Orda

a religious film. that is the point who, I suppose, explains it in a wise manner. not as manifesto against Mongols, not as a story about Russia. only as story of sacrifice and faith. sure, it is only a point of view. sure, it is a too subjective film and that is not a real surprise. because the cruelty, the week leaders, the powerful women, the story of Alexey and the moral victory are pieces of a portrait who defines way for assume the past. looking historical accuracy it is bizarre work. because the atmosphere, the tale, the mission of an hierarch are only important things. and, sure, the victory of Orthodox Church against an ambiguous evil. a film who could be useful for understand Russia out of definitions.

Only 5 reviews so far? Contrary to what some reviewers would have you believe this is a film that is clearly well made. The sets, costumes and period detail is exceptional. The camera work and direction, at least to my untrained eyes, appears to be top notch. While the story was unfamiliar to me it was interesting and well paced. Whether these accounts are historically correct or are depicted without bias is utterly irrelevant to the average movie goer. If you like well conceived, believable, detailed dramas about other lands and peoples then this is worth a long look. The acting is excellent, especially the role of the Mongolian matriarch played by Roza Khayrullina. Her authority and air of nobility is palpable. There is very little action in this film. However, there are numerous portrayals of brutality and violence as these are really unavoidable. Why is there no bluray?

This movie was paid for by the church so that the basic plot holds itself true to the living of saint Alexius of Moscow. Still the director managed to make the best out of it, to pack it together with a lovely tale about an overlooked page of Russian history: the impending collapse of the Golden Horde. And rotting it starts from the head, with the uncouth assassination of khan Tini Beg by his brother Jani Beg.

This is a refreshing view for historical cinema. Hitherto the Horde was never given any lines of dialogue. You might have seen Andrey Rublev by Tarkovsky: they raze a city to the ground and ride away. In Eisenstein's Nevsky they're also shown to be an amorphous sinister outside force which can intervene on someone's behalf in Russian politics but is never doing anything on their own. They've been hitherto shown as unspeakable savages, as the Borg, as the zerg but never as dramatic characters, as yet another wave of brutal Russian statesmen, akin to the Bolsheviks or to Ivan the Terrible's thugs. The movie dispels the myth the Tatar Yoke was felled by the Russians in the Grand Standing on the Ugra river. You're shown it instead has removed itself, decades in advance, in a painfully similar manner to so many other political entities on the Russian soil.

An interesting moment lost on foreign viewers is usage of language in the film. It is amusing to see some obscure Central Asian language being the prestige dialect, the lingua franca, to all of the Russians. Today it's the other way round.

The movie is a tough sell. Whom will it appeal: History buffs, religious people or Eastern movie fans? Maybe none of them, maybe all of them. It seems to try to appease a lot of people and might find itself not working for the majority of them. It's an historical epic picture alright, but does it engage the viewer? That's for you to decide.

The action scenes are alright, the pathos/religion aspects of it are bearable too. The performances are really good and the sets/locations are just amazing. Which also brings us to the cinematography. The movie really looks good. But due to the scope of it, it might run a bit too long for some. The pacing seems alright, but might feel to slow to some. It's a tough one to watch at times, but interesting nonetheless

I stumbled upon it today on Netflix while eating lunch. I watched it for about a half-hour, but found it to be a waste of time and quit after 30 minutes. It's evident that there's some great acting and direction at work in this production, but it totally failed in the storytelling department. I think it's a good thing for the screenwriters to be from the "show", not "tell" school of film making, but more exposition would have helped. It seemed like Game of Thrones without enough back story. Maybe something got lost in translation since it is dubbed.

I found the depiction of the Mongols to be totally misleading. As a history buff, I understand that the Mongols ruled the largest and most diverse empire in the history of the world for more than 200 years. However, I don't think that feat was done by what this film depicts as the most boorishly brutal group of "hillbilly" Mongols this side of Urals. It's as though the director had studied some isolated tribes in Mongolia and grafted his impressions onto his depiction of the Mongol ruling class. For all their ruthlessness, the Mongols of the Golden Horde were more worldly and diplomatic than the bunch depicted in this film. Some historians consider the Mongol Empire the first multinational corporation. If the movie Mongols had ruled Russia, I doubt that they would have been able to hold onto power for a decade instead of a few centuries. If the Russians had allowed themselves to be conquered by this sorry group, it does n't really make the Russians look too good either.