User reviews

Astonishingly, the name and the person of Genghis Khan in Sergei Bodrov's "Mongol," a great, Shakespearean drama about this seminal figure in history, don't appear until the very end of the two-hour epic. Instead, we see Temudjin, the man yet to become (posthumously) Khagan (emperor) of what was to be for several centuries the largest contiguous empire in history. Whether Bodrov completes the contemplated two additional chapters of the story or not, "Mongol" stands on its own as a masterpiece.

Contradicting the Western (and Russian) image of Genghis as the monstrous conqueror, Bodrov's work is influenced by Lev Gumilev's "The Legend of the Black Arrow" and is based on "The Secret History of the Mongols," the 13th century Mongolian account, unknown until its re-emergence in China 700 years later. For a director, who learned in school only about the horrors of Russia's 200-year subjugation by the Mongols, taking a "larger view" is a remarkable act.

Unlike Omar Sharif in the 1965 Henry Levin "Genghis Khan" or Takashi Sorimachi in Shinichiro Sawai's disappointing 2007 "To the Ends of the Earth and Sea," Tadanobu Asano in Bodrov's film is strictly Temudjin, not the great Khan. He lived from 1162 to 1227, and "Mongol" covers the years between 1171 and the beginning of the unification of Mongolian tribes around the turn of the century.

In fact, the spookily powerful child Temudjin (Odnyam Odsuren) dominates the first part of the film, undergoing trials and tribulations that make the lives of Dickens' abused and imperiled children look like a picnic. From age nine into his 30s, Temudjin was orphaned, hunted, imprisoned, enslaved, and constantly threatened by extinction. Literally alone in the vast landscape (brilliantly photographed by Rogier Stoffers and Sergei Trofimov), Temudjin escapes death repeatedly, at times almost mysteriously.

"Mongol" is huge - with endless vistas and epic crowd scenes, quite without special effects - but Bodrov keeps the setting just that, never strutting visuals for their own sake. The film is about people, and the cast is magnificent. Asano's face and eyes hold attention, and make the viewer experience simultaneous feelings of getting to know the character he plays and being held at arm's length. Bodrov and Asano escape all the many Hollywood pitfalls in making an epic - they present nothing easy, predictable, trite. The term "Shakespearean" is used here advisedly.

The Mongolian actors are sensational: Khulan Chuluun is luminous as Borte, Temudjin's wife; Borte's 10-year-old self, the girl who chooses Temudjin, then 9, while he thinks he is the one making the decision, is unforgettable, even if the name is hard to remember: Bayertsetseg Erdenebat.

Chinese actors are vital to the film. As Temudjin's father (poisoned by Tatars before the boy reached 10), Sai Xing Ga makes an impression few actors can achieve in such a brief appearance. Nearly overshadowing Asano is the grand thespian exercise from Sun Hong-Lei, as Temudjin's all-important blood brother Jamukha. Sun is almost too big for the big screen, perhaps a less intense performance would have served the film better.

Another problem is near the end of "Mongol," with Borte's stranger-than-fiction (and actually fictional) rescue of Temudjin from a Tangut prison, years, hundreds of miles, and impossible alliances and dalliances telescoped into a few near-incongruous minutes - all to cover a 10-year-long gap in Genghis' history. Except for that, however, Bodrov's work is engrossing, spectacular, and memorable.

Mongol (2007), was co-written and directed by Sergei Bodrov. It was filmed in Kazakhstan, and is in Mongolian with English subtitles. It's a biography of Ghenghis Khan, especially his rise to power. The movie quotes an old proverb: "Do not scorn a weak cub; he may become a brutal tiger." Actually, as portrayed in the film, Ghenghis Khan was hardly a weak cub, even as a young child. However, he certainly became a tiger when grown--whether brutal or just powerful is another question.

The film is more or less consistent with the Wikipedia report of Khan's life. He was captured and enslaved as a boy, but managed to escape and eventually conquer his local tribal enemies. (The movie portrays Ghenghis Khan as a young boy and then a young man. The film ends before we can see Khan's eventual consolidation of his huge empire.)

