"Mongol"(the movie)

[Dewey]

So, I just got home from seeing "Mongol", and it was awesome!!! It's the story of the early life of Genghis Khan( or Temudgin as he was originally known). It has great acting, the props were amazing, and the scenery and cinematography was absolutely stunning. so, has anyone else seen it?

[Lord Iames Osari]

I have! I totally agree it was hella awesome.

Edit: And Borte was hot.

[EvilElitest]

meh, i'm mixed. On one hand, it was a very well filmed movie. And i like how the Khan is showed in a positive light, which is not often. However, they took it too far, it felt far too nationalistic. I think it is great they show him as a human, but instead they show him as some sort of saint. I mean, if i made a movie about Napleon for example, i wouldn't show him as a evil tyrant like the British did, and show him as a smart and brilliant leader with a strong following. But you would still show him as a selfish egotist. they show the good things about the kan, but they don't show the bad


I think the props were great, and cool sound track. I just wish they did more. The spend so much time on the romance, they could have done more about his uniting the mongols


still well directed
from
EE

[zeratul]

I have! I totally agree it was hella awesome.

Edit: And Borte was hot.

Seconded on both counts

Also the weird singing thing was awesome, me and my dad have started randomly doing that to weird people out.:smallwink:

[Dewey]

To EE: Not to be confrontational or anything, but i wouldn't say he was portrayed as a saint, per se. Towards the end, right after he was reunited with his family, and he rode of to unite the mongols, i got the sense that Borte was kinda pissed at him because he was never around. So you could argue that in a way, he placed his goals of unification over his family, which isn't the acion of a saint.

Edit: Zeratul, you liked that chanting singing thing too? that was pretty cool.

[zeratul]

There was also the whole thing with him stealing troops from a good friend of his. I feel he was portrayed as no more saintly than his "brother". Both had flaws but were just extremely likable.

[Cespenar]

Overall, it was a good movie, and though it had some points that irritated me slightly, I can't remember them right now.

Hmm, but what I remember thinking is that it had too much escapes. I mean, is the man's whole life consists of escaping and getting caught?



I think the props were great, and cool sound track. I just wish they did more. The spend so much time on the romance, they could have done more about his uniting the mongols.

Same thoughts here too.

[EvilElitest]

To EE: Not to be confrontational or anything, but i wouldn't say he was portrayed as a saint, per se. Towards the end, right after he was reunited with his family, and he rode of to unite the mongols, i got the sense that Borte was kinda pissed at him because he was never around. So you could argue that in a way, he placed his goals of unification over his family, which isn't the acion of a saint.

Edit: Zeratul, you liked that chanting singing thing too? that was pretty cool.

but that is a minor thing. Alright, maybe not a saint, but certainly some sort of super hero. Now we know that hte real Khan was a brutal and ruthless man, and yet he was still brilliant, and certainly an amazing man. However, with a few minor exceptions, he is showed in a glorified manner. Rememeber in Mongolian standards, putting your country over your family can be seen as good (ignoring the whole clan thing).

I wish they showed him both as a brutal and yet enlightened man. I'm glad they don't show him as Baby eating monster, and yet they don't really give an hints about his cruel nature in any critical way (rememeber, this is the Khan) so it seemed a bit nationalistic.


That being said, i loved the custums. Did any clan really have those masks?
from
EE

[Dewey]

EE, I agree that they glorified him, i just wouldn't go so far as to say he was a saint. I think we can both agree on that. Moving on, I think the reason they didn't really show the unification is that the writers etc. figured that thats the part people already know about. The sense I got was that the movie was supposed to be the "backstory", so to speak, of Temudgin/Genghis. Did it seem different to you?

[Glaivemaster]

Watched it a while back, and quite enjoyed it. I'm with everyone on the scenery/backgrounds being beautiful. As far as the history is concerned, it seemed fairly accurate (with a couple of things added or removed to make it more exciting and interesting or streamlined, for obvious reasons).

I did enjoy the close look at Temujin and Jamuka and their relationship. It says a lot about Jamuka and how little is often said about him that I had to look up his name just to remember it. The whole brotherhood and betrayal thing was quite cool and a little touching.

My main problem was that it just felt a little boring storywise; nothing really grabbed me and made me need to keep watching.

[EvilElitest]

EE, I agree that they glorified him, i just wouldn't go so far as to say he was a saint. I think we can both agree on that. Moving on, I think the reason they didn't really show the unification is that the writers etc. figured that thats the part people already know about. The sense I got was that the movie was supposed to be the "backstory", so to speak, of Temudgin/Genghis. Did it seem different to you?

