|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just got back. It was awful.
Note that Rose McGowan was pretty good. Aside from the creepy incest-implying scenes I think I liked every scene she was in. If you like her it might be worth checking out.
Interesting Feral... I was initially positive about the film, more in keeping with Robert E Howards roots of the character etc, and the early trailers kept this faith.
Latterly though, the trailers seem to give a far more "Conan & the love interest/female in peril" vibe which I was gutted about. Hoped focus would have been firmly on the Cimmerian and his quest for revenge...
That and Ron Perlman looking like a Quest for Fire reject as his old man...
|
I find it amazing that anyone could possibly be worse than Arnold.
I also find that the actors themselves have very little control of "acting" in most movies. When an actor is flat, or just plain bad, it usually the fault of the director. That is the director's job after all... to direct the movie and direct the actors.
My hope is that it focuses on his Cimmerian heritage and thirst for revenge. Hope there is no "love" interest, though Conan looking to get some naughty bits on the side is fine.
But as for acting, to be worse than Arnold they would have to have a cardboard cutout for Conan... wait that might still be better...
Morma really impressed me in Game of Thrones [even without saying much], so am hoping he must be better than Arnie.
Feral how much is the love interest played up?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well I'm listening to the sound track now. Tyler Bates needs to expand his Palette. It's very '300ish'.
(Listen to Batman Begins, Sherlock Holmes and Pirates of the Carribean, all Hans Zimmer works. Or compare Eureka to Battlestar to Human Target, all Bear McCreary works.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They tried way too hard to make Conan too cool. Conan is already cool. Conan is friggin' badass.
Way too much dialogue for scenes that could have come across simply through physical business. Every time that Conan spoke, they could have easily edited out 75% of the lines, and the scene wouldn't have suffered. There were plenty of instances where characters [and I hesitate to use that word, since nobody is developed to the point where we care about them] plainly state exactly what is going on onscreen. Y'know, because the audience isn't capable of inferring that a large group of people is headed to "Skull Cave" without some nameless pseudo-french thief to specifically tell us that. We're also not able to figure out that when a character says "Hey, we're going to Port Suchandsuch," and the next scene shows those characters in a port, that they are likely in the aforementioned Port Suchandsuch. Therefore, the director makes sure to include a subtitle to let us know we're in that port. How kind of him.
As for the music . . . yeah, way inappropriate. It was like watching Kull with the 300 soundtrack in the background. I will not be adding this soundtrack to my gaming music collection.
On to the love interest . . . I just don't get it. The gal shows she can kinda handle herself, so she gains some respect from Conan. Then he orders her around, she tells him off, then he ties her up, anyway. Apparently that equals love to this version of Conan.
I'm sure the relationships would have meant more if the director had bothered to let any single character develop to the point where we care about them, but that never happens. when Conan spouts the "No man should live in chains" bit featured in the trailers, there is absolutely no established reason for him to feel that way. He was never shackled to the Wheel of Pain nor forced to fight in a gladiatorial arena; why does he care? Why should we? The director never even gives us a clue.
The main bad guy also has a whole roster of minibosses that Conan plows through before the final confrontation, but only none of them get developed, so none of them matter. Might as well have a collection of puppets with notes pinned to them, telling Conan who to kill next.
Sorry for the overwhelmingly negative review here, but this movie left a sour taste in my mouth. I need a shot of something smoother to rinse it out, like maybe Drain-O . . .
|
|
**REPOSTED from io9.com**
Actually, I have to disagree with you. I enjoyed Conan a helluva lot. It is an unabashed action flick and does not even TRY to be anything else. It's like Obi-Wan was standing nearby whispering: "a director should feel the action FLOWING..." and it does. Jason Momoa is great as Conan. The witchy daughter is pretty cool too -- although Zym isn't up to James Earl Jones awesomeness, that much I concede.
The Witchy daughter is hitting on her villainous father Zym in the incest vibe scene -- and she is rejected by him, too. You might at least be accurate about that scene, instead of misrepresenting that aspect of the movie.