There is (literally) a cast of thousands. The movie is colorful, the battle scenes are graphic, and men, women, and horses all look great. The acting was excellent, especially that of Odnyam Odsuren as the young Ghenghis Khan, Tadanobu Asano as the grown man, and the beautiful Khulan Chuluun as Börte, his wife.

For political and/or esthetic reasons, Khan is portrayed as a man who brought the warring Mongolian tribes together, and as a lawgiver and just ruler. I don't have enough knowledge of the period to know whether the people of his empire would have taken this view. However, this is a movie, not a Ph.D. dissertation, so I accepted it as an action-filled and enjoyable--if not profound--film.

We saw this film at the excellent Rochester High Falls International Film Festival. Because of the sweeping nature of the battles, and the glorious shots of the landscape, this movie will lose a lot on DVD. Try to see it in a theater, preferably one with a large screen.

To the above two comments.

You know how they say history was written by the victors? That's true for everyone but the Mongols. Most of their history was written by the Chinese, Russians, Arabs, and other conquered peoples who had an interest in perpetuating Genghis Khan = bloodthirsty savage.

The movie is based on one of the few sources about Genghis khan written in Mongolian. It's called the secret history of the Mongols and was written shortly after he died as a record for the Mongolian royal family. He was just a chieftain's's son of a very minor tribe. That's what makes this story so impressive, he didn't start out as a king or a prince with a huge army, like Alexander. Everything he had, he had to earn. He didn't get to be Genghis Khan until he was in his 30's. He was always aware of how victory wasn't assured but had to be paid for with planning and strategy. He wasn't a saint by any means but he wasn't an unthinking savage. This movie is actually meant to be the first in a trilogy with the second one probably detailing his conquest of north china and the third the conquest of the Khwarezim empire in Iran and Afghanistan.

This is an approach that I like because the Alexander movie died on account of it trying to condense all of his conquests into one movie.

The first installment of a prospective trilogy, Mongol chronicles the early life of Temudjin, from his childhood on the Asian steppe to his ascension to Khan in 1206.

The performances are passable – with special thanks to Honglei Sun, with an engaging turn as Temudjin's long-time friend and ally Jamukha – but the film has a rushed quality to it that is predominantly the fault of the screenplay. We jump too quickly from one scene to the next, the tension is constantly disrupted, and the characters are, for the most part, one-dimensional, void of quirks and personal histories and any of the other qualities that might make them relatable. I'm not asking for anything fancy: theirs was a tribal culture constantly engaged in the act of survival, and any philosophical rants or emotive confessionals would feel forced and inorganic, but none of that pardons the film for the simple crime of not giving its characters enough to do. The needs of the plot seem to dictate their actions, rather than the needs of the characters driving the plot.

The biggest casualty, as always, is the love story. Ironically enough, Temudjin and Borte generate the most chemistry when they meet as children, Borte commanding him – with a freeness of spirit that gets less and less visible as the movie progresses – to pick her as his bride. Unfortunately, their subsequent romance is more about desperate rescues and long-winded goodbyes than it is the simple moments of intimacy that make a relationship believable.

That said, the cinematography is tremendous and the costumes top-notch, and the casting department deserves a couple extra bushels of brownie points for picking actors who – unlike many a Hollywood ensemble – look like they could actually survive the conditions they supposedly inhabit. The combat scenes are captivating and cleverly shot, and despite the inevitable comparison to such battle-heavy epics as Lord of the Rings and Gladiator, Bodrov keeps a handle on things, never letting any of the battles run beyond the five minute mark, endowing the film with an element of realism and restraint where many of the other so-called epics go completely over the top. True, the movie relies a bit more heavily on CGI than I would prefer, but the Mongolian landscape, the real star of the show, is so gorgeous, so demanding, so jaw-droppingly authentic that we quickly forget our visual grievances and get lost in the rudimentary act of watching.

A pity we can never lose ourselves completely.

While the plot contained some dubious twists and had rather strange and slow pacing, the overall effect of this movie is stellar. The cinematography rivals, while being similar to, movies such as "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". The score was amazing. The acting was, to my English speaking eyes and ears, convincing. The few combat scenes were filmed and choreographed to great effect. I am not sure how historically accurate this movie is, but it works as an enchanting piece of cinema. Highly recommended to anyone who likes art films and historical epics. Seriously, the locations make me want to take a vacation to the steppes immediately.