I now the general stuff about the unification, but personally, i wanted more on that. I mean, i this is the first is a trilogy, but consideirng hte next too movies are going to take place in China, Korea, Russia and Central Asia, i think that this movie should have gone into more detail about how the clans were unitied. I mean, i wanted to see more of the politics, and more cool clans, like those guys with the horse masks.


Also, a question on that. When the horse face people attack them (Merkits right?) in that ambush, how do the good guys really win. Its like they get off the horses, then suddenly kick ass.
from
EE

[Glaivemaster]

I now the general stuff about the unification, but personally, i wanted more on that. I mean, i this is the first is a trilogy, but consideirng hte next too movies are going to take place in China, Korea, Russia and Central Asia, i think that this movie should have gone into more detail about how the clans were unitied. I mean, i wanted to see more of the politics, and more cool clans, like those guys with the horse masks.

I don't think there's much more to it than what was said in the movie. Genghis Khan and his warband went around beating up other people, then drafting the survivors into his own army. Eventually he had an army big enough to challenge the big players; Jamuka and Ong Khan (who wasn't in the movie and whose role fell to Jamuka), and then did the same to them. I'm not sure if there's an easy way to show 10 or so years of that other than just summing it up as they did. The Empire building stuff becomes a lot more interesting once they leave Mongolia

[EvilElitest]

I don't think there's much more to it than what was said in the movie. Genghis Khan and his warband went around beating up other people, then drafting the survivors into his own army. Eventually he had an army big enough to challenge the big players; Jamuka and Ong Khan (who wasn't in the movie and whose role fell to Jamuka), and then did the same to them. I'm not sure if there's an easy way to show 10 or so years of that other than just summing it up as they did. The Empire building stuff becomes a lot more interesting once they leave Mongolia

however seeing all of the different mongolian clans, and more details of his conquest would be a little more interesting than the love scene, which just dragged on and on. But that is more of a personal note (through Ong Khan would be interesting to see). As somebody who doesn't know much about the Mongolian conquest, what seemed odd to me was taht the Khan only suddenly decieded to unite the Mongolians. I mean, he is just focused on making family, and then near the end he suddendly is all like "you know what, i'm going to unite the Mongolians and dominate China
from
EE

[Glaivemaster]

As somebody who doesn't know much about the Mongolian conquest, what seemed odd to me was taht the Khan only suddenly decieded to unite the Mongolians. I mean, he is just focused on making family, and then near the end he suddendly is all like "you know what, i'm going to unite the Mongolians and dominate China
from
EE

I think it's down to the fact that the only way to really be safe with his family was to take the initiative and do some conquering. Before-hand he ended up chased away from his own tribe, enslaved a couple of times, and constantly on the run. Once he built an army and took charge he didn't need to hide anymore, and he could be happy with his family

A lot of the early Mongol conquests (under Genghis Khan in particular) were very defensive or vengeful acts - it wasn't that he necessarily wanted to be ruler of the world originally, but if people will keep attacking you the only way to make them stop is to give them a serious beating. And then there's the need for loot to pay the army, but still...

As for the lack of conuqering scenes and lots of love scenes instead, I think it was because the movie wanted to tell a story about a person, not about a nation. Looking at conquests and how Temujin became Genghis Khan and ruler of Mongolia is a very nice historical story, but the film wanted to look at the person, not history. I'm not sure to what extent this draws from The Secret History of the Mongols (an epic tale of Genghis Khan, the person he was and how he came to be), but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that it also focused on his love of Borte and him as a person. The sad tale of love and romance makes for a more gripping story, or it does if it's done well.

[Tenadros]

When discussing the film as nationalistic or showing the Genghis Khan as a sainted figure. We should keep in mind that the film was made in the regions of Asia where The Mongolian's still live, it was done largely by the mongolian people and to them, he IS a saint.

To use one's point. Its not like we are making a film about Napoleon, so we can have a more distanced view of him then say the British. Its like American's were making a film about George Washington, or the British were making a film about Sir Francis Drake. The world will forgive us if we don't seek out each and every blemish in the man's character.

[EvilElitest]

I think it's down to the fact that the only way to really be safe with his family was to take the initiative and do some conquering. Before-hand he ended up chased away from his own tribe, enslaved a couple of times, and constantly on the run. Once he built an army and took charge he didn't need to hide anymore, and he could be happy with his family

A lot of the early Mongol conquests (under Genghis Khan in particular) were very defensive or vengeful acts - it wasn't that he necessarily wanted to be ruler of the world originally, but if people will keep attacking you the only way to make them stop is to give them a serious beating. And then there's the need for loot to pay the army, but still...

