Nomads

A French anthropologist (Pierce Brosnan's first leading role in a feature movie) moves to Los Angeles and is followed by the evil spirits of an extinct tribe he once uncovered. A woman doctor (Lesley-Anne Down who married director William Friedkin) investigates and becomes the next target of a group of rare people with nomadic life .

This is an eerie as well as supernatural chiller about a society of malevolent ghosts set in Los Angeles and dealing with a mysterious anthropologist well performed by Pierce Brosnan and the woman doctor finely acted by Lesley-Anne Dowen who investigates the weird deeds . The film packs gruesome images, grisly killings , amazing events , and intense horror sequences . It is a spasmodically effective thriller plenty of suspense , continuous flashbacks and nightmares , chills and plot twists . Nomads notables include pop stars such as Adam Ant and second screen appearance from legendary singer/song writer Josie Cotton . In addition , a cult actress , Mary Woronow and veteran Nina Foch . Director John McTiernan is an expert at staging action and thrills and here he has proved talent at concealing explosive final to individual sequences until it arrives . Catching score though filled with pop music and synthesizer was composed by Bill Conti of Karate Kid. Atmospheric cinematography by Stephen Ramsey , being necessary a correct remastering .

The motion picture was professionally directed by John McTiernan , though has some boring and confusing moments . McTiernan's first efforts at filmmaking were all in the terror genre , and none too successful at all , such as ¨Watcher¨, ¨The demon's daughter¨ and this ¨Nomads¨ . McTiernan is especially known for directing violent, high-energy action-adventures and very active movement of camera . His movies have an explosive combination of suspense and dynamite action that make them irresistible , and boosted by big stars . McTiernan confirmed his ascension to blockbuster with ¨Predator¨ and ¨Die hard¨ , which few expected to be such huge hits , they are two violent , exciting thrillers , as he broke through to the big time . In his subsequent films used big stars as Sean Connery , Schwarzenegger , Willis , Travolta and again Pierce Brosnan , all of them appeared in ¨The hunt for Red October¨, ¨Medicine man¨, ¨Last action hero¨, ¨Die hard with vengeance¨ , ¨Basic¨ and ¨The Thomas Crown affair¨.

Nomads is style over substance.

John McTiernan as writer and director delivers this mid 1980s surreal and supernatural thriller with LA punks and a thumping rock score.

The film opens with Dr Flax (Lesley-Anne Down) a tired accident & emergency doctor who is called into treat a deranged French anthropologist Jean Charles Pommier (Pierce Brosnan.) He has only moved to Los Angeles with his wife recently where they have been harrassed by punks and rockers.

Jean Charles dies but not before biting Dr Flax in the neck. She does not become a vampire but she gets his memories and experiences into her head. We are not sure that we are reliving Dr Flax experiences or Jean Charles.

Dr Flax seeks out Jean Charles's wife who is very confused as to why she knows so much about her husband. Meanwhile one of Dr Flax's colleague gets a phrase that Jean Charles was ranting about deciphered.

The phrase comes from the Innuat. It refers to a band of nomadic spirits who live place to place in human form. These punks and rockers might be the nomads intent on evil.

It seems Jean Charles and his wife had been constantly on the run from these nomads. A nun warned him to keep on running and hiding, he might still be able to evade them. He needs to leave LA.

The film is an incoherent mess. It does have a great visual style but the narrative is lost. I did find the film a curious watch and felt that there was a better movie in there somewhere.

Still Brosnan and McTiernan would later reunited in the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair with McTiernan becoming one of Hollywood's top action directors.

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... : )

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.

A French anthropologist (Pierce Brosnan) moves to Los Angeles and is followed by the evil spirits of an extinct tribe he once uncovered.

Despite the incredible Adam Ant, and starring Pierce Brosnan (as a Frenchman?)... and being written and directed by John McTiernan, master of the action film, this movie has received overwhelmingly negative reviews.

Jay Scott is the exception, as he described Nomads as "a breathlessly unself-conscious film (there is none of the self-congratulatory stylization of Blood Simple), the tone alternates maniacally between scaring the audience and making it giggle." Scott said McTiernan "has brought to his project a staggeringly resourceful technique. The sharply unpredictable editing, the hypnotic use of slow motion and rack focus (that's when the background and foreground reverse in clarity), the ominous rock music - everything adds up to a debut of singular confidence, full of fun and creepiness."

Scott may be alone. I was not all that thrilled by the film as a whole, neither a horror fan nor as someone who has otherwise enjoyed McTiernan's work. Perhaps I need to give it a second chance, but this is a largely forgotten film that has probably earned its place in the memory hole.