The film Text copyright (c) Filmverdict 2006-present. Any film titles and artwork used are copyright of their respective owners.
Mongol is a historical epic looking at the rise to power of a famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) ruler who conquered much of the known world at the time he lived. All this could also refer to Oliver Stone's Alexander. But director/co-writer Sergei Bodrov avoids falling into one of the pitfalls into which Stone plunged: he does not attempt to cover the whole life of his main character in one film. Despite a running time of three hours or more - depending on the version - Oliver Stone discovered that it was impossible in a single instalment to do justice to the life of a man like Alexander the Great. Genghis Khan, the subject of Mongol, is in many ways comparable to the ancient Macedonian king, but Bodrov has his eyes on a trilogy. As such Mongol basically takes the form of the first act of the life of its focal character.
It's a decision that proves to be both beneficial and problematic. With a substantial amount of time to cover the life of Genghis Khan (assuming the next two instalments, should they happen, both are a similar two-hour length, that makes a total of six hours for this biographical narrative to unfold), Bodrov is, to a degree, able to take his time. The lurches in time that plague many a biopic are made less necessary, although they still do occur occasionally. The measured pace - the whole film is basically an origin story, with the actual figure of Genghis Khan only really emerging at the end - allows the director to introduce us to the characters and let us get to know them, meaning that a greater attachment is developed towards the central cast than to the undeveloped peripheral characters of some epic films. However, the slow pace sometimes feels too slow, but more damaging is the repetitive nature of the narrative: basically, it's just a constant cycle of the protagonist getting captured by enemies, escaping, going on the run, and then being captured again. Such a pattern does become slightly monotonous.
On a more positive note, the film looks utterly stupendous, with the cinematography brilliantly capturing the majestic landscapes of the Mongolian plains. Bodrov isn't afraid to use the full width of the widescreen frame, too, which allows for some David Lean-esque wide shots in which the humans are mere specks, dwarfed by the landscape surrounding them. The film only truly ascertains the status of "epic" in its final stages, when two massed armies finally clash, and it's a very well executed sequence, with the battle strategies and spatial arrangement of the armies clearly communicated through the visuals. Due to the film's emphasis on the smaller scale events of Genghis Khan's early life (when he went by his birth name, Temudgin), it comes across as a very intimate and human story, an aspect that can often be lacking amidst the grandiosity of historical spectaculars. Mongol is a well-made and engaging film, then, but it cannot avoid leaving the viewer with the feeling that it never gets to the more interesting part of its character's life: when he became the brutal conqueror of which the history books speak.
The summary
A great-looking and enjoyable mini-epic that is just hamstrung by the fact that it's clearly intended to be just part one of a larger saga.
Agree? Disagree? Say so in the Guestbook!