'Mongol,' the Russian-directed semi-historical epic (big emphasis on the semi- here) shot for $20 million in China (and Mongolia and Kazhakistan) with a multi-national cast and crew and Japanese and Chinese stars, purports to depict the first thirty-five years of the life of the emperor Genghis Khan. I say "purports," because not much is known of this period and even in depicting legend, Bodrov chooses to leave out many of the essential connectives that make a good story (or fairy tale or legend). Temudjin, as the young super-Khan is called, is a yoked prisoner, for example, awaiting execution; then, inexplicably, the yoke is off and he's free. He sinks through thin ice deep into the frozen water below; then, inexplicably, he's lying on land and getting rescued. He is languishing in a Chinese prison--his face seeming to acquire a patina of dust and sand (I liked that part: Bodrov excels at faces and tableaux); then he's miraculously found by his faithful wife Borte. She throws him a key and sets him free. Then, inexplicably, he is leading a vast army to defeat his arch rival. Over and over, how we get from point A to point B is left on the cutting-room floor. This is enjoyable as spectacle but unsatisfying from other standpoints.

How Genghis Khan got to be Genghis Khan, in short, is one thing this movie doesn't begin to try to explain. Could anyone? That I don't know; but 'Mongol' presents its biographical narrative without the connectives that make sense of a life. Despite lots of dramatic scenes with snappy dialog, striking images, and above all computer-assisted battles with crunching bones and crackling arrows and ringing swords, the film has an epic style without epic themes because its great issues are not so much resolved as abruptly, magically removed. This may in fact be more an epic love story than anything else. It is that in the backhanded way the 'Odyssey' is a love story, because, though Temudjin is away from Borte a lot of the time as Odysseus is mostly away from Ithaka and Penelope, 'Mongol's' opening sequence gives Borte a primary importance, because she (as played by Bayertsetseg Erdenebat), belonging to another tribe, a liberated young woman of the twelfth century, isn't chosen by but chooses Temudjin when he's nine years old and she's ten. It's not supposed to be that way--and maybe it wasn't; it seems a bit implausible. Temudjin is traveling with his Khan (tribal chieftain) father (Ba Sen) on their way to placate another tribe by choosing the boy's wife from their girls. When they don't, the father is promptly poisoned by the other tribe. And its leader, Targutai (Amadu Mamadakov), vows to kill Temudjin--but not for a year or so, because "Mongols don't kill children."

Well, what Mongols do or don't do seems up for grabs, and probably at the time, historically, "Mongol" itself must have been a rather vague concept. In fact that is another running theme: what's a Mongol? What are their primary values? There is no satisfactory answer, though killing and stealing are advanced as major concepts.

Surprisingly, since not too many are "to the right of Genghis Khan," and since he succeeds in wiping out all his enemies, Temudjin as played (as an adult) by the imposing Tadanobu Asano is a gentle-faced, zen-like fellow who's a strong advocate of fair play. Tadanobu, along with the somewhat over-histrionic Chinese actor Honglai Sun as Jamukha, his childhood blood brother and eventual arch rival, are both impressive. But the real star, with some substantial help from computer-generated effects, is the vast landscape of steppe, snow, mountain, and sky that dominates many scenes. With effective use of lenses and light, the filmmakers have created an epic look, and it's this, plus the authoritative acting, that make this film worth viewing--but only if you like this kind of thing and if you don't mind that you're not going to emerge from it with any historical knowledge. Said to be the first of a trilogy. One will approach the sequels with a certain reserve.

Shown as part of the San Francisco International Film Festival April-May 2008 and in US theatrical release June 2008.

The most pleasing part of this film, I thought, was the excellent cinematography. Kudos to Roger Stoffers and Sergei Trofimov for an outstanding job photographing this movie, making the most bleak of landscapes look stunning many times and adding some wonderful closeup shots of objects and faces.