Conan 3D is an awesome hack and slash D&D campaign turned into a movie and I found myself just *grinning* through large swaths of this film. If you understand and love that Swords 'n Sorcery action vibe - then you TOTALLY get this movie. I would HAPPILY pay to see it again. The production values are Triple A and the eye-candy on this screen just pops (literally in 3d) from start to finish.
So really - ignore this negative review and go see the damned movie. The effects are great, the swordplay is cool, the action is non-stop, and Jason Momoa IS Conan. I have seen LOTS of dreck fantasy flicks and this one *isn't dreck*. Is it Lord of the Rings? No. Is the Pureblood a very effective damsel? No again. But for all of that, Conan 3D is way, WAY better than this review lets on.
I was there on opening night to see Arnie play Conan and I liked it back then. I saw Conan 3D on opening day and Jason Momoa is a FAR better Conan than Arnie ever was. I preferred the Mako voice-intro over Morgan Freeman's (yes, Freeman does the "In an age undreamed of" bit in Conan 3D), but really - this is a movie which stands WELL on its own.
The production values between the two movies are incomparable. The original Conan looked like a B-Movie by the production standards of the day back then -- let alone now. Conan 3D does not. This is a Triple A blockbuster in the production values department and it shows throughout.
Don't like Conan 3D? My response? *F$*! you*. I liked it a LOT.
|
I don't get you guys... sounds like most are in the clash of the titans mindset and have preconceptions!!!
This Conan movie ROCKED! I saw it 3D.. yeap you can pick holes in some parts of it but it is a true hack and slash flick. I went with a mate who actually got sea sickness watching the boat scenes!
This is better than Arnie's movies and I hope they make more of them.
Only downside... Conan hardly said CROM!
Just say a matinee of this. Here is how I would classify the movie:
Clash of the Sword and the Sorceress
It felt like the new Clash of the Titans crossed with The Sword and The Sorcerer (with Lee Horsley).
Awesome flick.
Still a warm place in my heart for Conan the Barbarian with Arny, but this did the job.
There's no problems with this movie.
Just say a matinee of this. Here is how I would classify the movie:
Clash of the Sword and the SorceressIt felt like the new Clash of the Titans crossed with The Sword and The Sorcerer (with Lee Horsley).
HATED the new Clash of the Titans - one of the few films [Blair Witch and Sap Pilgrim being the others] that I actually walked out of.
Doesn't bode well...
Just say a matinee of this. Here is how I would classify the movie:
Clash of the Sword and the SorceressIt felt like the new Clash of the Titans crossed with The Sword and The Sorcerer (with Lee Horsley).
HATED the new Clash of the Titans - one of the few films [Blair Witch and Sap Pilgrim being the others] that I actually walked out of.
Doesn't bode well...
That was the impression I had, but others might have instead felt it was more:
The Sword and The Sorceress of Persia
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I seen the movie and to be fair I went in with decent expectations of it. I am a fairly big Conan fan. I think this one is closer to the Howard roots than the Arny ones where but thats also not saying much.
A lot of the visuals in the movie actually reminded me a bit of Age of Conan MMO concept art.
As for characters most of them where meh, not bad not good. Jason was ok as conan I think he looks more like Conan though. Rose was the best as the witchy chick, Ron was solid as Conan until his final line. The rest sadly I thought where pretty flat characters, including the love interest and the main villain.
The action scenes where pretty solid Sword and Sorcery and kinda what you would expect. Special effects where ok, nothing to write home about, but also good enough.
The main plot made sense and i liked how Conan didn't really care about killing the main villains cause he wanted to take over the word but cause of what the villain did long ago to his father. So while the plot made sense I wasn't exactly grabbed by the plot either.
After walking out from seeing, I couldn't help but feel like. This is one of those movies where the film ran to long and when they had to cut it down they left in all the action scenes but cut out to much of the rest of the movie. For me a prime example of this is Kingdom of Haven with Orlando Bloom, the whole subplot of the Queens son was cut out. Seeing the uncut version later and the whole movie made a hell of a lot more sense and was just better. I got the same feeling with this one, that some things that would have explained things better and made other parts better was cut due to time.
