^
See... this is a pretty well rounded summary of what the original post is about.
Some self important person comes to a board and makes a relatively well written post about how he dislikes a movie.
Said person wants to convince other people that his opinion is justified - yet completely neglects pointing out WHY he refused, could -or should not like this piece of 'inane drivel'.
He goes on in a loop, repeating himself, with, perhaps the exception of aptly switching out previously written negatively loaded words with synonyms.
Do you see the difference between these replies and the original post?
We've actually justified our reasons for disliking the contents of this maunder.
You're perfectly right in disrelishing something.
Heck, you're even 'allowed' to preach all you want (eventhough the choir you're seeking, might be harder to find than you had anticipated).
It just seems as though you're making the exact same mistake you're accusing this movie of, and that, my friend, is irony.
Kudos to you, bkostuk, in pointing out what I've just written, perhaps more so eloquently. It is not often I read well reasoned criticism on the various imdb-boards I visit.
Alas, this 'issue' is becoming a pretty well frequented problem, even in the 'review' sections.
A person will rave about whether or not he liked a movie, yet completely evade the entire topic of _why_, making the final 'verdict' redundant.
As for the movie?
It's a good effort.
Genghis Khan is such a powerful and important figure in the history of mankind, and here it's available in a nicely wrapped up story:
It's well told. Perhaps not as filled with action as we'd like, but it is just one chapter in the tellings of a man, much larger than two hours could ever hope to accomplish covering. We understand his quest for wanting to improve a country, and later, even an entire world.
The cinematography, as mentioned, is excellent. Stunning scenery plays a large part in aiding this very facet. It might even be the movie's best 'supporting role'.
Memorable faces make the actors very well cast. I particularly grew fond of the actor playing our protagonist. He has a very charismatic face, and delivers duely in conveying the appearance of one of history's true genious strategists.
The movie does carry some slower portions. If you suffer from ADHD, or you're simply used to something 'happening' all the time, it could most likely even be considered a flaw. I appreciate these lesser paced parts, as they help set the mood, and are even better building blocks for a good ending - eventhough this movie's ending certainly leaves something to be desired (at least if you're familiar with Genghis' conquests) - however, as I've understood - it is part one of a planned trilogy (whether this happens or not, only the future can tell).
The direction is fine. Nothing entirely groundbreaking. Though I must admit there were some slightly different perspectives offered in the final scenes, a nice change that helped, at least in my case, bring something 'new' to the table (which, perhaps, I should credit the DOP for). The mise-en-scene also seemed top notch.
Perhaps the story is too padded - but that has certainly not hindered films such as Braveheart in receiving high acclaim. Why should it here?
Maybe the dialogue is tattered, but that may come down to faulty translation. I saw this movie on blu-ray, relased by Universal Pictures to be specific. The subtitles seemed fine. Certianly not incoherent. But then again, philosophical rhetoric is what it is.
I'd recommend the movie to anyone. It caters to a very broad audience. Even people mostly familiar with American McCinema.
It's not going to change your life. It's not going to be 'the best movie you ever saw' (then again... that statement never really carries much ground).
It's going to be a movie with a memorable cast, memorable scenery - and last but not least: it's a visualization of very important, very real events, and might even stand as a reminder of where we came from, why we still stand by some ancient, and perhaps, at first glance, ridiculous traditions.
On an ending note: it might just be what can help you get into 'foreign cinema' (perhaps the most stupid movie-related term ever coined), then again, it could, as is the case in the original poster's case, turn you off it.
reply
share