Nomads

'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 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.

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... : )

A very well acted and directed movie. There was very little bad to say about this movie, so on to the positive.....Dark, concise, with a few twists that still are a bit on the provocative side, nearly 20 later.

I don't like to comment to much on the contents of a movies plot, as not to give anything away. Suffice it to say if you enjoyed 'Identity' with Cusack, Liotta, And Amanda Pete, you likely will enjoy the ride that this future 'Bond' takes you on.

This movie ranks much higher than the stars assigned to it. I like the fact that this movie cannot be pigeon holed nice and neatly into a category, although the tag is 'horror'. It is not a slice and dice ho-hum, but a tight psychological thriller. ENJOY! (adult viewers)

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-