User Reviews

I would argue that there weren't many genuinely original concepts, other than simply shedding some light on Kazakh history. Basically a live action, feel-good version of the Prince of Egypt cartoon, trading Egyptians and Hebrews for nomadic Muslims. But that being said, it was decent and crisp.

Filming locations seemed really great, like LOTR - The Two Towers without any need for CGI! As for rating/violence, it could have almost been PG13 in the US, but I liked this fact. It was a clean-ish film that likens back to the spaghetti western. No over-the-top violence, sex, swearing, or embellishing for the sake of a Hollywood audience. While this generally comes off slightly cartoonish, it was refreshing.

As for the language, I would swear that it seemed to be filmed in English and dubbed in Kazakh. In fact, I don't usually mind a dubbed movie (especially Spanish or Japanese for some reason), but half-way through this film, I realized there was an English audio track and switched it over, and I was more engaged.

The horse work was pretty amazing, I thought.

Again, overall, this film seemed to have all the filming quality of an expensive Hollywood movie, but brought a niceness that's less common in contemporary film (Note: guaranteed NOT to hold the attention of most American youth).

Could be more better. Movie was presented special to President's Nazarbaev birthday. Also there is some historical mistakes. Very bad that Nomad not a real Kazak movie. Everything id foreign except some money, couple of actors and filmed places. I think it wasn't necessary to put Nazarbaev's words at the end of the movie. It looks like he did it or he is great leader of the past. Only Ablay Khan's words enough. Basically film made about Jungars and their intervention to Kazak land. I have no idea why it was filmed very long time.Anyway i suggest to view this movie. I hope it's not last historical movie which was filmed in Kazakhstan.

"I think it wasn't necessary to put Nazarbaev's words at the end of the movie. It looks like he did it or he is great leader of the past. "

Couldn't agree more on this.

My opinion on the movie itself: Regardless all the negative feedbacks, movie is not bad, BUT, the fact that leading roles were played by foreigner is SO disappointing. It's like they couldn't find good kazakh actors.How is it supposed to increase patriotic feelings among people of kazakhstan?? my friends refused to watch this movie due to this fact. Quality of the movie is very good. Music is startling(and some parts of it sounded so familiar). Some people may like, but it in no way made me feel proud for the movie.

By the way if you'd like to download the movie in Russian go to onefilm.ru they have two versions of the movie, the one that's DVDrip is of good quality.

Overall, the movie is not bad, but, in my opinion, it could have been better.

I don't think that this movie truly exposes the theme of Kazak nomads and their 300-year struggle against Jongar (Oirat) aggressors. I'm quite disappointed here.

But for non-Kazaks, the movie can make a whole different impression. They may like it a lot, because of the 'freshness' of Central-Asian nomadic theme in the international cinema.

Let's wait for the American (international) version of the movie. I believe it will be in some ways different from the Kazak version.

P.S. For those in Kazakstan, I recommend to watch old Kazak-Soviet movies like "Batyr Bayan", "Jawshy" (Gonets), and "Qyz Jibek". These are one of the few movies that truly show the essence of Kazak nomadism and Kazak-Jongar wars.

Kazakhstan achieved independence in 1991 and since then film activity increased in the country. "Nomad", at first sight, reminds me of those vast productions that are built around a national cinema, with the participation of capitals and talents from other countries (including Passer, Steiger, Forman, Ibrahiimbeyov, Becker, Hernández, O'Connor, Dacascos and Lee). However, production, which was well advanced in 2004, stopped due to shortage of funds. When the US firm Weinstein Company joined production, to round off the needed 40 millions, the Czech director Ivan Passer and the Swiss cinematographer Ueli Steiger were replaced, and alterations were made to the script written by Azerbaijani producer and playwright Rustam Ibragimbekov, to put greater emphasis on romance and bloody battles.

The reasons that I can think of to explain these drastic changes are that, first, Passer was repulsed by the representation of violence in films, which, in the eyes of the Weinsteins, did not make him suitable to narrate the struggle for territorial unification of Kazakhstan; second, USA cinema, by culture or tradition, exalts sex and death (where every lovebite and every blood jet have their currency equivalent), and third, that the Wensteins had the typical pretenses of a new partner, such as wanting "everything different" (to their liking), wanting to reaffirm their ownership and contribute "ideas", even if the material already shot had enough quality.

