Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan

Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan

The story recounts the early life of Genghis Khan, a slave who went on to conquer half the world in the 11th century.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:126 minutes
  • Release:2007
  • Language:Mongolian,Mandarin
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:one word title,   escape,   king,  

The story recounts the early life of Genghis Khan who was a slave before going on to conquer half the world including Russia in 1206. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan torrent reviews

Carlos M (kr) wrote: Definitivamente no es una bonita pelcula, si mereci ms el ser enviada a representarnos al ?scar que la mugre de Derbez, es fuerte en su temtica e imgenes pero se queda en el intento de... muestra, denuncia, todo jugo, quien sabe?

Joey R (ru) wrote: This movie is just a hot mess, confused on what it's trying to be and being so predictable it actually reveals itself. The "twist" at the end was almost laughable, and felt like it was done just for the sake of a twist. Still, the acting is pretty good, especially Shailene Woodley.

David T (ca) wrote: It is very hard to feel badly for a pathological liar who had sexual relations with dogs. This movie is a showcase of falsities spewed forth by a highly unstable, narcissistic woman with an extended history of not only spinning tales to make herself appear to be a victim of circumstance, but also a history of getting so lost in her own web of lies that she constantly contradicted her own claims by covering those lies with new ones. Don't be fooled by this movie. It is FAR from factual, and is about as close to the real story as is, say, Leather face to Ed Gein. Utter Hollywood hogwash.

Janna L (us) wrote: Attack of the killer Prius!

David S (es) wrote: oh man!....,that f-ing thing , the label "Quentin Tarantino Presents" is no more a good recomendation!! IT has become a Radioactive Content message KEEP AWAY as far as possible! :(

KJ P (de) wrote: This movie is a groundbreaking drama. It is a landmark as one of my favourite childhood films, and I wish it was even longer than 1 hour and 45 minutes! This movie released when I was 8 years old, and I cried back then, now I just look back on it as an amazing film.

Leigh R (it) wrote: Very sweet and endearing...

John B (ca) wrote: This was a typical children's movie. Cute and all but did not get me going as well as some of the other children's movies have. The big foots looked like Gorilla's. If you want something for the kids here you go not my favorite but it was alright.

bill b (ca) wrote: Nice film. And good acting from the protaginists!!!

Troy I (ru) wrote: Love this movie, a hidden gem :-)

Angus O (it) wrote: Undoubtedly one of the funniest moveis of all time, and the peak of Bruce WIllis' career. In the spirit of Moonlighting

Brian B (au) wrote: Probably about five years behind its time. This would have been a perfect 80s movie. I enjoyed it when I was little, but it's not a very good movie.

Emily A (au) wrote: Oh man, this is, like, the stupidest movie ever. But that doesn't stop it from being awesome! This was the second movie in a grindhouse cinema's double feature night, the first movie being The Terminator. This movie makes much more sense if you assume that it has nothing whatsoever to do with James Cameron's movie and is just made by a guy who has seen it and liked it. It's about a woman who's possessed by some sort of nymphomaniacal aquatic goddess that has taken it upon herself to single another woman out for death. And who has very blurry aim. There are a lot of visual references to The Terminator, including the casting of an actor who really really looks like Michael Beihn as the bodyguard of the doomed woman. They recreate many scenes from the other movie as well, but changed the story so much, thus making it nonsensical and incomprehensible. It's totally worth seeing.

Tracey c (ru) wrote: not interested in this film

Brian S (nl) wrote: This sequel starts out well, then continues badly but then becomes okay again but refinishes badly. And yet, the film is actually better then the first movie. The black and white locks a little green, campy, low budget and just goofy. The last minute of the film is shot in color, but it changes nothing at all, because the color is cheap. Although the effects are better.

libby h (es) wrote: but i think yul brynner was a better king but this is still a classic

Gavin M (es) wrote: Robert Rodriguez's "Pulp Fiction."