Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan (2008)

Until now, my knowledge of Genghis Khan was limited to what I had learnt from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (he totally ravaged China and Oshman's Sporting Goods, and likes Twinkies!). Mongol, from Russian writer/director Sergei Bodrov, charts the legendary warrior's life from child, to slave, to conqueror of much of central Asia and China, and is far more informative.Apparently, however, Bodrov has altered quite a few facts to suit his film, and picking out the truths from the less accurate stuff is no mean feat. The action also jumps awkwardly to key moments in Genghis's life with little explanation of what has occurred in the meantime. In short, If I were to do a history report on Genghis based on this film, there's a good chance I would fail. Most egregious!6/10 — Still worth seeing (despite the historical inaccuracies) for the wonderful cinematography and the violent battle scenes in which plenty of the red stuff is splashed about.

These days, it's hard to find the time to sit down and engross myself in historical canon that I'd like to. If I was given the time, I'd immerse myself in the (hopefully) accurate biographies of Da Vinci, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahavira, the Renaissance and Edo periods, Korean and African histories, and really, anything entertaining, in depth and accurate. Sadly, all I can do is rely on movies to educate me. Really, I should know better, given the need for studios to get their investments back, and then some, by wedging love stories into epics to get the female dollars in the theatres. Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan, unfortunately, fell headlong into that commercial trap. Really, the movie was actually a love story with the backdrop which was the Temujin's rise to power. As such, the filmmaker took an extreme amount of liberty and explained very little, history-wise.Seriously - armies of men sacrificed their lives for one woman? These rough-hewn Mongols are scared to death of a little thunderstorm? Temujin gained men to his fold because he was just so likable? A little coercive force had nothing to do with that? Maybe a little bribe here, a little touch of corruption there? No? This Temujin sure was a forgiving fellow. Hard to believe considering his immense rise to power. One couldn't possibly consolidate that much power, and inspire that much fear, by being forgiving to his enemies, can they? Wouldn't he be perceived as being weak? There are other questionable elements in the film which, in all honesty, degrades its intensity. The Russians despised Genghis Khan because he was seen as ruthless and blood-thirsty. I believe it. I mean, in the end, the guy did kill about 250 million people. That's a lot of bodies for a forgiving guy, no?

Unlike many historical films, having an interest in the subject area is not needed at all to enjoy and appreciate this movie. The visuals, stunning scenery and action alone in 'Mongol' make it a beautiful film to watch.The story of Genghis Khan is fascinating and I thought it was presented very well in the film. There was more emphasis on the actual story than the action and special effects, which is what I prefer. The action itself was impressive but not overdone, as it so often is, which was also a pleasant change.'Mongol' is a very well made and visually stunning film that can be understood and enjoyed by all.

Genghis Khan: The Biography this movie is not, and how could it be? Much of the history of the warlords young life is wrapped in legend and convenient events. Because the trilogy that this film was meant to be the first part of never saw the light of day - director Bodrov first lost interest, then wanted to make only a second part, and eventually nothing came of it - I can forgive the mostly uncritical take on this man who would grow up to be one of history's most murderous tyrants.But it would have been interesting to see where this all came from. The film hints at his desire to unite the Mongols, to give them 'simple laws'. But as we all know, there are no Mongols in Baghdad or Kiev, great cities of the age that were all but destroyed by Mongol invaders. Their inhabitants were killed or enslaved - and for what? At one point in the film it is said that all Mongols do is 'steal and kill'. So it seems: half a millennium after the Romans of Constantinopolis built the wondrous Hagia Sophia, the Mongols came up with the 'simple law' that betraying your Khan was a capital offense. That might be revolutionary on the steppes, but its not very impressive in the larger scheme of things.As such, the movie is barely more than an interesting adventure on the steppes of central Asia. There's the determined, strong and divinely favoured hero and his faithful, strong-willed and beautiful wife, the friend-turned-enemy, the small skirmish, the big battle. It's all rather formulaic, but it works well enough - and the steppes themselves are nothing short of impressive. There are some fantastic landscape shots in this film.So despite its dubious history, its uncritical approach to this much-hated historic figure, and the unoriginal storytelling, I still found myself entertained throughout the films two hour duration.