Aside from the unfortunate casting of Mexicans Kuno Becker (in the central role of the descendant of Genghis Khan who, in the 18th century, unified the tribes of Kazakhstan) and Jay Hernández (playing Erali, his best friend) as Kazakhstani youngsters, "Nomad" is better than what bad opinions claim. Any complaints of dialogues, as the hero telling his woman that she has the scent of the Moon? Well, I have heard worst lines than that, written by gurus of post-modern cinema, and people go wild about them.

"Nomad" is a wide epic fresco with a youthful spirit (so you can ride along with Kuno and Jay, anyhow), with aesthetic rigor in costumes and decorations and attention to cultural traits, customs and protocol of the region, as far as talent and money could afford them; with majestic views (sorry for the anti-landscapers) and exciting action and risky scenes. There is nothing new in the story of the two young males in love with the same woman, or the teacher who trains and then lets his disciple take flight, but as an adventure product, as a free historical account about the fulfillment of a mission/prophecy, the movie achieves its entertainment and artistic objectives, despite the alterations and changes of director and cinematographer.

Sadly, Passer, who died in January 2020, never filmed again, but, in spite of the Weinsteins, "Nomad" is a not a contemptible addition at all to a short filmography in which contention, rigor and scrutiny in project selection ruled.

Certainly NOMAD has some of the best horse riding scenes, swordplay, and scrumptious landscape cinematography you'll likely see, but this isn't what makes a film good. It helps but the story has to shine through on top of these things. And that's where Nomad wanders.

The story is stilted, giving it a sense that it was thrown together simply to make a "cool" movie that "looks" great. Not to mention that many of the main characters are not from the region in which this story takes place (and it's blatantly obvious with names like Lee and Hernandez). If movie makers want to engross us in a culture like the Jugars and the Kazaks, they damn well better use actors/actresses that look the part.

Warring tribes, a prophecy, brotherly love and respect, a love interest that separates our "heroes", are all touched on but with so little impact and screen time that most viewers will brush them aside in favor of the next battle sequence, the next action horse scene, or the breathtaking beauty of the landscape.

It is worth mentioning that there were some significant changes made to Nomad during its filming, specifically the director and cinematographer. Ivan Passer (director) was replaced by Sergei Bodrov, and Ueli Steiger (cinematographer) was replaced by Dan Laustsen. In one respect, Laustsen seems to have the better eye since his visions of the lands made the final cut that we see here. Definitely a good thing. However, the changing over to Bodrov as director may not have been the wisest choice. From what I'm seeing here, the focus is on the battles and not the people, which I sense comes from Bodrov's eyes and not Passer's. A true travesty.

The most shameful aspect is that this could've been a really fantastic film, with both character and action focuses. Unfortunately, the higher-ups apparently decided that action was what was needed and took the cheap (intellectually speaking) way out.

Even though I can't give this film a positive rating, it is worth watching simply for the amazing cinematography work. But that's all.

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.

If you've seen all the Hollywood blockbuster war films and are looking for more, this is an interesting period film with loving care put into costumes and sets. True, it didn't have a huge budget, but they clearly put a lot of time into it. If you only want blockbusters, you can skip this film. But if you want to see some history (and learn a little, too, if you're not Khazakh), then it's worth watching. It might be noted that Mansur appears to be an important historical figure for Khazakh - and a lot of their national agencies are listed in the credits. This makes it historical in more than one way - such a film probably wouldn't have been possible during the days of the USSR.

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."

This moviefilm of great success, produce by senior producer Azamat Bagatov tell famous story of how Kazakhstan was first nation to be pecked out of Giant Egg by Mighty Hawk Ukhtar and how Kazakhis later achieve domestication of woman.

Kazakhstan current has a very thrive industry of moviefilm production and has prove to world that has all the knowledges and facility need to make a blockbustering. Varied locations, beautiful scenery, and hardest working 7-year-olds in all Central Asia make this possible. And no need specials effects: battle scenes are made crushing real gypsys and Uzbekhis!

Great success!

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.

