The Kazakhs with a delay of eight years removed their “Siberian Barber”: a custom film designed to revive statehood, instill pride in the souls of citizens and unite people around their ruler. It should also show everyone (read the Russians) that the Kazakhs can do it too.
Analogies with Mikhalkov’s creation arise even at the very beginning of the film: the first word in the Russian version was for the Government of the Russian Federation, apparently confirming the status of Russia as a presidential republic (at that time); in the Kazakh saga, of course, the Kazakh President used the “right of the first night”.
In general, it has long been known that cinema, like any other art, should not pursue political goals. Violation of this rule leads to the loss of value of a work and deprives it of the very beauty for which we are interested in art. When it comes to the state order, the producer, directors and screenwriters are trying to “do no harm” and shoot such a neutral-patriotic film that the customer will approve; no one thinks about the audience in this case.
In the end, we have this.
In the first thirty minutes of the film, the word “Kazakh” occurs about twenty times. Probably, this is done in fulfillment of the punctuation of the sponsorship contract, which looks something like this: “In order to revive the national pride and sovereignty of the Kazakh people, the words “Kazakh” or “Kazakh” should be heard at least twenty times in the film.” It should also show the viewer who the film is about. Are three repetitions not enough? Well, who would watch their films like Mission to Mars or We Were Soldiers if they uttered the words “America” or “American” thirty times? Perhaps, realizing this, the director at the beginning of the film brings down a whole Kazakh city on the viewer who is not tired of dubious entertainment, in order to later untie his hands. And, indeed, further in the picture, keywords are almost not found.
What was happening on the screen I became interested only by the fortieth minute, and after five more this interest dissolved into the boring artificiality of everything that was happening.
Another episode that brought me back from my coma for a while was the scene of the brothers’ deadly battle. I must say that the film is fascinating, it is a pity that everything ends quickly, and the quality of the effect with a sword crashing through the armor into the chest, again reminded me that the cinema is Kazakh. Also remembered is the fly landing on the cheek of the "Newcastle striker," during the climactic, tragic moment of that battle when he discovers he has killed his own "brother." Perhaps the director decided that no one would notice her?
I don't want to talk about sound. Nothing special. The only funny thing is that the Russian language of the film, it seems, is not original, since the soundtrack does not coincide with the facial expressions of the actors: they clearly speak some other language. Usually this happens when dubbing American films, so the associations that arise when watching the film are good for the film. On the other hand, you are already waiting for the quality of the corresponding, and there is no such thing.
Generally speaking, in the image and sound, I always wanted to correct something.
Inviting foreign stars in this situation seems like a good move. They can somehow save what is happening on the screen. Mark Dacascos, for example, is good, but without a helmet: he is clearly big. In it, Mark is too caricatured, as, in fact, Kuno Becker in his hat. These guys, by the way, do not look much like Kazakhs, but this is not their fault either. And another thought about costumes: probably, the purpose of the Director was to emphasize the historical fact that military uniforms and armor, made in conditions of rather rough production, often did not suit the soldiers in size; entertainment, at the same time, was brought to the detriment of strict realism, and a pity.
Operating work is also below average: for the whole film counted only a few successful plans. One of them is a horse standing on the river with Dakaskas (without a helmet) and his three henchmen on the side. Not bad indeed.
About behind-the-scenes. Everyone knows that using this method is very risky. To see what this leads to, you can in the Nomad. I don’t know if you’re listening to an audio book, watching a movie, or who this guy is talking to. In particular, it is not clear for what purpose actions are commented on, the meaning of which is already well understood. In short, you want to remove the audio track with the voice of the announcer.
That's the plot in the movie. The difficult, complex and original history of the Kazakh people, striving for freedom and sovereignty from time immemorial. I learned from the film that Chin Giz Khan was a Kazakh, and Russians walk in the form of a bear. Kazakhs live in the steppe, but due to the fact that there was not enough money for coloring the film, the beauty of it could not be appreciated. And finally, I found out there were no oil rigs. The rest of the storylines are a poorly assembled mix from Gladiator, Braveheart and other similar films: you will not see anything new in Nomad.
