Nomads (1986) User Reviews

Original, not entirely flawless

[rlaine · 6/10 · 29 March 2012]

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.

An anthropologist reveals a dark secret to a young doctor who investigates a strange group of demoniacal creatures

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 11 March 2014]

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¨.

One of the better film examples of Urban Fantasy I've seen

[vtaltos77 · 30 September 2001]

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.

Too confusing to appreciate.

[paulclaassen · 3/10 · 7 March 2021]

'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.

An interesting experiment

[durante-luca · 7/10 · 5 November 2002]

I think this is a very interesting movie, basically for two reasons: 1)The fear atmosphere is strong around all the time, the horror plot is suggested but almost never showed, and it increase the suspence and the desire to discover the end. 2)It's a low-cost movie and I appreciate it for this. There isn't special effect, gore or whatever but the odiens are still disoriented by a mysterious direction. This is a clear foot-print of a talent director! Good interpretation of Pierce Brosnan (too much better than 007!!). Enjoy it!

Of no fixed abode

[Prismark10 · 5/10 · 12 January 2019]

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.

Laugh Out Loud Ridiculous

[nafps · 1/10 · 5 April 2022]

On top of bad acting and bad direction, the premise is only scary to the most sheltered suburbanite who saw a teenager kicking over a trash can and thought the world was going to hell.

Oh yes, these are "nomads." That means they are "primitive." That also means they are "dangerous" too, somehow. For some reason, never stated.

Basic premise is that homeless punk rock kids are somehow like tribal people. Get it? Homeless for a short time, gathering food from garbage or from handouts, equals the same as hunting animals and surviving as a people for centuries. Right....

And guess who they get to play a "punk nomad"? Adam Ant, the white Englishman who played Indian. Only his "Indians" were from old racist westerns, and he played them mixed with old movie pirate images.

So what do these supposed nomads do that is so scary and primitive? They skate...seriously, that's supposed to be so scary. They do a little bit of petty theft and minor vandalism.

That's it. A nothing movie.

Interesting theory in Nomads

[sunznc · 10/10 · 9 September 2006]

And the theory is, as spelled out by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro in her book of the same name, that there are earthbound, malevolent spirits who bring madness to any human that makes camp with them. That people don't realize that a percentage of what they see or hear is not.....there! Most people are luckier, they don't look so closely. But Pierce Brosnan's character, being the inquisitive person he is, has looked.......too closely. Now, these nomadic beings, who are attracted to places of calamity, have taken an interest in Brosnan and he is warned by someone, who may or may not be one of 'them'. Warned to leave, change his job and move away. It's all very interesting to watch. And afterward, you can't stop thinking about it. Yes, it contains flavors from the 80's but it is still thought provoking. Read the book too!

John McTiernan's avant-garde first film, a supernatural thriller with Pierce Brosnan

[Wuchakk · 7/10 · 8 May 2023]

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-

Not For Me, Maybe For You

[gavin6942 · 5/10 · 2 July 2013]

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.

NO!-mads.

[BA_Harrison · 2/10 · 12 June 2020]

Dr. Eileen Flax (Lesley-Anne Down) is called to attend to a crazed man (Pierce Brosnan) covered in blood and shouting in French; he dies shortly after, but not before he grabs the doctor and whispers something in her ear. Following this experience, Flax begins to suffer from bizarre visions, as though the dead man's memories are somehow in her head. She learns that the man was Jean Charles Pommier, a French anthropologist investigating a group of mysterious people in Los Angeles with no names and no fixed abode, who might very well be supernatural in nature -- hostile spirits that have taken on human form.

The discovery of ancient urban nomads living in Los Angeles might be of great interest to an anthropologist, but to a simple horror movie nut like me, it's about as riveting as a thousand page thesis on the dietary requirements of the Manghuds in the Mongol Empire during the 14th century. The movie's supernatural aspect is superficial, and does very little to make the subject any more compelling. Furthermore, the constant cutting between Flax as she struggles with her visions, and the flashbacks to Jean Charles as he encounters the strange street punks (led by Adam Ant and including cult favourite Mary Woronov) result in a very confusing, disjointed mess. Adding to the irritation is a horribly dated soundtrack (consisting of bad synths and painful wailing guitars courtesy of Ted Nugent), a surfeit of '80s style (smoke, strong lighting, slow motion), an excruciatingly unconvincing French accent from Brosnan (mais oui!), and a twist ending so trite it is laughable.

Director John McTiernan would go on to make two of the greatest action films of the '80s -- Predator and Die Hard -- but Nomads, his debut film, gives no indication of the brilliance to come: it's an embarrassment from start to finish.