It's not a bad story, either, although not one that will keep you riveted to the screen for the full two hours. However, I wasn't bored, either, although some of the action scenes looked too repetitive with very hokey-looking special-effects concerning blood splashing out of people in the battle scenes. It did not look real, but as if it were drawn. It's ironic in that the production values seem to be so high with a such a nicely-filmed effort, yet the action scenes are staged like a B-movie.

In a nutshell, this is the story of how "Genghis Kahn," who is "Temudjin" throughout the movie, spent his tough early life and how he became the famous warrior. We just see how many hardships the man endured to become who he was later in life. He was never referred to as Genghis Kahn which, I learned hear, is a title more than a name. That must have come later, after he had control of all the Mongol armies, which is where the film ends.

Many times, it's a not a pleasant existence for "Temudjin," who was marked man from the age of nine. We see him spend many lonely hours held captive in different places. The looks on his face are memorable. Odnyam Odsuren ad the young "Temudjin" and Tadanobu Asano as the adult "Temudjin" both had extraordinarily photographic faces.

One of the few problems I had with the movie were understanding "the rest of the story" as certain scenes ended abruptly leaving me (and I assume other viewers) wondering "what happened?" His friends, though, were fun to watch and his bride was a beautiful, kind and strong woman, as pictured in this movie. Actually, I found this just as much of a love story as a war epic, and the romance angle was far more dramatic. The devotion the lead male and female had to each other, and the faithfulness and loyalty were inspiring, to say the least.

I saw this last week at the Toronto film festival and loved it. Many of the people in my group did not want to see it because they were not interested in the subject matter and ended up loving the film. It seemed to be the overall favorite of the group (we saw 12 films in Toronto). There is a fair amount of blood so if one is bothered by violence, you may not enjoy it. In some ways it reminded me of Braveheart because you learned about the history, but there was also beautiful cinematography, landscapes, and very well done battle scenes. This film could possibly be in the running for the best foreign film Oscar.

Hoped for the best, prepared for the worst, and something as a result has turned out an average. The beginning even has unexpectedly pleased, and then went year and year, and action as if changed face Temudjin, is at a stop. As if you have planted on a train revolving. The impression is made that action occurs on a small slice of the earth, instead of on extensive open spaces of Mongolia. To the film middle it is already difficult to follow a plot. Fight, captivity, I the Khan – you the slave, again fight, you the Khan – I the slave, again a captivity, fight: I have not got confused?

Such monotony if it only does not bear in itself (and it and does not bear) emotional and semantic loading, irritates. Thus it is necessary to give the due: all is removed beautifully, widely, direction is quite good, to look not dull, but and is not clear, how Temudjin became Genghis Khan. In my opinion so in general both parts (present and future) it is possible to push in one film, and all to incomprehensibility to give a caption, as in the end of the first part. Then can be also something would clear up. And so

This film is an example of an extremely strong narrative accompanied by excellent cinematography and superbly executed war scenes... reminds me of Saving Pvt Ryan without all the bangs and clatter. The acting is also commendable. There seems to be a great deal of research that has gone into the subject and is a great eduction on the early life of Chengiz Khan. I wish there was more, but for the integrity of the subject I think the makers have done justice to the story. Would really appreciate if this made into a trilogy, but I don't think the film makers have left any scope to stretch it further. They have compressed a epic life tale into a little more than an hour and a half and with great flair and ease which is calls for a standing ovation. Lesson to Indian Film makers!!!

Until now, my knowledge of Genghis Khan was limited to what I had learnt from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (he totally ravaged China and Oshman's Sporting Goods, and likes Twinkies!). Mongol, from Russian writer/director Sergei Bodrov, charts the legendary warrior's life from child, to slave, to conqueror of much of central Asia and China, and is far more informative.

Apparently, however, Bodrov has altered quite a few facts to suit his film, and picking out the truths from the less accurate stuff is no mean feat. The action also jumps awkwardly to key moments in Genghis's life with little explanation of what has occurred in the meantime. In short, If I were to do a history report on Genghis based on this film, there's a good chance I would fail. Most egregious!

6/10 — Still worth seeing (despite the historical inaccuracies) for the wonderful cinematography and the violent battle scenes in which plenty of the red stuff is splashed about.

