SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

areatw Unlike many historical films, having an interest in the subject area is not needed at all to enjoy and appreciate this movie. The visuals, stunning scenery and action alone in 'Mongol' make it a beautiful film to watch.The story of Genghis Khan is fascinating and I thought it was presented very well in the film. There was more emphasis on the actual story than the action and special effects, which is what I prefer. The action itself was impressive but not overdone, as it so often is, which was also a pleasant change.'Mongol' is a very well made and visually stunning film that can be understood and enjoyed by all.

grantss Disappointing.I love biopics, so was very keen to see this, especially as I don't know much about the life of Genghis Khan. Unfortunately, I was very disappointed. A lot of the bigger picture detail is left out. The script leaves huge gaps in the history, gaps which which would have been more interesting that the detail that was provided. Because of these gaps you don't get a feel for how Genghis Khan achieved his power, and the whole thing becomes disjointed and confusing.Acting felt very wooden, too.A movie that leaves you with more questions than answers.

g-bodyl As a student of history, it would be beneath me to avoid a movie depicting the early life of perhaps the greatest Mongolian ever to inhabit this planet. Because it's not a Hollywood production, the accuracy is not questioned and the film gives a character study, not just a battle arena. However, there are just enough battles and blood to satisfy action fans. But I truly enjoyed the fact that the film points out the early Mongolians were not just blood lust, but they had a culture which incorporates religious and family aspects.Sergei Bokrov's film is about the early life of Temujin as he endured enslavement as a child and how he rises politically with a goal to unite all Mongolians as he defeat the local tribes to band them together as one.This film is well-acted for the most part. Tadanobu Asano is excellent as Genghis Khan and not only he portrays Khan as a violent man, he portrays him as a man who does have a soft side, especially when it comes to his family. However, I'm not sure what to think about the performance of Sun Honglei as Jamukha. His acting seemed to be a little over-the-top.Overall, Mongol is a fascinating film about a man people really don't know too much about. The film has good central themes regarding abduction, family, love, and leadership. The film features sweeping and gorgeous cinematography as the film was shot in some of the most beautiful locations on this planet. The action and drama intermingle with each other very well. On the whole, I was quite pleased with this film. I rate this film 8/10.

Theo Robertson When people talk about " The greatest military strategist of all time " we often hear of the Eurocentric view with people such as Napoleon and Alexander The Great being mentioned . Genghis Khan sometimes gets brought up but perhaps it's because he's Asiatic and perceived as being a barbarian that he doesn't get name checked more often . The fact that his hordes started off on the Mongolian plains of East Asia and managed to get as far as Poland in an era when logistics and force projection were primitive to non existent was an almost superhuman feat . This film is about the early life of Khan What struck me about MONGOL is that it feels on a narrative level something similar to a Western . Young Khan sees a person close to him as a child murdered and he vows revenge . As the boy turns in to a man then a man has got to do what a man has got to do . There is a very strong element of Khan being a nomadic stranger and having to protect homesteaders from the bad guys but there's a slight difference that Khan's brutality and thirst of conquest goes way beyond the anti-heroism seen with Clint Eastwood starring in a movie directed by Sergio Leone It's a film directed by Russian Sergey Bodrov and occasionally I have the pleasure of discussing cinema with professional critics . One of them , an affable gentleman called David Wingrove . described the films of Michael Powell as " Pastoral Gothic " but that phrase could be accurately used more in discussing Russian cinema where the camera lovingly lingers on rural landscapes where humanity is a mere tiny spec of the bigger aspect of nature . One pivotal scene sees the young Khan arrive a temple and is watched by a wolf and while it then cuts to another scene therefore leaving Khan's predicament unexplained which sums up the film where the narrative is somewhat jarring but is compensated but its concentration of the metaphysical almost mystical beauty of nature