In general, I liked the story about the pride, identity, history and cultural traditions of a particular people much more in The Barber of Siberia. There, the budget is sweeter, and the guest star is more serious: after all, Julia Ormond is more powerful than Kuno Becker. And frankly, Mikhalkov’s film is still a movie: beautiful and with a scope. How much I do not like pathos, but Nikita Sergeevich presents it somehow imperceptibly and sweetening with beautiful plans, acting and plot. In “Nomad” you can only see an attempt to do it, written in clumsy childish handwriting.
The cover of the CD reads: “From the creators of Harry Potter, Godzilla and Pearl Harbor.” I wonder who exactly participated in the filming of “Nomad” worked on these films. I'd like to look them in the face. Guys, money isn't everything in this life. It's important to have dignity! Although if some people from the steppe offer you to spend $ 30 million, then, inevitably, and breathing speeds up, and the heart begins to beat more often. I understand that.
As for the question of building statehood, culture is undoubtedly a very powerful tool, but only if it is not connected with politics, but develops by itself. The government wants results and does not want to wait. The idea comes up: make a movie and everything will be fine. This is faster than developing and implementing a state program to revive national culture and education. To me, such attempts to solve national problems seem, to say the least, too naive.
President Nursultan Nazarbayev’s address at the end of the film finishes him off. This is not a movie at all, but a political slogan, a national idea, if you will.
In short, this spectacle did not cause any emotions, except irritation and bewilderment, but it is still worth watching Nomad. When will we see the Kazakh state blockbuster?
The film about the steppe people, who later becomes the forefather of modern Kazakhstan belongs to the head of the republic Nursultan Abishevich Nazyrbayev.
The film is about one of the characters whose profile is on the local banknote - tenge.
The plot is about how the great hero of the Kazakh steppes becomes the liberator of the villages from the Dzungars. There is also a love story in the film. An attempt to make a patriotic film about the steppe people.
Overseas guests were invited to the film, Mark Dakaskas ("The Weeping Assassin) easily got used to the role of Sharish, one of the villains of the Jungar. Perhaps training for the role of an Indian in the Brotherhood of the Wolf helped him in this. Jason Scott Lee was also perfect for the role of the main character’s guru. But a couple of young actors of Mexican origin Cuno Becker and Jay Hernandez looked sluggish, it was clear that they are hard given the nomadic life of steppes. The boys clearly expected to see the country through the eyes of Borat.
There are no claims to the actors of Kazakhstan, they played extremely well. Very accurately selected costumes of the Nomad heroes, beautiful views of the steppe and the image of nomadic life. But, whether the change of directors, or the small budget of the film did not allow to call this film remarkable. It smells of unnecessary pathos and excessive heroism. A movie about what I see singing.
Nomad is the first failed attempt to make a patriotic film and sell it to the West. The film how democracy developed in the steppe. The first one, will there be others?
3 out of 10
Nursultan Nazarbayev, who owns the idea of this film, decided to push the topic of patriotism through cinema, but why did no one warn him that such a PR can not be saved?
Well, I'll start with the positive. The film arouses interest from the first frame of the most beautiful views of the steppe. We can see this throughout the entire picture. Beautiful music. Nice suits. Magnificent scenes of combat jigitovka (the test scene is beautiful, but implausible). And in general, a man on a horse always pleases my eye. Mark Dakaskos as Jungar Sharysh I liked. That's all.
Let's move on to the negative. From the point of view of historical authenticity, the film is simply pathos-soaked nonsense. None of the real characters are clearly spelled out, in their place could be anyone. The lines of friendship and love are too crude. Therefore, the scene à la brother on brother does not make a special impression (not to mention heartbreaking). And even on this topic, I did not understand how Yermali was captured by the Dzungars, but an even greater mystery for me is the necessity of his death - there is no sense in it at all, although the Master pushes a philosophical speech that this was his fate.