I would give this movie 5 rather than 3 if it would be at least in time... When i've seen it in first time it was just what you could wait from the work that is based not on the artistic abilities of the directors but on the idealistic or i would rather say idiotic habits of our (Kazakhstan) government... It's a shame, because 'Qazaqfil'm' was been shooting nice movies when it was not honoured by the name of Shaken Aimanov, but it was actually ran by him. The movies like 'Konec Atamana', 'Kyz Zhibek' or even 'Aldar Kose'. But after Mr Aimanov's death the production of quality movies went down almost dramatically in 10 years time there were very few films produced. However, in late 1980s, 'Assa' was shot, it was a film about first organised crime groups in the big country, one year later Mr. Rashid Nugmanov shot another film with the co-staring of the same actor/singer V.Tsoy, at that time he was already a soviet/Russian rock legend, - the movie called 'Igla' (The Needle or something) it was completely new, somebody called that period as resurrection or a new Kazakh movie wave. Unfortunately nowadays we do not have a quality movies, our directors shooting movies on the french and Japanese financial support, and thus movies are not for the public but for the authors professional critics, some of them take a price on international author movie festivals but there a very few of them become a business asset products... And again back to our 'nomads'. Such movies usually unpopular because of vast aspects. The same effects was with Nikita Mikhalkov's 'Sibirski Cyrilnik' about Russian tsars, that was also shot on parities with foreign partners, i think they were french or maybe British. Nobdy liked it, even in Russian public it become as a main topic of a comedians and comedy shows like 'KVN'. IMHO

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.

Other reviewers before me saw this in Kazak language with English subtitles. My review is for the English version which was released in 40 US theaters this weekend. Only the greetings were in the Kazak language. Being a fan of Hong Kong flicks, I've seen my fair share of bad dubbing, and I could not tell that this was dubbed, period! Maybe it wasn't as most of the main actors are American. It was a wonderfully filmed historical epic that contains some minor ripoffs from Return to Snowy River, Gladiator and Musa(2001), but those scenes worked very well. If you're a fan of warriors on horseback this is definitely a must see for you. To be honest I wasn't expecting it to be so good, and the only reason I drove out of my way to see it was because Mark Dacascos was in it. He plays a menacing warrior and was definitely cast well as his character! Way to go Mark! The girls in this flick are pretty and their acting is well done! This film is definitely soft on the eyes and full of epic eye candy. They spent the 40 million production dollars well. The actors' performances were believable even the unknowns. My only complaint with this film is the 2 main heroes. You could tell they'd been trained well with sword fighting as I'm sure Jason Scott Lee and Mark helped out with that. But I really didn't think the two main heroes were cast well as Kazaks seeing how most everyone else in the film at least looked half Oriental including the Kazaks. Aside from that, I have no complaints and only praise for this foul-language-free and nudity-free sweeping historical epic shot on location which is a definite plus in my book!

I visited Kazakhstan briefly in September 2003. On a Sunday afternoon I was taken up to a reservoir high, high above the city of Almaty which is about the only place available for local residents to go for relaxation. It was an unbelievably beautiful location, even though it was an artificial lake. I was shocked to meet another American at the end of this rocky bumpy road in the middle of nowhere; he turned out to be one of the top guys on the production staff and they were filming "Nomad". He told me about the movie and I then realized that the Japanese wrestlers that were on the plane on the way over were brought in to be extras! I was expecting some huge blockbuster production and kept looking for it in local movie guides. I was looking up Jason Scott Lee and coincidentally found this page and realized the movie was long out and apparently a vanity project for the Kazakhstani president... it probably never made the screens here in Japan. Too bad as I am a great JSL fan. I cannot comment on the film, but I do know from what I saw in KZ that the backdrop must be spectacular.

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

This is simply put, the worst movie I have ever seen. It ranges from like 2+ hours, and the box art was totally misleading. My friends and I rented it because, we thought it would be a poor man's 300. You know, to laugh at and make fun of. No. There is nothing funny about this movie, only pain. Then, the movie starts up, and they are speaking some sort of different language. We think, 'Oh its just the beginning.' But no, from there the movie plummets and becomes more of like a super boring book you had to read in grade school, where nothing literally happens for hours, and the battle scenes rival those of 2 kids fighting on a playground. Omit Cinematography, and this movie belongs in trash compactor. Movies like this will lead to the world we see in Wall-E, which by the way was a good movie.

