Q: Yes, it's flawed - especially if you're into Hollywood films that demand a lot of effects, a purely entertaining or fantasy story or plot, and you can't actually think for yourself.

Roeg's films are for the intelligent film-goer, and Insignificance is a perfect example.

The characterizations are brilliant, the story is excellent, but, like all Nic Roeg's films - it has you thinking on every level about aspects of reality that would never have dawned on you before. His films always make you think, and personally, I like that in a film.

So don't expect to come away from watching this film and feeling all happy-happy, because it's likely you'll be disappointed.

But I think it's excellent. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: I found this film to be the usual French slap in America's face. The camera, all too often, focuses on fat people, on sloppy homes and on tacky rural areas. While the narration seems to sympathize with and admire the small town folks who are introduced to the viewer, the cinematography exploits and demeans them. There were, undoubtedly, thin people to be seen in Glencoe and neat, organized homes, but Malle chose to show us the worst of what was there to be seen.

I can only hope that some American filmmakers will go to France to reveal to the American public its worst elements. I can assure you, as a frequent visitor to France, that all is not well there. Foreign immigrants are not readily assimilated, thus creating severe social inequities. But Americans are not eager to unmask the French for their prejudice toward their own compatriots and their envy toward the U.S., so we're not likely to see films on the subject. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Certainly NOMAD has some of the best horse riding scenes, swordplay, and scrumptious landscape cinematography you'll likely see, but this isn't what makes a film good. It helps but the story has to shine through on top of these things. And that's where Nomad wanders.

The story is stilted, giving it a sense that it was thrown together simply to make a "cool" movie that "looks" great. Not to mention that many of the main characters are not from the region in which this story takes place (and it's blatantly obvious with names like Lee and Hernandez). If movie makers want to engross us in a culture like the Jugars and the Kazaks, they damn well better use actors/actresses that look the part.

Warring tribes, a prophecy, brotherly love and respect, a love interest that separates our "heroes", are all touched on but with so little impact and screen time that most viewers will brush them aside in favor of the next battle sequence, the next action horse scene, or the breathtaking beauty of the landscape.

It is worth mentioning that there were some significant changes made to Nomad during its filming, specifically the director and cinematographer. Ivan Passer (director) was replaced by Sergei Bodrov, and Ueli Steiger (cinematographer) was replaced by Dan Laustsen. In one respect, Laustsen seems to have the better eye since his visions of the lands made the final cut that we see here. Definitely a good thing. However, the changing over to Bodrov as director may not have been the wisest choice. From what I'm seeing here, the focus is on the battles and not the people, which I sense comes from Bodrov's eyes and not Passer's. A true travesty.

The most shameful aspect is that this could've been a really fantastic film, with both character and action focuses. Unfortunately, the higher-ups apparently decided that action was what was needed and took the cheap (intellectually speaking) way out.

Even though I can't give this film a positive rating, it is worth watching simply for the amazing cinematography work. But that's all. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Overshadowed by "Braveheart" released the same year, the two costume dramas beg comparison. I admit my bias against Mel Gibson, yet I maintain a rational preference for "Rob Roy." Both "Braveheart" and "Rob Roy" compellingly depict Scots history in bloody, romantic fashion. "Braveheart" is an epic paean to individual honor and courage and a fine revenge fantasy. It's also melodramatic, anachronistic and maudlin. Note its cornball usage of slow motion filming. Its violence is both ugly and glorious. It is the latter quality which makes it more appealing to the adolescent mindset. While "Braveheart" surpasses "Rob Roy" in sheer levels of carnage (not to mention its indulgent running time), the latter film is ultimately more mature and satisfying. Its action is more understated, yet more surprising and clever. Its sex is less showy, yet more erotic. "Rob Roy" also has a better realized romantic interest. Its dialog attempts to approximate the poetry of the period. Its rotted teeth in the mouths of the actors attempt to approximate the dentistry of the era. And Tim Roth is a superlative villain. Also recommended: "The Last of the Mohicans" and "The Patriot." You may find the latter more akin to "Braveheart" with its emphasis on blood lust, with the former more similar to "Rob Roy" in tone. All the of the aforementioned movies merit their R ratings for violence. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive