"Mongol" ** (out of ****)When you walk out of the theatre after watching Sergei Bodrov's "Mongol" regardless of whether or not you liked it, I think the visuals will blow you away. That is the best compliment I can give this film and sadly the only one.
"Mongol" is the beginning of a proposed trilogy on the life of the great (?) Mongolian leader Genghis Khan, though known as Temudjin (Tadanobu Asano) in this film. It was also the official Kazakhstan entry for the 2008 Oscars for best foreign language film.
Sergei Bodrov is not a director I am terribly familiar with. I heard of his previous film, "Nomad", a story set in the 18th century about a man who brings together three warring tribes but never saw it. There is enough craft and knowledge of film presented in this film to make me interested to see more by him.
Bodrov knows how to make an epic scale film. He makes heavy use of the landscape here. In some ways it reminded me of David Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia" in the way both films used the landscape. In "Lawrence of Arabia" Lean would set-up extreme long shots of the desert as what appeared to be an ant moved alongside frame from left to right. That "ant" by the way was Peter O' Toole (that should give you an idea how extreme these long shots were). But the funny thing is normally when you have a static shot you would tend to think your eyes would follow movement. But not. My eyes would just try to soak the beauty of the landscape. Bodrov, like Lean, knows how to paint a beautiful landscape canvass. And before everyone starts sending me hate mail, let me clarify. I am not saying "Mongol" is as good or better than "Lawrence of Arabia". And Bodrov is not a better director then Lean.
For all of this film's beauty and awe it lacks heart. There is no understanding of the man. We know about his love for his wife, Borte (Khulan Chuluun) and the affection he has for his blood-brother but nothing about his desire to conquer. What drives Khan? What is in his soul? Those who defend the film, and there are many who defend it, will say, give this film time. There are two more on the way which will addressed all of this film's flaws. They may in fact be right in the end. But what are we suppose to do in the meantime? Here is a film which tells us nothing about Khan. Whatever we knew about him walking into this film you will leave knowing exactly the same.
The cinematography was by Rogier Stoffers and Sergei Trofimov. Stoffers shot "Disturbia", the earlier released teenage Hitchcock rip-off and "Quills". Trofimov shot the Russian sci-fi film "NightWatch". Neither man's previous work would have lead me to believe they are capable of the work presented in this film. There are amazing lightning shots and vast empty landscape shots. The best way to watch this movie, if you chose to see it, would be to go to the theatre, put in some ear plugs and simply look at the movie.
Posts
