Jon Peters Reviews: “Mongol”

‘Mongol’ is just an old fashion historical epic, nothing more, in terms f what it was trying to achieve. There was a surge of these films in the 1990s after ‘Braveheart’, but like all genres when there are a slew of similar films, the audience loses interest and so does the studios. But unlike most films like this, ‘Mongol’ feels like retelling of a myth more than actual historical text. There’s nothing wrong with that, Sergei Bodrov has crafted a beautiful film, especially with its cinematography and the way they capture the landscapes.

‘Mongol’ is a reinterpretation of Genghis Khan; an origin story so to speak. What’s vastly unique about this film is the way it demystifies Khan and examines him as simply a man. Bodrov claimed in recent interviews that much of the public views on Genghis Khan were based off the way the Russians portrayed him through their eyes, not the Mongolian’s. USSR’s view on his whole history was downright banned; one couldn’t mention his name, for fear of rising Mongolian nationalism. Bodrov was extremely fortunate to get this project off the ground and in the way he wanted. While Bodrov was trying to strip away misconceptions, precisely Russian misconceptions, he film feels quite episodic in nature, covering his childhood and rise o power.

The success of the film really relies on the nature of his journey throughout the landscape. Here’s an epic story, detailing the rise of one of the world’s greatest conquerors, and for whatever battle or personal turmoil that he faces, the landscape and the way its shot, almost engulfs the characters. No matter how grand the journey is, it all seems insignificant compared to the wide shots of open land, to the rolling thunder at night, to the snow, he himself is no bigger than Mongolia.

The film isn’t as easily to digest like ‘Braveheart’. There are battle scenes, grand in execution without CGI, but the episodic nature of the events feels more like broad stokes of his life instead of an intimate study. There’s nothing wrong with that, it just becomes a series of personal wishes you might have to have something thoroughly examined. The score is fabulous and the acting is equal, fully creating a dynamic telling of Genghis Khan. It makes 1956’s ‘The Conqueror’, starring John Wayne as Khan even more laughable (although it’s like beating a dead horse, sorry Duke).

Apparently, this is the first of a proposed trilogy on Khan’s life. ‘Mongol’ is a great movie, although with that knowledge it does feel more like a prequel. I hope Sergei Bodrov continues this story, as it would be one amazing series. Until then, ‘Mongol’ is a good film for a patient viewer.