Over the weekend I saw this movie after the impressive trailers I saw over the internet. But I can understand why most people particularly Mongolians are disappointed with this movie. The movie doesn't really do justice to the history of the Great Conqueror Genghis Khan. It is very difficult, to make movies about historically existed people, especially about the way of the warrior, like Genghis Khan had. Mongol is directed by Russian director Sergi Bodrov.

The film is set in 12th Century Mongolia. A 9-year-old Temudjin (played by the Japanese actor Tadanobu Asano),is being taken by his father, the leader or Khan, of a clan, to marry a girl from the Merkit tribe but on the way he meets 10-year-old Borte and decides he wants to marry her instead when they're old enough.

After his father is treacherously poisoned, the usurper Targutai takes control of the clan and vows to kill Temudjin when he comes of age.

Temudjin grows up and claims his bride Borte, but she is kidnapped by the Merkits soon afterwards and Temjudjin seeks the help of his blood brother Jamukha to defeat them and to get her back. They are successful, but eventually, Jamukha betrays Temjudjin. Bodrov follows his hero,Temudgin from boyhood to the eve of world conquest in 1206, when he would become the Genghis Khan known and feared by millions.

In terms of pacing, the film is a little off. It hurtles through Temudjin's childhood, lingers on his relationship with Borte and hurries the finale. All of a sudden, Temudjin becomes absolutely determined to unite his country and it's a bit puzzling as to where this priority comes from. That said, maybe this is a theme which will be explored in future films or parts which are yet to come. Although Bodrov is, in this part of the story at least, content to portray the fearsome warrior as a basically decent man of honour, there are hints of the ruthless conqueror to come, especially in the bloody battle that climaxes Part One of a promised trilogy. Parts two and three haven't yet been filmed – let's hope they will be.

Problems aside, Mongol is worth recommending. It's great to see the story of Genghis Khan told without Western interference.

Saw this flick last night and I really loved it. As I understand it many Mongolians hate the film for historical inaccuracies and a heavily accented cast (the lead is from Japan) but if you are unfamiliar with the area and culture you'll find a great story that brings a new light to a historical figure that a surprisingly large portion of the world reviles.

The cinematography is gorgeous and the subtitle script is excellent.

What really makes this film great are the performances and the action scenes.

When he gains followers and unites Mongolia you understand why.

Hopefully the film will get people to read more about the original man and discover the historical inaccuracies.

Of course as historical accuracies go it much more accurate then Elizabeth: The Golden Age.

I liked the rugged terrain panoramas, the brief depiction of the lifestyle, the restraint shown by the script writer in taking sides, the background score, and so on. It is a good movie for those who don't know much about Genghis Khan.

The movie could have been a bit longer in terms of running time. They dedicated too much time to Temudjin's family life, and escapades. The Battle of Chakirmaut is a landmark in Mongolian history, yet, it is shown naively.

I don't understand the generalization done when casting - why cast Japanese, Chinese actors as leads while the Mongolians have distinct facial characteristics? Like the female lead, why weren't the other actors chosen from amongst the ethnic Mongolians?

I hope the sequels, if any, fix these shortcomings.

I see a lot of talking about Gengis Khan, history, and a lot of nonsense. This is a movie about a guy who lived 1000 years ago... FIrst of all, I have never seen a good movie talking about this subject, this character (John Wayne playing Gengis Khan... ahahahah!!!), so this is always nice to see. Then if you want to learn about history, read books, don't watch movies. If you think a 2 hours film is going to teach anyone the story of the largest empire that ever existed on earth, well... There's nothing I can say.

I won't get into those arguments. But what about the movie? It's beautiful! Technically it's impressive. I was shocked by the beauty of the landscapes, all of which are actually located in Mongolia. I was also very impressed by the lack of advertisement here in France. And all the actors???? WoW. There is no bad acting in this movie, and this, friends, is quite rare! What about Borte, his wife?? No info on this actress, although she's the only one speaking really mongolian, stunning actress, stunning beauty on screen. Tadanobu Asano and Hongley Sun are HUGE actors. Sun especially. Fighting scenes are well shot, no backflips and headkicks :) I was expecting something as epic as Jet Li's Hero, and I was relieved and amazed to see it was not the case. I loved this movie, and I'm really waiting for the next one...