A separate issue is the presence of the character in the style of “shaman”. Uh, where did he come from in the khan's office, if the Dzungars have been professing Lamaism for 100 years. His behavior as a shaman is also very strange - always seizure and screaming, although he never went into a trance.
What is earth oil? Oil?
The final sentence at the end of the film is about a battle that lasted 100 days and 100 nights. It is a pity that no historian knows about such a grand battle for its time - where it happened and when (well, certainly not near the walls of Turkestan). Also very lame illustration of the battle in the film. God grant that there at least half a thousand soldiers gathered on the screen, some of them with some scare escaped at the very beginning of the battle. I can't imagine what these people could do for 3 months without a break. Looks like the filmmakers, too. Fire and smoke, sometimes silhouettes, that's all we see. Probably, by the end of the whole budget has already come out, or part is traditionally stolen (we are all “from there”)
If the goal of Nomad was to increase patriotism, then why does it reflect fictitious or at least blurred-blown events?
Against the background of all this, it becomes irrelevant that the main characters are played by American actors. It feels like a small thing.
It is sad to see that the writer of this film was Rustam Ibragimbekov.
There is an Evenki proverb: “Even the largest frog is smaller than the smallest bear.” This movie is like this.
Let’s start with the fact that the main characters of the tape are not at all similar to Kazakhs. Why? Because they're not Kazakhs! Is it possible that the international group of creators of “Nomad”, which was filmed under the auspices of the charity of THE PRESIDENT Nursultan Nazarbayev, could not find in such a large country as Kazakhstan, worthy characters for the main roles? After all, even Dakaskos is far from ... hmm ... dzungar (which from the Kazakhs almost did not differ).
The result is that the quite Caucasian guys of the Anvodakson spill cowboy across the steppe, depicting not just the reference Kazakhs, but their epic national heroes. Some kind of game...
And the gray mouse that plays the main character is an example of the beauty of Kazakh girls? Because of her liquid pigtails, Shakespearean passions are boiling? I will say the words of the classic director – I do not believe.
If you'll excuse me, I'll leave aside the analysis of camera work. She's really good. The steppe is beautifully shot. But there is a lot of nonsense going on here.
The creators of Nomad clearly envied The Matrix, and in order to surpass it, moved the staging of combat scenes from there to their offspring. Good people! Hear me! Please! You seem to have made a historical film... Well, a man can not dodge an arrow, whether he is horse or foot! A hail of arrows, even more so. Well, a peasant, beaten recently and tormented by hunger-thirst for one show performance in battles without rules, can not kill one after another a whole battalion of supostats (we must understand - not gopots, but the best fighters of the enemy tribe)!
To the article about the hand-to-hand skills of the inhabitants of the steppe. All the martial arts of the world in combat without weapons nervously smoke in the sidelines. They don't care about Kazakh kung fu! And on horseback!!! Looking at this "masterpiece" asked himself the question - why, in fact, the Kazakhs needed sabers-spears-knives-bows-arrows-darts-sulets-daggers-hands? It turns out that the bare heel on the blade they did better. And the expensive steel would save ...
And they lived, it turns out, in cities. No, seriously. Nomads, but in cities... How not to remember the textbook: “Submarine in the steppes of Ukraine”
The final battle with the enemies, it turns out, lasted a hundred days and nights. No lunch break. It's a pity that this, how not to twist - the most grandiose battle in the world, the battle of the late Middle Ages - the beginning of modern times outside the pile where it happened (by the way - where?) no one on the planet knows. What is the Battle of Kulikovo? What are the battles of the Thirty Years War? What do you mean? When, somewhere in the steppe deafness, so many people gathered (with the delivery of food, spare weapons, the fitting of shift horses, the placement of reinforcement camps and Marktan support) that they chopped three months without a break! Star Wars is resting ...
The plot is banal. Dzungar enemies are "flat" completely. Warriors are bad, a lot of cyborgs to turn into cutlets. Khan is paranoid. And the daughter Evon... you know who, if the captive Kazakh (sirech – American, judging by the face of his face) batyr herself without old-fashioned girl shame frankly offers.
