Temudjin is captured and escapes yet again.
In essence, we're not talking the world's greatest storytelling here. Director Bodrov depicts his Genghis Khan as a pure, innocent soul, driven to his violence and misdeeds only because of the harshness and cruelty of the world around him. He's not angry or crazy or anything. He's not weird or obsessed like Lawrence of Arabia, nor is he driven like El Cid. Really, he'd just like to be left alone. If a hero is to deserve of this much spectacle, he ought to be at least a little bit interesting. Plus, what about this: isn't Genghis Khan, you know, kind of a bad guy? Where's the sneering ambition? Where's his inner Hans Gruber? Why doesn't he plot or scheme? It's as if Bodrov made a movie painting Vlad the Impaler as rational and understanding or showing Dick Cheney as benevolent and considerate.
None of this matters, really. The point of a movie like Mongol is the battle scenes. Bodrov goes through the motions, copying bits and pieces from battle scenes past. It's a fairly complete, satisfying collection, though his overall tone is polite and observant rather than reckless or exciting. It's more The Last Samurai than Seven Samurai. But these scenes are big enough and bold enough and "sweeping" enough that everyone will come away thinking they're really seen something. (You won't have to wait too long for someone to haul out the old blurb "visually stunning" to adorn ads.) I don't know... I found myself thinking instead of the smaller, quieter Mongolian films by the director Byambasuren Davaa, The Story of the Weeping Camel (2003), which was also nominated for an Oscar, and The Cave of the Yellow Dog (2005). Twin Davids to the Goliath of Mongol, neither of them had many vistas or battles or much taking over the world, but they had far more in the way of poetry and humanity. They moved rather than swept.
Related Headlines
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. I don't get this review. So you are reminded of a quieter film The Story of the Weeping Camel, proposing it is better because, by your own description it is "smaller" but you lash out at Mongol because Genghis Khan (no hyphen by the way, that would be something you used for Mongolian-American or Native-American) is "... not angry or crazy or anything...like to be left alone...", is not filled with "...sneering ambition" and does not "plot and scheme." In one sense you want a crazy Arab film because of the "evil terrorists" in Iron Man. It seem to me that you are totally biased and in a mode by which you are incapable of seeing a movie about Eastern civilization in any other way than barbaric and when it lacks this projected barbarism it somehow fails. Also, since when is multiple kidnappings reason to claim a movie is boring? That's the truth. Read up on Genghis Khan first and you'll see this movie is pretty spot-on. It is you that is off.
3. Jeff may indeed be describing a poorly made movie: Don't know as I have not seen it yet. His criitisisms that are based on his interpretations of Chinggis Khans character tell me he should read some history of the period depicted in the movie he's reviewing.
Chip Thornton
Posted at 10:13AM on Jun 11th 2008 by cthornton
4. Certainly it wouldn't hurt anyone to brush up on history, but I'm not reviewing history; I'm reviewing a movie. Whether or not a movie is historically accurate is only a tiny part of its genetic makeup. Whether or not it works artistically is another thing entirely, and "Mongol" simply doesn't work. The character in the movie -- whether or not based on anything real -- is too bland to work in the service of a fictional movie. And this is a fictional movie, not a documentary.
Posted at 11:37AM on Jun 11th 2008 by Jeffrey M. Anderson
5. jeff...2 words; bad review.
Posted at 12:18PM on Jun 20th 2008 by Will
6. I've seen the movie 2 times already since I responded to Jeffs horrid review and it gets more awesome with each viewing. As for your comment back Jeff, I disagree with you again. I was commenting on your biased, almost infantile review, not on your "brushing of history". This is fantastic movie about a protagonist left to his own means since childhood and raised alone overcoming obstacles and eventually claiming his title, with some great battle sequences compared to 300. It's pure screenwriting genius, from inciting incident to the climax -- forget about how great the cinematography and acting was. Mongol DOES WORK and it is wonderful. So Mongol didnt have the stereotypical asian villain you went in expecting? But what did he do when he encountered the tribe that kidnapped his wife? He massacred them all and it was an awesome scene. What are you talking about? Also you say Genghis didn't plot, but than what was he doing in the cage in China while the onlookers were throwing things at him for a year? Plotting. So what are you talking about? Your other reviews on foreign cinema all seem lame duck, uninformed, rather hesitant reviews -- as if you didnt really watch the movie or can't stand anything other than Roadhouse or the 80s montage crap you write about. Why do you even review foreign films if you're looking for Risky Business Tibet, you're not going to find it. If, however you want a great masterpeice of cinema that will live on way past you career, rewatch Mongol with less jaded eyes. Cinematical, watch this guy, you need someone like me reviewing foreign film not trolling around because of published tools like Anderson. He obviously didn't watch the movie.
Posted at 2:13PM on Jun 20th 2008 by Ghonius
7. Your comment leaves me nothing to work with. You're ticking off all the elements in the movie and then saying "great" without saying why they worked or how they worked. That's not a review. Secondly, you're once again saying something about me and cheesy 80s flicks; where this is coming from I have no idea. I've never once written about "Road House" or "Risky Business." Thirdly, you're once again claiming that I know nothing about foreign films and have once again failed to provide any examples of my so-called failure. If you want to simply disagree with my opinion then please do so. If you want to have an intelligent debate, fine.
Posted at 6:47PM on Jun 20th 2008 by Jeffrey M. Anderson
1. You tell 'em, Jeff. This movie was the special kind of boring that comes from listening to a self-made man telling about how he got to the top.
Posted at 5:25PM on Jun 6th 2008 by Richard von Busack