So my opinion is, if you are fan of sword and sorcery style movies. Prince of Persia, new Clash of the Titans etc then check it out and I think you will like it. If you hated or didn't like them, then you won't likely like this either. I consider the movie on the whole as ok, with a lot of promise never realized.
Jason Momoa, one of the worst actors in history.
And Conan is probably one of the few movies where this is totally appropriate, given that most people associate Conan with Arnie and not with the character from the books.
|
|
I saw the movie Sunday. I will say I am a REH purist having read all the ACE books in the 70's, read every Savage Sword of Conan and collected them up into the 80's and even the smaller marvel comics I read on occasion and collected.
When Conan 1982 Came out, I like it, I hated it. It hit on some of the REH tales from the books in form. It did take liberties withthe main enemy and this upset me, as also being a Kull fan, I knew Thulsa Doom was a baddy from those stories of REH. I was made about Valeria, she never came back fromthe dead ad spoke those lines to Conan, Belite did. But in the end, It was Conan and I enjoyed it, even though not perfect, but do I expect LotR? Well yes and No.
When I saw a new Conan being made I was happy, then sad. I did not think a Samoan fit, let alone Jason Mamoa. I saw trailers and got snobby about it and thought well this will fail but the closer it came I atleast wanted to check out the movie, it is after all fantasy and Conan.
So I will say this. Over all both movies are about equal. Conan 1982 has bits of the book, 2001 Conan could easily be a story from the comics following the Conan model of REH stories. The one and ONLY pont where 1982 beats 2011 in my oppinion is the music, every things is about equal or slight better in one and not the other.
While neither Arny or Jason are great actors, I liked Mamoa's Conan better. He came across as more intelligent and worldly as Conan was. He is also not bad to look at and i could understand him better, but you have to love Arnies accent.
James Earl Jones, just has a presance that was sinister and made him a good Bad guy, Thulsa Doom just wasn't in Conan, but he was cool.
Jason Lang I thought made a good bad guy, but he is no JEJ, but rocked as the heavy in Avatar.
Rose McGowen SO creepy I actually loved hating her. She was more the villian than Jason Langs.
The girl... Tamara, could have been any pretty actress, even Megan Fox could have done just as good a job acting.
Sandra Burgman as Valeria... I liked her in 1982, just not they changed Valerie. She was a bigger bad ass than Tamara who could only say I am a Monk.
I loved the fact they hit upon Conan being a thief and a Pirate this was good.
HATED the swords. Steven Langs sword looked like it came out of Sword and the Sorcerour :P BAD swords... even Conans
The costuming in 2011 edged out 1982. No over the top armor and helmets. Conan's clothing looked the part as did others.
The sets in 2011 looked painted and in one part Conan is chasing a baddie both on horse back and the baddie is so clearly NOT on a horse.But I will say the backdrops looked the part.
Action, the fighting was about equal but at least Jason did not spin his sword around his body as everyone looked on. He made some spins, but not over the top like Arnie did.
Over all I liked them both. I'd own both on Blue Ray or DVD.
On a scale of 1 - 5 I give 2011 3.5 clawed fingers
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the very intro I was ready for the movie to end. Mamoa looking the part was the only redeeming feature of the movie. There was so much pointlessness in the film's plot and dialogue that I can't spoil. Really, the story and effects would've made a good SyFy channel movie or even a kick-ass D&D movie. Why Arnie's Conan works for me is the "less is more" principle.
Just saw this tonight with my better half. We both loved it.
There are posters in this thread who seem to have been looking for an oscar winning movie or performances. Not sure where the Momoa hate is coming from either, but to each their own.
I expected a decent action movie and it delivered. I thought Momoa made a great Conan. Hope there will be a sequel.
|
|
I just got back from seeing Conan and I did not think it was as bad as some of the reviews I have read or heard from my friends.Now saying that it was far from what I would call a good movie, 2.5/5 at best.It is worth a rent on DvD but not a theater priced ticket IMO.