Really? But wait, how did he get that huge army? But anyways, my main complaint is taht when he says that the Mongols need rules, it seems abrupt. Like he was thinking and then was like "you know what, Mongols need rules, i'm going to become the great Khan of Mongolia"
I know why he did it, but i wish they had more hints of that through out the movie



As for the lack of conuqering scenes and lots of love scenes instead, I think it was because the movie wanted to tell a story about a person, not about a nation. Looking at conquests and how Temujin became Genghis Khan and ruler of Mongolia is a very nice historical story, but the film wanted to look at the person, not history. I'm not sure to what extent this draws from The Secret History of the Mongols (an epic tale of Genghis Khan, the person he was and how he came to be), but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that it also focused on his love of Borte and him as a person. The sad tale of love and romance makes for a more gripping story, or it does if it's done well.
Except as a historical figure, one who changed the entire world, the main focus ought to be the history. The things he did were truly epic and spectacular, as well as world changing and interesting.
I mean, take William the Conquerer, takes over England and does a lot of stuff (like the Doomday book). Now if i made a movie about him, i could make a movie about his experience as a child, fleeing from assassins and trying to forge himself, but the real interest is what he actually do

Take Napoleon. If i made a movie about him, (through personally he should get his own TV show), i wouldn't focus it on his life in a French Aristocratic school. I'd cover it, and the way he grew to resent everybody else around him and how his personality was forged there, but i would make the main focus be what made him dominate France.



On the nationalistic issue, well take both William and Napoleon. They are viewed as heros, but they were still bad people who did terrible things (through Napoleon was pretty honest about it).

The difference between the Khan and George Washington is that i don't think Washington really did anything that bad. I mean, he attacked on Christmas, and i think he owned slaves, but really, he didn't do many bad things. the Khan, living in an age and a culture where it was ok, did many bad things. He was a ruthless, ambitious, cunning, and cruel man, like William the Conquerer or napoleon, or Julius Caesar. He was also a great and amazing man, who took over the second largest land based empire in history, coming from pretty humble orgins. So he is a man who should be admired, but he shouldn't be put in a saintly light, it would be like America puting General Custer in a saintly light. Actually a better example would be Robert E Lee. he was a great general, a gentleman, a great and intelligent leader, and a southern hero. But if you make a movie about him, you can't ignore the fact he is still fighting for hte Confederacy. Or nathan Bedford Forest
from
EE

[Glaivemaster]

As Tenadros points out, it was made in Mongolia and so that does change the focus of a lot of what we'd expect in a Genghis film. I might dare to say that it's not like the Americans making a film about Washington, but rather about Jesus (okay, maybe not that strong, but still). To most Western countries, that would be a film about a saintly figure, but in the east that's not how they might view him, and it's similar here. In Mongolia they don't necessarily see Genghis as a Mighty Conqueror who used cunning, tactics and lots of men to take over the world, they see him as this amazing, saintly figure, as written about in his own Epic. The focus for you might be the history, but the people who made the film didn't care about that history, except in the context of how it effected and was effected by the Khan.

You're right, it'd be nice to see a film about him conquering, but that's not what this film was supposed to be about. That's left to a different film entirely - I'm not sure if it could even fit into this film and still be able to call itself the same film.


Really? But wait, how did he get that huge army? But anyways, my main complaint is taht when he says that the Mongols need rules, it seems abrupt. Like he was thinking and then was like "you know what, Mongols need rules, i'm going to become the great Khan of Mongolia"
I know why he did it, but i wish they had more hints of that through out the movie

I'm not sure if these questions are asked as a potential audience, or you actually want to know, so I'll answer anyway (it makes me feel like I'm clever anyway. :smalltongue:):

The huge army came from absorbing smaller armies by either conquering them and taking the survivors, or just having people rally to his cause. Yes, this wasn't explained particularly well in the movie from what I remember, but as I argue, it's not too important anyway

As for the Mongols need rules, that comes again from his desire to be left in peace. Genghis looks at Mongolia and what he sees is a group of tribes constantly warring so that the weak or powerless (like himself, once) end up at the bottom of the stack and crushed, with little hope for ever achieving anything. This resonates with everything he's felt and been through, being split from his mother and siblings, from his wife-to-be and then from his wife, being taken into slavery and generally being beaten and degraded. He's personally sick of it and doesn't want it to happen to anyone else, so invents rules for Mongols to live by and uses his army to force them on others. Once again, yeah, skipped over a little, and this was a more important point.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Yeah, the Wallachians aren't going to put Vlad the Impaler as a villain in a film and the mongols won't say many bad things about Gengis Khan.