There are many historical distortions in the movie. Biggest fiction is that Ablai Khan and Galdan never fought each other (Ablai Khan was born in 1711, where Galdan died in 1697). And Zhungars are not conquered by Kazakhs as shown in this movie! During Galdan's rule, Central Asian countries were no match to Zhungars-Mongols (even Khalkhas-Mongols).The movie, itself is OK to watch. Just remember that it is a historic fiction movie.

This is simply put, the worst movie I have ever seen. It ranges from like 2+ hours, and the box art was totally misleading. My friends and I rented it because, we thought it would be a poor man's 300. You know, to laugh at and make fun of. No. There is nothing funny about this movie, only pain. Then, the movie starts up, and they are speaking some sort of different language. We think, 'Oh its just the beginning.' But no, from there the movie plummets and becomes more of like a super boring book you had to read in grade school, where nothing literally happens for hours, and the battle scenes rival those of 2 kids fighting on a playground. Omit Cinematography, and this movie belongs in trash compactor. Movies like this will lead to the world we see in Wall-E, which by the way was a good movie.

I loved this movie and will watch it again. If you like epic movies, don't miss this one! The acting and directing are excellent. True, it would've been more credible if leading male roles were played by Kazakhs or Asians instead of clearly white- and Latin-looking men. But they did a great job acting (hey, you can't hold someone's appearance against them )) Visually, the movie is very beautiful. Also, amazingly, all battle scenes - including huge masses of people and horses - are live, not comp generated.The story line: it seems the actual historic events were simplified and more touchy personal lines added (as in Troy) to make it more appealing to general viewing population. Also, I hear English subtitles skipped 2/3 of the actual text and even what remained didn't do justice to the original dialogue, with sucks for those of us who don't understand Kazakh. Still, even with this handicap, I was able to enjoy it immensely.Overall, it is a very enjoyable, beautiful and gripping film with the double benefit of getting acquainted with a part of the world most of us are not familiar with.

Certainly NOMAD has some of the best horse riding scenes, swordplay, and scrumptious landscape cinematography you'll likely see, but this isn't what makes a film good. It helps but the story has to shine through on top of these things. And that's where Nomad wanders.The story is stilted, giving it a sense that it was thrown together simply to make a "cool" movie that "looks" great. Not to mention that many of the main characters are not from the region in which this story takes place (and it's blatantly obvious with names like Lee and Hernandez). If movie makers want to engross us in a culture like the Jugars and the Kazaks, they damn well better use actors/actresses that look the part.Warring tribes, a prophecy, brotherly love and respect, a love interest that separates our "heroes", are all touched on but with so little impact and screen time that most viewers will brush them aside in favor of the next battle sequence, the next action horse scene, or the breathtaking beauty of the landscape.It is worth mentioning that there were some significant changes made to Nomad during its filming, specifically the director and cinematographer. Ivan Passer (director) was replaced by Sergei Bodrov, and Ueli Steiger (cinematographer) was replaced by Dan Laustsen. In one respect, Laustsen seems to have the better eye since his visions of the lands made the final cut that we see here. Definitely a good thing. However, the changing over to Bodrov as director may not have been the wisest choice. From what I'm seeing here, the focus is on the battles and not the people, which I sense comes from Bodrov's eyes and not Passer's. A true travesty.The most shameful aspect is that this could've been a really fantastic film, with both character and action focuses. Unfortunately, the higher-ups apparently decided that action was what was needed and took the cheap (intellectually speaking) way out.Even though I can't give this film a positive rating, it is worth watching simply for the amazing cinematography work. But that's all.