Action, the fighting was about equal but at least Jason did not spin his sword around his body as everyone looked on. He made some spins, but not over the top like Arnie did.
Wow really, I think he twirled his sword around in every fight sequence he was In except 1, there were probably 25-30 sword twirls in the first fight as he freed the slaves. No not over the top like the cheezy Arnold Conan sword twirl but far far more twirls.
The original I saw in the theater as a lil booy 29 years ago and IMO it still holds up as a good movie today if I watch it. This new version will be forgotten by me in a few months while the oldschool version will live on forever.
|
|
Just saw this tonight with my better half. We both loved it.
There are posters in this thread who seem to have been looking for an oscar winning movie or performances. Not sure where the Momoa hate is coming from either, but to each their own.I expected a decent action movie and it delivered. I thought Momoa made a great Conan. Hope there will be a sequel.
A lot of us expected a good movie and to most of us it did not deliver in that aspect.
Out here in the UK but I'll probably follow BigKilla's council and wait for the DVD rent or cable movies...
Would say that the original Conan was indeed "less is more" - at its heart was Milius, who has a strong sense of mythic story and depth.
Marcus Nispel has only over done shallow horror remakes and garbage actioners [Pathfinder anyone? Shockingly bad movie - and I'm a sucker for most stuff Norse...]
High hopes well dashed...
I thought the movie was ok. Neither great nor really bad. A solid B-.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's not Momoa... it's not the lack of a plot... it's the crappy CGI tour of the world we get (they keep switching city every 5 min and they start the shot with a big crappy CGI panoramic view of each city they go in... it's almost as crappy as looking at a still... it smells fake and rushed)
Give me Arnie and the low-budget "one-set" towns of the good old 80's anytime...
EDIT: the above, plus the fact that it's 3D... I can no longer, officially, stand these stupid 3D movies.
I'm not going to try and argue that the Arnie CtB was a more accurate Conan movie. But I would argue that is a better movie. As as PDK indicated above, it might have actually been because it was done in a more modest fashion for the most part. With computer technology, too many directors are asking what can I do, instead of what should I do. Can I make stupid sand people. Yes. Should I? Probably not. "Look what we did, I made a guy take the Nesand(tm) Plundge!"
Also, I enjoyed Arnie's CtB more because the supporting character were so much more interesting. I got no problem with Conan having a buddy from his days on the dark coast, but make the guy freaken interesting than a clone from just about every Robin Hood movie or even from some Arthur movie.
And don't even get me started on the love interest.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie. I enjoyed The Sword and The Sorcerer also. Ask my wife, I love horrible Sci-Fi and Fantasy movies. So go see it, especially if there is nothing better out. It is fun. Not necessarily good, but fun.
It's only pulled in 11 million domestic, 5 million more worldwide, and cost 90 million to make, so it bombed.
That might be it for Conan flicks. :(
Maybe it'll clean up on pay-per-view....
much as I'd like to I can't afford to go see it 8 more times.
I thought the movie is action packed awesomeness and bloody gore. It's made well with Fantastic set pieces and cinematography. Yes the script could of been alittle better but overall Jason Momoa does a good job at portraying a more authentic version of Conan like the one in Robert E. Howard's books. So if you're a true fan of fantasy go see this film because it's very entertaining and well done. The movie is close to the $20 million mark so spread word of mouth and go see it because I would like to see some sequels get made.
I liked it.
I sat there for 2 hours worrying that it would somehow tarnish the original, but in the end left happy that it stood on its own.
There are a bunch of whiners who sook and complain, but I think those people seem to confuse popcorn fantasy films (this) with the sort of work we see on Game of Thrones. Sure it's all fantasy, but Conan is part of the softcore sword-porn genre.
If anyone was weak I thought it was the damsel in distress, she was just dishwater to be honest.
(Edit, I didn't go the 3d version, something just didn't feel right about a popcorn Conan in 3d. Give me old skool 2d goodness for that baby - this aint Avatar yo...!)
Calling that movie sword-porn is an insult to porn. =(
No, that would be if it was directed by Uwe Boll.
I don't care what anyone says, it was miles in front of an Uwe production.
|
|
There are a bunch of whiners who sook and complain, but I think those people seem to confuse popcorn fantasy films (this) with the sort of work we see on Game of Thrones. Sure it's all fantasy, but Conan is part of the softcore sword-porn genre.
Yeah, shame on those of us who thought that a full blown Hollywood produced movie costing 90 million dollars to make would be even 1/10 as a good as a cable produced mini series.
I think you fail to understand that other people have different tastes and expectations than what you have. Like I stated I though the movie was just about average at best, while you obviously liked it. So apparently I am a whiner.
Like I stated I though the movie was just about average at best, while you obviously liked it. So apparently I am a whiner.
Well you could chose to take it personally and call yourself a whiner if you want, but to be a whiner implies you are actually having a whine about the movie... if you thought it was mediocre then you probably weren't running onto this thread to 'whine' about it being mediocre.
Complaining you felt it came up short for what something with a relatively minor B-list cast and a fairly modest budget and a fairly unknown producer is one thing, but the vitriol and red faced spittle and froth raving in some reviews/commentary (not just these boards) is 'whining'.
Honestly, I think the Dungeon Siege movie was better than the new Conan.
Now now, NOTHING is as bad as Dungeonsiege.
Honestly, I think the Dungeon Siege movie was better than the new Conan.Now now, NOTHING is as bad as Dungeonsiege.
Hmm Spanky, you are right on with that...
Along with the legendary "Deathstalker" series.
"Now now, NOTHING is as bad as Dungeonsiege."
corrected.
And I used to watch ALL that stuff. Beastmaster was one of the "better" flicks; the original Conan? No problems. Good flick.
Nothing to b#@*! about.
Conan the Destroyer? I'd rather watch that then Terms of Endearment.
Kids nowadays are spoilt rotten.
Honestly, I think the Dungeon Siege movie was better than the new Conan.Now now, NOTHING is as bad as Dungeonsiege.
You obviously haven't seen his House of the Dead and Alone in the Dark movies.
That said, I've avoided this one. First of all, I dislike 3D movies. I already wear glasses, so wearing a second pair is uncomfortable and gives me a wicked headache(my head hurt for two days after seeing Transformers 3 in 3D).
As for Jason Mamoa's acting, I don't have cable, so I can't say anything as I haven't seen his work. He does physically resemble some of the art I've seen of Conan, as well as Kull, which isn't a bad thing. One of the things I enjoyed about the Arnold Conan movie was that it combined important elements of both the Conan stories as well as the Kull stories, amongst other things from Robert E. Howard...it felt more like an homage to all of Howard's writings, backed by a wonderful soundtrack and a desolate land. Arnie's few lines and general unexpressiveness didn't bother me either, as it could be drawn up in the lines, "He is Conan, Cimmerian. He does not cry." Instead of showing emotion, Conan appeared more introspective, expressing himself through combat and bloodshed. I enjoyed that as it made him seem stronger and more mythical.
As for the new one...well, I don't like heavy use of CG. I'd rather watch him slay an enormous snake puppet than CG sand men. In truth Conan is a relatively low fantasy world: magic is feared and seldom used save by often power-hungry sorcerers. Monsters exist, but they're hidden away within places seldom seen by mortal men. In truth some of them even terrify Conan. But half the time Conan's greatest enemies are other barbarians like himself.
Maybe it's worth watching the new one, but I figure it would probably be better to wait for a home release. I just want a Conan movie that allows for introspection, where he's out for himself. I don't want him to be a hero that people call on in times of need, because that wasn't him.
I thought the movie was good. I also kind of fear I may have been blinded by over exuberant fanboy-ism. It's not the best movie, but it's far from the worst. One of my biggest complaints is that some of the bigger fights felt more like video game boss battles. One of the problems it inherently suffers from is that so much of the target audience has their own, VERY well defined vision of who and what Conan the Barbarian is.
