Quite Bad SPOILERS

Like several here I came across this as it was a John McTiernan film I hadn't seen. He's also credited as writer so I'm sure he deserve much of the blame for what I'm about to state.

First the doctor character, whom I felt is the lead, was a half-baked idea at best. Here's the issue. Firstly, she's hardly a character. I can't recall her name, but IMDB has her created as Flax, which I never heard during the movie. All we know is she's doctor new in town and overworked. That's it. She has no personality of any kind because for the majority of the film she is in a state of procession. We really don't know how this affects her judgment, personal life, etc. She's trying to unravel a mystery that Bronson's character was working on. Why couldn't we just follow him the entire movie? Was the reveal of him as a spirit really worth the payoff? I think not.

Some are calling this a horror. I never got that vibe. I think this is because
Nomads plays too confusing. It's struggling to dedicate to a tone. I found no element even slightly scary and struggled while watching to understand which characters could see the spirits and why their interaction with the world seemed authentic (graffiti for example).

Lastly, the synopsis of this film on IMDB does the movie more favors than the screenplay deserves. Did the spirits really follow the anthropologist? There was wet paint on the garage door when they bought the house, suggesting the cryptic graffiti had been there before for the previous resident. That's clear enough to me that the spirits just so happen to be hassling the one guy in town who knows their origin. Pretty convenient.

The only redeeming quality is that Nomads plays a subtextual message: California is the land of nomads. I'm thinking that kind of geographical pandering led to more work for John McTiernan as Hollywood loves movies about the whole LA thing as they put it. 4/10

THE ONLY CRITIC WHO CAN REVIEW WHILE JOGGING:
http://bit.ly/1pPzoBc