There Are Worse Things Than Death

[Bob-45 · 6/10 · 4 January 2005]

If you want narrative plot summary, read the one posted on the IMDb. However, here are a few observations about "Nomads." o The most annoying thing about Brosnan speaking with an accent was not that he frequently slipped out of it. The most annoying thing is that both Brosnan and his wife were frequently unintelligible.

o The movie slips into its plot so quickly, it doesn't really allow you time to develop empathy for the characters.

o Most viewers are probably not familiar with entities of varying physicality. However, there are recorded cases of these.

o The writer-director rarely raises much suspense. However, the closing scene was chilling enough to be worth the watch. There are worse things than death.

I give "Nomads" a strong "6".

Silly movie

[preppy-3 · 3/10 · 29 August 2009]

I caught this in a movie theatre back in 1986 and I remember being less than thrilled. Pierce Brosnan plays Jean Charles Pommier (with the worst French accent you ever heard) who is tracked down and killed by some tribe he uncovered. Before he dies he whispers their name to doctor Flex (Lesley-Anne Downe) who is in turn hunted down by the tribe.

The movie is boring and pointless with no scares and a stupid plot. Also just try to imagine Brosnan trying to play a French guy! Brosnan is a great actor but his French accent is downright hilarious. Downe does what she can with a seriously under written role. However it was fun seeing Adam Ant and Mary Woronov as part of the tribe (even though they have no dialogue). I will admit that this film had one scare--when you find out who is riding the motorcycle at the end. Still, that one scene doesn't make watching this any easier. Mostly forgotten--for good reason!

experiment that fails

[drystyx · 3/10 · 10 September 2012]

The late eighties was very experimental and risk taking in films. And that's why I'm not going to lambaste this movie.

This is an experiment that fails.

It probably should have been good, but this has to be one of the worst 100 directing jobs ever.

It's too confusing to tell you what it's about. You won't be able to stay awake for any ten minute stretch, so you will have to watch it in chunks. "Plodding" is the huge understatement for this movie.

It's a supernatural piece about a woman who hallucinates seeing a man who has died, and what occurs in the movie is something you could never possibly guess without looking at the "plot synopsis" in the guide. There's nothing in the movie to tell you what it is about.

The mistake here is that the director tries too hard. Technically, things look good. The women who occupy most of the screen time are very pretty. There is some good scenery in rare spots.

Technically, the dramatic suspense is text book, but it isn't inspired. It simply drags and drags. And the good scenery is rare compared to the bland city scenery. Hospitals, cars, streets, homes are dull. Making them duller with actors plying their "suspense" acting makes it a debacle.

I don't care about the accents. The actors try, and that's the problem. It's all "trying". The director extends every scene to make it last forever. Roughly 90 minutes is what this runs. It should have been 8 minutes.

The experiment here, by the director, was to suspend everything, to try to make the most out of a simple movement. There was a popular poet-teacher who held a "Writer's meeting" in Louisville named Leon Driskoll, who loved that sort of boredom, but it bores me to tears. Still, I realize there are people like him who love boredom.

One of the most unique horrors out there

[NateWatchesCoolMovies · 8/10 · 10 June 2017]

John McTiernan's Nomads is one of the best, and most unconventional horror flicks that you've never seen. Nestled so far back into the 80's that it stands as the mile marker for Pierce Brosnan's first on screen leading role, it's a beautifully tense, atmospherically crafted fright flick that's been lost to the hazy aeons of time. Unique in it's ambiguity, this is a film bereft of bells, whistles, gore effects or even obviously spooky apparitions, relying solely on mood to impart illusory menace that's never shoved in your face of spoon fed. Brosnan plays a French (hon hon) archaeologist who begins to suspect he's being followed by a group of unruly urban punks which, upon further introspection, could possibly be the malevolent spirits of a now extinct tribe he discovered years ago. It's a vague, very weird concept, but it just somehow works, the presence of these grimy streetwalkers inciting palpable fear at the thought that they're not what they seem at all. Opposites are at work here; by showing nothing, the filmmakers tell us and make us feel everything that is unseen, daring us to imagine what these mysterious beings might actually be, unsettling us further by having them appear in such benign (relatively speaking) form. It'll frustrate many, but those tuned into the film's eerie frequency will get the same chill down their spine that Brosnan perpetually walks around with, harassed no end by these meanies. The actors for these things are all especially chosen as well, each coached beautifully by McTiernan to act just normal enough to blend into the derelict fringes of an urban environment, while giving their demeanour an unnerving esoteric aspect, until they seem like a cross between mute versions of the Near Dark gypsy vampire clan and spectral coyotes. Brilliant concoction of subtle horror, clammy tension and gorgeously layered atmosphere.