I think the real Dzungars are spinning in their graves. Yes, yes, there were people. By the way, there are magnificent brave warriors who were not afraid to challenge even the Chinese Empire and not surrender to it. And that smack they gave the Kazakhs (that's a surprise, right?) But read the history of the East was a minor episode for them.
Actors' play doesn't touch at all. The motive of "brother on brother" is so blandly explained and shown that it becomes disgusting. Some heroes don't age at all. By definition. But anyway, the sensei from the steppes shown in the film is only a weak imitation of all the countless times previously shown sensei.
It is a shame that you cannot put below zero.
It is very difficult to write a review of this film, because, on the one hand, you want to be objective, and on the other hand, you do not want to offend the Kazakhs and (God forbid) you do not want to mock their national pride.
In fact, I don’t know if I would have seen this film if it hadn’t been for lectures on Eastern European historical cinema. I don’t watch TV, but I’ll be honest – having stumbled upon Nomad, I probably would have switched. And it would be wrong, because then there would be no firm opinion, and to criticize would be simply stupid.
I, to my great shame, do not know the history of Kazakhstan, so it is technically impossible for me to find fault with inconsistencies and blunders, and my review is based solely on my impression.
What I liked in the film: colorful secondary characters, emphasis on details, beautiful views of the steppe, allegory, philosophical moods and to some extent patriotic orientation. Many people here scold the last component of my pluses, but I personally believe that such films have a right to exist, and if the Kazakh people feel national pride when watching, then the goal has been achieved. It is much worse when there is no national pride. It is quite another thing that this story may seem pompous to a foreign viewer, because if you discard the personal patriotic component, a person begins to pay more attention to the harmony and entertainment of the plot, the play of actors, dialogues, etc.
What did not like: foreign actors in the lead roles (no mustaches and beards will help them become Kazakhs), a strong touch of Hollywood (pompous dialogues, animal cries at the loss of loved ones, inappropriately pathetic music, platitudes in the plot), an insufficient amount of local color, a certain template of the historical film (as if it was made according to the standard pattern, because of which there is a feeling of “somewhere I have already seen it”).
I think the film’s failure is due to the fact that its creators were mostly foreigners – because of this, the analogue of the fable “Swan, Pike and Cancer” came out. Obviously, the main goal of the film was patriotic and educational, and the creators coped with this task (although they did not know the measures). But as a product of international distribution, the film obviously does not look. Perhaps, if the creators were predominantly Kazakhs, the result would have been different – the film would have turned out more sincere, more national, without a strong touch of pathos and template characteristic of Hollywood films. And so sometimes you catch yourself thinking that this is a searing mixture of Gladiator, Pearl Harbor and others.
My verdict: mandatory viewing for residents of Kazakhstan and students of film faculties (will be useful in classes dedicated to state order and national cinema). Others may not be able to view it.
I would like to say that this film impressed me to the core and I really liked it. That's just why - I do not understand, because in the film at least add to the shortcomings. First of all, I'm sorry, but the main character of the Kazakhs is like my cat. Apparently, the creators decided to go out on his pretty appearance, but I think you could find a pretty Kazakh. I can’t say anything about historical authenticity, because I don’t know the history of Kazakhstan, but the idea of the film is generally not bad (although it is already worn out).
I was struck by the fact that the creators perfectly coped with small storylines (Jungar Khan, his wife, son, shaman), but Manjour’s friendship line and his love for Gauhar were simply obscene. When I watched it, I couldn’t believe the friendship of these warriors was true, and it always seemed that Manjour’s friend would betray him, frame him, or do something wrong. And the fault of the authors of the script of this storyline. The same applies to Gauhar: before he had time to embrace, he had already fled to the war, so you have all the love. Couldn't you have taken 5 minutes to open these lines?
The only one who doesn’t have any complaints is the teacher. His image is simply masterful! In short, the script is very "raw." But maybe it's because of that rawness that the film bribed me. The fact that the film was able to cause me strong emotions gives it a huge plus. But these were statements about the plot. As for the actors, she is on top. Costumes and a pleasant lack of a lot of computer graphics, too, pleased.
