Genghis Khan: A Lenda de um Conquistador

I study the migration and history of different people. The will of ghenghis khan is one of the the most accurate historical movies of all time down to the smallest detail. All names, customs, armour and weapons are correct. You can tell this movie has been worked on a lot.

Enormous effort has been put into this movie, with sublime photography, physical sets and good/decent acting. It even has references to previous civilizations such as the Skytic* people and northern mythology*. *Ghenghis khan wears a pendant with the shape of Thor's hammer, and the top of the flags used in battle end in a trident commonly used in Skytia magnum. I enjoyed this movie a lot and i hope you find this review helpful.

This collaboration among Mongolia, Russia, Kazakhstan, and the United States resulted in a disappointing film about a remarkable figure. Numerous historical inaccuracies, poor performances, and lackluster fight scenes contributed to the overall letdown.

By The Will of Genghis Khan narrates the early life of Temujin, a child of prophecy born to a nomadic chief on the steppes, leading up to his unification of the Mongol tribes. It explores the bond between three friends, blood-brothers, whose destinies pull them apart, revealing how betrayal and loss ultimately compel Temujin to pursue his ambition of becoming the Khan of all tribes.

Let me share my viewing experience: the stunning steppes of Mongolia should provide a magnificent backdrop, complemented by a large cast and numerous horses, setting high expectations for an epic film. However, it is filmed in low-quality digital video, characterized by poor resolution, dull colors, and the typical artifacts of such a format, including ghosting and smearing. Despite the presence of extras, the low production values make it resemble a subpar educational program, akin to a budget TV drama often found on lesser arts and history channels.

Avoid it!

The sleeve poster is good, It's what compelled me to rent the title - overall a bad decision.

This movie looks like it was edited by people who had no idea what a movie is, or saw none: It is a serie of rather short chronological scenes, seemingly insignificant, on a background of more or less relevant muzak, abruptely stitched together with a total lack of context or comment.

That could be as useful tool of education on How to Not make a Movie. I felt no desire whatsoever to follow the characters in their petty womenlike sqabbles. It took a few times to try and finished viewing the actual movie because I was so bored and failed.

Otherwise, the images are magnificent, the actors are no without talent, and it carries an air of low-level authenticity in the way it depicts Mongolian everyday life in that era.

Don't rent/buy unless you are a student of Mongolian cinema, in which it is interesting. If you force a friend to see this, chance are he won't be your friend anymore afterwards.

Hollywood's labyrinthine logic dictates that you can wait years and years for a film about a given topic (asteroid hitting the Earth, Alexander the Great) and, lo and behold, suddenly two will come along. One will invariably trump the other, or even beat it to the screen and throw its production into limbo (the Alexander case). It seems the same rule now applies to global film-making.

The last 3 years have seen two Russian directors try to bring the great Mongol Khan's story to the screen. The result was, on one hand, the epic "Mongol" and this smaller-budgeted offering. Borissov's film suffers by comparison on almost every level: inferior cast, smaller budget and a perplexing wish to cram a huge, complex life story into 2 hours.

There are a few arresting images: a line of monks kneeling to be decapitated, riderless horses charging in battle - someone's been watching Sergei Bondarchuck's War and Peace - and the smaller moments. And yet, net balance is negative: Borissov insist on playing by epic Hollywood rules and those attempts end in failure, chiefly because of what looks like obvious digital photography (that or very bad lenses). While the film is never as ugly as Michael Mann's Public Enemies, it acts as a painful reminder that the technology still has not fully matured to the point where it can carry a period piece on an epic canvas.

All in all, not a complete waste of time if the subject matter appeals to you, in which case Mongol or the interesting, smaller Mongolian version of the tale by Saifu Mailisi (check Amazon.uk). Or maybe John Milius' long awaited version...

This is maybe my second or third review and I only write them if I am very excited or so dissapointed I need to write my frustrations down and warn others. This movie is definitely the second... I bought the blu-ray, because Genghis Kahn, how could that be terrible? Already from the start I was like, what the hell is this? I mean, take some liberty in writing to make it appeal to the audience, but they definitely killed the movie already in the intro. The dialogues are painfully bad and the acting is even worse. I can't even describe it how bad it is. It was such a waste of money and time. If you like history and wanted to see the movie because it has Genghis Kahn, then please consider Mongol over this one. Mongol might not be 100% correct and surely dramatized, but it tells the story of Temujin better and more interesting.