Awful, slow, confused, terrible choreography

[jtownsle · 1/10 · 20 August 2013]

The movie starts out slow and confused. Perhaps I'm simply imposing a 2013 movie-watching experience on a 1986 film. But I've seen plenty of pre-1986 films that were great. This one is awful. You occasionally get glimpses of a plot, but it's rare. Brosnan is a decent actor, but I could barely stand to watch the film because of his farcical French accent. And while he has a nice body, I don't know what the rear and frontal nudity has to do with the movie. In another scene, he defends himself against an interloper (Adam Ant), and while his swings all look like they miss by a good foot, the attacker still goes down, even though for one of the blows there is a lamppost between the Brosnan's arm and Ant. People appear in and out of nowhere and switch bodies--perhaps it's real, perhaps it's part of a transcendent consciousness, or even just a dream--who knows? Certainly not the audience. How could anybody think this was a scary movie? When the movie was made I was 10--perhaps I would have thought it was scary then.

Like watery gravy

[LetsReviewThat26 · 4/10 · 26 September 2023]

This movie was like watery gravy. A little bit is nice. But after you have more you relize it just tastes wrong. Same goes for this. We open on a nerse lady who gets whispered in the ear by Tom hanks castaway. Before he died. It's a weird tone and we see no sense of pierce to quite some time in. And that accent I wish he didn't do. Anyway his acting and Lesley Anne's were palitable but didn't work being in this. It's all about this gang of punks dressed in black that almost stork them accompanied by rock music. The best part was near the end as we see the gang smash through the house on their bikes and chas Anne up stairs if was shot well. There's not really much else to say as it didn't capture my attention and overall not a great movie but the mood setting was done well also.

So much potential squandered by the need to make this one a featured film.

[management-59537 · 4/10 · 30 March 2023]

It's a clever film with great pacing and a well-executed tense atmosphere . . . For the first 30 minutes. Then it gives way to every negative trope of an 80s movies feature. Clearly John McTiernan's career was destined to be directing action flicks because the remaining hour devolves into a cat and mouse chase reminiscent of his second film (Predator).

The shift to the action sequences in 80s leather clad works against the film's core theme - the conflict between yearning for freedom versus the bondages of modern life - which is subtly alluded to via visual cues and expositions best served for the cerebral thriller. Nomads really is at its best when exploring the personal conflict in both protagonists' lives.

For what it's worth, the ending gives the audience one last glimpse at the potential it had with an audiovisual sequence that will leave you going "aha".

Incredibly dull

[Stevieboy666 · 3/10 · 30 May 2020]

I have been watching horror movies for 40 years but I had not heard of Nomads until it was screened (thankfully for free) on TV the other night. Silly plot about a French anthropologist Pierce Brosnan, who has one of the worst French accents ever, who follows and spies on an evil, urban leather clad gang, accompanied by cheesy '80's guitar riffs. Adam Ant is the gang leader, but he sadly does not utter a single word. The film also stars English rose Lesley-Anne Down, sad to see her in this mess. I just found the movie slow, confusing and boring, hard to believe that the director went on to make Predator and Die Hard.

Half-baked.

[gridoon · 4/10 · 26 September 2004]

If Brosnan somehow transferred his memories to Lesley-Anne Down, then why do we mostly get a third-person's point-of-view of his life in the flashbacks, with only brief and random intervals of his own point-of-view? It may sound like a small quibble, but think about it and you'll see that the device simply doesn't make any sense. McTiernan fails to bring out the supernatural elements of the Nomads (who come off looking more like your standard street punks - "they don't live anywhere, they don't work anywhere, they resort to violence at the slightest provocation"), and the movie drags. The ultimate point seems to be that Brosnan's character should never have bothered thinking about The Nomads, just as you shouldn't bother watching this film. (*1/2)

Hidden gem

[henion · 8/10 · 31 January 2021]

This is an interesting story found it intriguing and tough provoking. Worthy of a very good Twilight Zone.

Can you say "Bad acting"?

[ncolen · 3/10 · 14 March 2021]

Wow....just wow. This movie is just plain bad. I cant understand the positive reviews here as the acting is so bad it makes this film nearly unwatchable, the female lead plays it like a soap, pierce brosnans accent is cringe inducing and the story is just plain dumb. The movie has a couple cool moments but they arent worth the investment of your time. Watch something else.