Mongol is a film about the trials of Temudjin, the young man who became Genghis Khan, ruler of Mongolia and a great Eurasian empire. Although born heir to the Khanate, Temudjin loses his father at the age of nine and undergoes a terrible ordeal in the next two decades of his life, being hunted, imprisoned and narrowly escaping death on a number of occasions. He remains stoical and resilient through the most terrible of hardships, including being placed in shackles as a young boy whilst execution hangs over his head.

Alongside these trials of misery there develops a moving love story. Just before his father's death, the nine-year-old Temudjin chose Borte, a young girl from a neighbouring tribe, to be his future bride. After repeated escape and re-capture, the grown-up Temudjin comes back to claim his bride. Throughout the continuing hardship that follows, Borte and Temudjin remain steadfast to one another.

When Borte is captured by the Merkits, a hostile tribe of mask-wearing warriors, Temudjin looks for assistance to rescue her from their clutches. This introduces us to his brother Jamukha. Drunken, garrulous and theatrical, Jamukha is a show-stealing presence, and later becomes the almost comic-book villain whom Temudjin must defeat to become Khan of Mongolia.

The dialogue in Mongol is spare and one senses that some subtlety has been lost in translation. Yet it is the landscapes and the incredible action sequences that make this film such a success. The cinematography is simply brilliant, drinking in the breathtaking Mongolian landscape, with its vast green plains, soaring mountain peaks and unending expanses of thick winter snow. Erratic weather causes sudden torrents of rainfall, and when fork lightning and thunderclaps rupture the sky you can understand why the Mongolians worship a God of the sky. The brutal medieval battles are among the many highlights, culminating in the great clash between Temudjin and Jamukha's armies, which hinges on a dramatic intervention.

Sergei Bodrov's film is fascinating for its observation of Mongolian customs and the respect that these were accorded at the time. The offerings exchanged by travellers, the wrestling, the nomadic way of life: all of these feel remarkably authentic. Many Mongolians have criticised the use of non-Mongolian actors to play most of the major parts, claiming that the accents sound ridiculously out of place, but this is not something that will affect Western ears. I am also a big fan of Tuomas Kantelinen's soundtrack, a combination of orchestral score, chanting and some modern (rock and electronic) touches.

Mongol has also been criticised for the overwhelmingly sympathetic portrayal of the man reckoned by many to be one of the great mass-murderers. The film is apparently based on a thirteenth-century Mongolian account of the Khan's early life, which helps to explain director Sergei Bodrov's less-than-impartial treatment of his subject, but I can understand the unapologetic tone of the film, the first in a projected trilogy: this is a film about Temudjin's rise to power, a battle against tremendous odds, which surely deserves some sympathetic treatment. I can only hope that Bodrov is willing to acknowledge the darker chapters of Temudjin's life when shooting the sequels. Hopefully it will not take another four years to ready part two of this brilliant saga.

It's a well done film, based on Genghis Khan's early life. If I'm correct, little is known of this, so I'm sure the story has quite a bit of fictional elements to it. But it's fine, this is a movie, not a documentary.

This movie isn't about the battles. The smaller skirmishes were done pretty well for a movie that doesn't focus on armed conflicts, the large battle was lacking.

This movie also isn't about the strategy, politics, or how Genghis Kahn was able to unite the various tribes (this was what I thought the movie was going to be about).

Instead, the movie was about Genghis Khan's personal life drama. It's about the hardships he endured and his unbreakable spirit (with a healthy dose of luck from his god Tengris).

I'm not going say this is a bad thing, because although personally I'm not into personal dramas, especially for a movie about a great conqueror, others may like it. My girlfriend for example enjoyed the romance element they tossed in there.

However, my only true gripe of the movie is that the story is done in the Underpants Gnome fashion.

Step 1: Get kicked around

Step 2: ??

Step 3: Have warriors that will fight for you!!

But despite the inclusion of Underpants Gnome's step two in the movie, everything else was pretty well done, so it gets a 6 from me.