Nomads

Got this cheap on a sale. I've been having this 80's season with watching movies and decided to purchase it without any prior knowledge of it. I was just surprised it's a McTiernan movie I hadn't heard of.

I wasn't completely convinced at first and thought that it was 2 euros flushed down the toilet. The story picks up quite slow and the beginning is executed in a style I wasn't very fond of. Brosnan portraying a frenchman was a bit annoying too. But after 30 minutes or so, I was pretty hooked to see how the movie would eventually unfold.

Even tho it turned out to be "ok", it's got a lot of flaws. It feels as if it would've needed a lot more substance in script. The whole nomad story is pretty vague and there's not much background info on Brosnans expeditions, which would've made this movie more gripping and interesting. The connection is there, but to me it didn't deliver. I was left a bit confused with a lot of things. It almost goes into David Lynch territory at times, which isn't a completely bad thing, but you need to have that "something" to pull off a supernatural mystery like this. To me this wasn't such a movie, even tho it may not be too far from succeeding. Something was missing from the story.

I was also left wondering if the movie had worked better without the doctor lady completely, concentrating on Brosnans character. The whole flashback/hallucination thing was mostly just confusing. There was some nice editing at times and it added to the tension, but I still feel this movie would've worked better in a more linear fashion, dropping the doctor character completely.

So, the initial story was interesting, but the execution made it a mess. Maybe I should watch it again to appreciate the structure, but at the moment I don't see myself spending another 90 minutes on it. I'll keep it in my movie library tho, just in case I wan't to revisit it at some point.

As a side note, the movie contains one of the most brutal scenes I've witnessed on screen. It's not graphic at all and is portrayed from a distance, but it comes very unexpected. It really made me feel uncomfortable.

6 points for the story and originality, may be a bit generous tho. Maybe it was worth the 2 euros I payed for it, but not more. McTiernan continues to be a mystery of a director, having made classics and my favorites Die Hard and Predator, but still capable of creating an artsy movie like this and some complete garbage like Rollerball remake.

Truly coming from the genre of Urban Fantasy, this film belongs with stories such as Alan Dean Foster's "Into the Out of" or some of Charles de Lint's more horrific tellings.

An anthropologist returns to the city after years of travelling and investigating, only to find that the spirits of the places he travelled have become aware of his probing eye, and have come looking in return. A balancing by the Manitou, as it were. The film has a heavy, oppressive mood to it, but leaves the watcher to figure out a great deal of the content for themselves.

Coming from the same director as "Die Hard" and "The 13th Warrior", this is a rather surprisingly subtle film, and quite delightful in it's execution. Highly recommended, if you can find it.

Don't get me wrong... I usually don't mind movies that are ambiguous or vague (David Lynch anyone...? : ) But, in this case I think that what they did is take a fairly intriguing idea and just didn't develop it very well.

Pierce Brosnan (isn't that the greatest name ever!) is of course very striking as he always is. And, the idea of the spirits of the Intuits is great. But, perhaps the way it was written, IDK... Certainly John McTiernan is a brilliant director with films like 'DIE HARD' and 'PREDATOR' for Goodness sakes! But, maybe his heart just wasn't in this one, or maybe due to the Psychedelic imagery in this one he may have been indulging in some pharmacological 'help', IDK...

But, ultimately I feel that there is just too much padding and stretching out of the scenes for no reason (other than to fill running time, which still comes in at about 1:34) There is some nice imagery and lighting, like some of the Bava-esque lighting in the old church or whatever that was. And, I liked the use of the hard rock guitars and the soundtrack in general, I thought it fit the mood well.

To me, it just doesn't seem quite to work and come together in a strong narrative or very compelling to the audience. It's like there are cool scenes here and there, but again there is a lot of Ott 'Acting' and overdone 'Drama' that doesn't really contribute to the story.

There just isn't very much really holding this story together other than a pretty good concept. Don't know why McTiernan couldn't do more with it, maybe his hands were tied to some extent since he had not done those other two Huge movies quite yet until the next year.

So, I really can't recommend this one and I don't think it really comes together as a good story overall, which is a shame because it kind of throws away what could have been a rather intriguing movie. So, for me it is a middling '5'...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just a note as to how I do my reviews... I usually don't repeat the basic plot since almost everyone else does that and you can get that from the synopsis and a bunch of other places. So, what I concentrate on in my reviews is hopefully putting across whether I think it is a Good film, or if I think that it is an Entertaining movie and what I feel it's strengths and weaknesses are in the way it is made.

That way, Hopefully it will be of more benefit and actual help to others as to whether I feel it is worth watching (and also perhaps what 'Type' of film it is and what type of people may enjoy it)

My Particular Way of Rating:

5 - Flawed, but perhaps with a little entertainment value here and there for some.

6. A decently passable story maybe worth a watch.

7. A solid film, well made, effective, and entertaining.

And, obviously, you can probably figure out what above and below these would mean... : )

'Nomads' is the debut feature from director John McTiernan, who would go on to bring us unforgettable films like 'Predator', 'Die Hard', and 'The Hunt for Red October'. Honestly, I would lie if I were to tell you I know what 'Nomads' is all about.

This is probably the type of film you have to carefully analyze to fully understand or appreciate. Although classified as a horror movie, it is not horror in the sense of blood, guts and gore. This is horror on a different level: discomfort, nightmares, visions...The film is interesting at times, but ultimately just too weird, and not all that easy to follow due to a most unusual narration.

The film plays like a nightmare - literally. The acting was pretty good, but didn't compensate for a very confusing script. The film certainly is mysterious, and very different. By the end, I had no idea what the story was, or what message they were trying to convey. I'm going to forget this very soon. Even famed film critic Robert Ebert referred to the film as "too confusing to understand".

Would I watch it again? No.

A globe-trotting French anthropologist & his wife (Brosnan and Anna Maria Monticelli) try to settle down in Los Angeles wherein he notices a gang of malevolent street punks (Adam Ant, Mary Woronov, Héctor Mercado, etc.) and, regrettably, draws their attention. Lesley-Anne Down plays the doctor who somehow shares his memories.

Written & directed by McTiernan, "Nomads" (1986) is an innovative mystery/thriller with supernatural bits and a smidgen of horror. There are similarities to the soon-to-come "The Lost Boys" (1987), except that this isn't about vampires and is less comic booky (although there are several characters who seem to wander off the set of "The Road Warrior").

It's adult-oriented and artistic in the manner of "The Mothman Prophecies" from fifteen years later, but is even less viewer friendly. Don't expect formulaic convention. It respects the intelligence of the viewer to put the pieces together. Schwarzenegger said he was so impressed by it that he convinced the producers of "Predator" (1987) to hire McTiernan.

A respectable friend of mine cites "Nomads" as one of his favorite movies and so I had high expectations the first time I viewed it and was disappointed despite its professionalism. Seeing it again, I paid closer attention and was able to figure things out. For instance, why does Pommier (Brosnan) do nonsensical things, like after he uses the crowbar on a thug? Who is the weird nun in the vacant building? Why does Dancing Mary (Woronov) turn back when the women are obviously cornered in the attic? Why does the motorcycle rider stop at the border?

Brosnan is at his best here, very masculine, while the stunning Lesley-Anne and the Anna Maria are easy on the eyes.

The film runs 1 hour, 30 minutes, and was shot in Los Angeles and Santa Monica.

GRADE: B/B-