'Pierce Brosnan' as A Frenchman..😣

[carmenjulianna · 4/10 · 15 August 2020]

After watching (tolerating) this movie through the worst and awful French accent I've ever heard, the storyline was quite different and surprising. Lesley Ann Down was great as usual...but Brosnans stale performance was cringworthy, unrealistic and badly acted; spoiling what could have been an even better script with a better more convincing actor. An Irishman playing a Frenchie doesn't quite work...He was also an evan worst 'Bond'. Unconvincing as an English Admiral working as a spy for Her Majestys government...Please.. He was hardly a depiction of the characters profile from the books..too Irish..

Shows promise, but carries too many flaws

[davidmvining · 4/10 · 14 April 2020]

First films are tricky. You very rarely get the sort of unrivaled success of Orson Welles. Instead, you mostly get works that show promise in some ways and extreme deficiencies in others. John McTiernan's first film, Nomads, has its charms but they are outweighed by some rather large problems that a more experienced storyteller might have avoided. And yet, I can easily see why Arnold Schwarzenegger would have watched it and decided that McTiernan was a quality pick to direct a film about Arnold chasing an invisible alien through South American jungles. Nomads had the right kind of atmosphere to suggest just that.

A question went through my mind early in this film: Why a doctor? The story is of a doctor who encounters a raving French man just before he dies in her care at the hospital. Some sort of magical transference happens and she ends up living his final few days of memories to his death, and as the situation was first developing, I was asking that aforementioned question: Why a doctor? Why not a businessman, fast food worker, fellow anthropologist, or literally anyone else? Why a doctor? And I don't think the movie has a good explanation for that. There are a couple of lines of dialogue to perhaps suggest that she should be extra rational as a doctor and resistant to the ideas within the visions (which I'll get to), but she's pretty much a complete mess from the second vision on, completely falling into the visions with little ability to discern the visions from her current reality.

The thing is that the perfect character to have gone through this was the French anthropologist's wife, though she would need a slight rewrite. Jean Charles Pommier had been in the field, studying different nomadic cultures, for years with Veronique, his wife, by his side the whole time. In the film as it is, she's as knowledgeable of the nomads as Jean Charles while Dr. Eileen Flax ends up running to Veronique for explanations late in the film. The problem is that Dr. Flax has no emotional connection to Jean Charles, so the visions end up feeling a bit more like bad dreams than true nightmares. Transferring those visions to Veronique while denying her some of the knowledge of the nomads (which she has in the film but not in the alternate version in my head) by having her have stayed behind on at least one of his excursions (perhaps his first) will make the terror of watching her husband's final days from another perspective than her own (allowing for new scenes where she understands certain things she experienced first had better because of the visions) would have created a more immediate emotional connection for the audience to latch onto. Dr. Flax is too distant from everything about Jean Charles for the visions to have a similar effect.

Another problem I have with the film is the eponymous nomads themselves. They're tied to some Inuit legends about evil spirits, and I like the idea of them. However the execution leaves something to be desired. I never considered them remotely scary. They're faux-tough guys and gals in leather who gyrate a lot and pose as toughs. I never felt like the characters' sense of terror was justified at the sight of them. They looked sillier than scary, and I think it undermined a lot of the really good atmosphere of the film. I had another problem with the nomads, but the final moments of the film fixed it for me. It was really had to discern what these things wanted, what their motivations were. I can deal with evil spirit characters with no motivation beyond chaotic destruction (think Borgman), but it didn't really work here, until the final moment revealed the results of their terror.

Atmosphere, though, is where the film is at its best. Atmosphere is a thin reed on which to hang a film, which is one reason the movie as a whole doesn't work, but it's hard to deny that it's there. The film is moodily shot in and around Los Angeles with deep shadows creating implied terror that works far better than the more overt terror elements of the nomads. There's a great sequence late in the film where Jean Charles shows up at an abandoned building and meets a blind nun in the middle of the night. The nun's blindness is never made explicit, so it needs to be figured out over time, creating a sense of unease that carries the scene really well.

As a first film, it shows promise. It needed a serious rewrite to figure out the vision elements and a redesign of the nomads to give them an actual sense of visual menace. I think Arnold showed real foresight when he saw this and got McTiernan to direct Predator.

An intelligent and creepy ghost story

[R. Cody · 10/10 · 4 July 1999]

I am a sucker for a well told ghost story and that's exactly what "Nomads" is. Pierce Brosnan and Lesley-Anne Down turn in powerful and convincing performances as the doctor and the anthropologist linked by a telepathic bond. The non-linear narrative in which Down relives the last days of Brosnan's life is brilliant and effective. An intelligent and creepy film that will not disappoint if you are looking for a change from the typical Hollywood shocker.