I got the sense of a weird dichotomy between this Conan movie and the 1982 film. The film had a better story (Howard-wise, and plot) in most ways, but the original utilized better storytelling techniques. Jason Momoa is also a better Conan than Arnold, but Momoa lacks Schwarzenegger's charisma and screen presence. There's CG, but I didn't find it too invasive. The 3D aspect of it roughly inhaled donkey testicles.
@ Ackattack. I'm not sure what you've heard, but the movie may be closer to what you were hoping. The CG sand men were summoned by a power-mad sorceress, the big monster was pretty well hidden away, and most of his toughest opponents were warriors that were fairly barbaric, if technically from "civilized" lands. Conan was pretty much out to achieve his own goals,with most of the heroics being incidental in pursuit of those goals.
It's only pulled in 11 million domestic, 5 million more worldwide, and cost 90 million to make, so it bombed.
That might be it for Conan flicks. :(
Probably mostly because it's rated R here. If it was rated AA it would have done a lot better.
I'd also like to comment that "House of the Dead" was probably the worst movie I've ever seen. It's so bad, it's hilarious! I highly recommend that people rent this crap ball, you'll have a good laugh.
It's only pulled in 11 million domestic, 5 million more worldwide, and cost 90 million to make, so it bombed.
That might be it for Conan flicks. :(Probably mostly because it's rated R here. If it was rated AA it would have done a lot better.
I'd also like to comment that "House of the Dead" was probably the worst movie I've ever seen. It's so bad, it's hilarious! I highly recommend that people rent this crap ball, you'll have a good laugh.
Maybe because it is R rated and not a comedy. There have been plenty of movies over the last few years that have been wildly successful despite having an R rating. Though I think most were comedies, so there is that.
|
|
I'm not going to try and argue that the Arnie CtB was a more accurate Conan movie. But I would argue that is a better movie. As as PDK indicated above, it might have actually been because it was done in a more modest fashion for the most part. With computer technology, too many directors are asking what can I do, instead of what should I do. Can I make stupid sand people. Yes. Should I? Probably not. "Look what we did, I made a guy take the Nesand(tm) Plundge!"
Also, I enjoyed Arnie's CtB more because the supporting character were so much more interesting. I got no problem with Conan having a buddy from his days on the dark coast, but make the guy freaken interesting than a clone from just about every Robin Hood movie or even from some Arthur movie.
And don't even get me started on the love interest.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie. I enjoyed The Sword and The Sorcerer also. Ask my wife, I love horrible Sci-Fi and Fantasy movies. So go see it, especially if there is nothing better out. It is fun. Not necessarily good, but fun.
Plus, the new Conan does not punch camels. You are NOT, I repeat NOT, a barbarian unless you regularly punch camels.
Jason Momoa is a male bimbo, no substance at all.
Somebody's significant other has a crush on Jason Momoa methinks...
|
...
As for the new one...well, I don't like heavy use of CG. I'd rather watch him slay an enormous snake puppet than CG sand men. In truth Conan is a relatively low fantasy world: magic is feared and seldom used save by often power-hungry sorcerers. Monsters exist, but they're hidden away within places seldom seen by mortal men. In truth some of them even terrify Conan. But half the time Conan's greatest enemies are other barbarians like himself....
love Magic? Say what? Almost every REH story had him fighting a wizard. They were popping out of the woodwork. Demon Apes, elephant people from the starz, giant spiders. Sure the everyday populace has very limited magic. But wizards are spitting it out.
Maybe because it is R rated and not a comedy. There have been plenty of movies over the last few years that have been wildly successful despite having an R rating. Though I think most were comedies, so there is that.It's only pulled in 11 million domestic, 5 million more worldwide, and cost 90 million to make, so it bombed.
That might be it for Conan flicks. :(Probably mostly because it's rated R here. If it was rated AA it would have done a lot better.
I'd also like to comment that "House of the Dead" was probably the worst movie I've ever seen. It's so bad, it's hilarious! I highly recommend that people rent this crap ball, you'll have a good laugh.
heh heh.....a friend of mine did a "RAY"view,......said it was the best romantic comedy of the summer.