I had doubts about this movie based on some of the reviews here, but was pleasantly surprised at how good it was. It's VERY similar to Mongol, so if you liked that movie, you'll like this as well.

Production values were top notch, battle choreography was amazing (and again very similar to Mongol's battle scenes to the point I had to check if it was the same director), and acting was surprisingly good. The lead actress did a great job with her role and character arc.

There are some cliched moments in this (like a braveheart type speech before a battle), but overall it was a good epic for a historical time period I knew little about. 8/10

Note: As for the historical elements, I looked some of the key players and history up for about 30 minutes and this film seems to be accurate in its portrayal. There are a few 'fantasy' type elements that are more character development vs plot.

First,According to WikiPedia :(The Massagetae, or Massageteans, were an ancient Eastern Iranian nomadic tribal confederation, who inhabited the steppes of Central Asia, north-east of the Caspian Sea in modern Turkmenistan, western Uzbekistan, and southern Kazakhstan. They were part of the wider Scythian cultures.) Therefore Massagetaes were Indo-European not Turkic and they didn't look like modern day Kazakhs or Mongols. The movie would be more historically accurate if they even used blond russian actors rather than Mongol looking actors.This movie just wants to create a shallow sense of false patriotism for the people who live under a corrupt Dictatorship in Kazakhstan. Second,the original story that this movie is based on is an illusion and probably was created as a children bedtime story.This movies story is even more deceptive than the original one. Third,This movie was made by a rookie crew(including actors and actresses)with a low budget.It doesn't worth your time!

Tomiris ruled nomadic tribes of the Great Steppe in the 5th century BC. Little is known about those times and about her in particular. Obviously, many details of the plot had to be concocted. However, the director A. Satayev was careful by not turning a historical drama into a tale or a fantasy. A source on the Internet says that they consulted historians about every little detail of that epoch: food, dresses and dwellings.

All steppe and desert pictures were filmed in Kazakhstan. Refined cloth on ordinary people in these harsh environments would look deceitful and inappropriate. Beautiful dress embellished with gold appears only twice: during Tomiris' wedding and during the burial of her husband and son. This also conforms to the many archaeological discoveries from the tombs of chiefs of the Saka tribes, the most recent one being in 2020. Unlike Nomad: The Warrior (2005), which is full of Hollywood clichés, this movie really takes you back 25 centuries. Authenticity - that's the feeling you get. They even tried to reproduce an ancient language, which I don't think was a good idea.

Herodotus, who first wrote about Tomiris almost 100 years after her death, says that the Persian king Cyrus II was killed by her warriors in his last battle, noting that this is only one of the versions of his death. The film follows this version. Almira Tursyn made her debut as Tomiris and did a great job. Her large eyes sparkle with rage as she explains the battle plan. To unite the scattered and independent nomadic tribes, Tomiris really had to be an outstanding leader.

The plot could be more dynamic and rich, and the characters more detailed. Babylon is sketchy; a better display of its wealth would emphasize the fact that a more advanced nation was defeated by nomads. Oddity: when Al-Farabi is writing about Tomiris in arabic in the 9th century AD, they show a map where Saki-Massagets are written in Russian.