There are many historical distortions in the movie. Biggest fiction is that Ablai Khan and Galdan never fought each other (Ablai Khan was born in 1711, where Galdan died in 1697). And Zhungars are not conquered by Kazakhs as shown in this movie! During Galdan's rule, Central Asian countries were no match to Zhungars-Mongols (even Khalkhas-Mongols).

The movie, itself is OK to watch. Just remember that it is a historic fiction movie.

Nomad is no different from American epics. Had the spoken language been English instead of Kazakh, it would have been impossible to distinguish this film from movies like Gladiator, Braveheart or Troy. It's just the latest entry in an overused genre. Still, I enjoyed watching Nomad. It entertained me for two hours even if I knew where the story was headed to, and that's all I demanded from it.

Like so many other similar flicks, Nomad deals with a tyrant, the people he's been tormenting for years, and a "chosen one" who will eventually dethrone him. When he first hears of this, the cruel dictator orders that this child be found and immediately killed. Naturally, the attempt fails, and the boy is raised in a remote village by an old, wise father figure, a character clearly based on the Merlin/Gandalf/Obi-Wan Kenobi blueprint. As the years pass, our hero, named Mansur (Kuno Becker), becomes a skilled warrior, perfectly capable of leading his rebellious countrymen in battle against the evil monarch. While preparing for the conflict, Mansur also has to deal with his feelings for a girl and the effects said romance is having on his lifelong friendship with Erali (Jay Hernandez), a man willing to do anything for his country and, most importantly, his leader and best friend.

The themes explored in epics are generally love, loyalty and freedom, and Nomad covers all of them them in a competent but predictable way: anyone who's ever seen this kind of movie will have no trouble figuring out how the various subplots, not to mention the big picture in itself, are going to end. But while it isn't exactly fresh, Nomad is a respectable film, its main quality lying in the visuals: the battle scenes are as great and gorgeous as in a Ridley Scott film, and the same should be said of the numerous shots concerning the eye-popping landscapes. In fact, with so much beautiful imagery (although a bit more violent than the average Hollywood blockbuster), it's a bit weird not to find the Blade Runner director's name among the executive producers, which do however include Milos Forman (the man behind the fabulous Amadeus).

So, as usual, style prevails over content, but when it looks so good, why complain? Nomad is a piece of pure, simple, unadulterated fun; that's why I liked it, and the reason genre fans should embrace it as well.

7,5/10

The reason I decided to rent this movie was because Mark Dacascos was in this feature. It was not his worse role by any means but he was only a Minor character, a slight disappointment for me on a personal level but really it only added to the movie as he was key in character development for the main cast.

So on to the movie.

The action was hit and miss. Some was absolutely wonderful, hold your breath type stuff,that generally was the one on one battles, some looked a bit weak. That said, this movie is no 300, relying strictly on action sequences to carry it. It had a great story to carry it along, some fantastic acting and beautiful sets. All in all a very watchable movie if you put aside the fact most of the characters where not of the ethnic background they represented. I had no problem putting that aside and just enjoying a great action/history flick for what it is: entertainment.

I was waiting for the premier of the NOmad from the beginning, I watched it today and I'm gonna go to the cinema again to watch it again :) actually one minus is that Kuna Bekker and Jay are not look like real kazaks, but they played their roles great!!!! Espessially I liked the way they speak, I mean the language, the words are beautiful. I hope the movie will succeed abroad and I hope there will be many films about our history, cause its so big and interesting!!! I'm so proud of the subject of the movie, it has a very wide meaning. and the actors Ayana Yesmagambetova,Tungushpay Jamankulov, Doskhan Zholzhaksynov,Erik Zholzhaksynov, Mark Dacascos,Archie Kao,Jason Scott Lee they all were great!!!

The setting, cinematography, and historical period really are unique to movies that I have seen, and while not on a "cast of thousands" scope, sufficiently epic to provide a thoroughly entertaining film. One can quibble with the acting, and the slightly less than superlative battle scenes but this is a war movie worthy of an entertaining and at least moderately educational evening.

I hope we see a lot more movies focusing on the less common historical periods and places. It is better to build on a movie like this and seek improvement than to tear it down over relatively minor drawbacks. The scenery alone is worth the cost of a rental.