I put this movie in the bad section according to the reviews I read after watching the movie.
But once again I think I fall to my love to `bad' movies because I loved the movie in every minute of it.
Sure: it is fairly different from the classic movie of the 1982 with Schwarzenegger as main character. But then? Why critics cannot see a movie for itself not for comparison with another one? Beside, the director of Conan (2011), Marcus Nispel, explicitly said he was going to make a different movie!
So about the movie itself: the approach to the movie is `action movie.' If you ever read some of the Conan books you should know that Conan usually passes: 40% of its time killing, 40% of its time `cuddling' women and 20% of its the time stealing.
So an action movie is a good choice: here we have mostly killing, one cuddling scene and some stealing in a interesting way: Conan frees some slaves and take their stuff, but also take them of a near city where they can start a new life.
In the books usually Conan does not have a personal reason to go in a quest, it is just his will. In the movie the main push for Conan is personal, but in the scene of the slaves the movie find the time to show also that aspect of his personality. Conan does not like slavery, so he and his groups go free them. That's it.
The action is continuous and the plot is explained in short, but well done segments around the movie. One thing I loved in the movie is the ability to synthesize: dialogs are minimal, but never bland or generic. Right to the point!
One scene where this is evident is on a ship, Conan and Tamara just escaped from a danger (I am generic so I wont spoil you if still have to see the movie) and there is a dialog like this one:
(sorry: I saw the movie in Italian and I am going by memory, but this is the idea.)
Conan: you look like a b***h.
Tamara: I am probably the only girl you ever meet that it is not one.
Conan: Cimmerian's girl wears armors like men. Give her an armor.
Artus (friend of Conan): I think he likes you.
And thats it, few sentences. And the movie defined the relation between three characters! Conan and Artus are friends, Tamara and Conan likes each other, Tamara is not a empty and bland damsel in distress, Conan has some problems when trying to be kind. Now, get ready for other action.
Most, is not all, dialogs are such expressive. I loved it. Even the main antagonist has different reason from the obvious `power'; he wants to the revive her beloved wife.
The visuals and the CGI are fine, the mainly used natural environment improved with color alteration like the Lord of the Rings. It works fine there is always the idea of a ruthless world where life is not worth a coin. There are few CGI monsters, I usually dislike CGI scenes because director tend to exaggerate and make long boring scenes. Here it is borderline, when I was almost there to say: please no more CGI monsters! Boring! the scene ended. So I think it is fine, after all in a Conan movie you want some monster.
About the story, it is a classic sword and sorcery flick revenge story. But really well done and centered around the action.
Quoting Andrew Borntreger's Krull review:
No matter what "real" critics say, you can not get me to hate this film.
Oh, btw. I am new here. Hello everyone!
Some friends of mine went to see the new Conan and they all agreed that it was one of the worst movies that they've seen in quite some time. You would think that someone would have to work extra hard to make a Conan movie not be entertaining in some respect but they appeared to have done it with the new one. I'm staying far away from it.
Haven't seen it yet but I want to soon. I think it looks like it would be a fun cheesey movie.
All I need to know is this: Did Rose McGowan look hot? :teddyr:
What? There's a new Conan movie? How did I miss this? :hot:
Quote from: Archivist on August 25, 2011, 01:51:03 AM
What? There's a new Conan movie? How did I miss this? :hot:
Here's a trailer....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPQ99y8KaTU
It looks ok and there aren't enough Sword & Sorcery movies coming out these days so I'll go check it out, at the matinee. :wink:
One thing I think no one has gotten right about Conan is his sense of menace. From reading the stories I always had the impression that Conan is almost an animal in human skin. He should always project a sense of menace even if he's in a good mood. He's one of those guys that should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, even when he smiles. Especially when he smiles.
@Torgo
Your loss.
@WingedSerpent
Think Deathstalker, more violence, more story, less tits. In the 2011.
@FatFreddysCat
Actually not much, they give her a feeling of alienated witch instead of hot babe. On the other hand Rachel Nichols compensates fairly well.
@Archivist
Well, at very least I had a good effect writing this topic!
@Hammock Rider
I agree with your point, but the movie does not suffer from that in my opinion. Some scenes are so fast it is difficult to follow who is hitting who, but Conan is fairly brutal. You will love the prison scene (you will understand if you see the movie).
I say to everyone again: it is an action movie. Think Crank in fantasy settings.
Saying with Tvtropes terms: it is a `Low Fantasy' `Thud And Blunder' story.
Quote from: etmoviesb on August 25, 2011, 10:00:53 AM
@FatFreddysCat
Actually not much, they give her a feeling of alienated witch instead of hot babe.
Dang. :(
FatFreddysCat, I understand your pain.
It is made worse because the young actress Yoana Petrova that plays the Rose McGowan character in the scenes where Conan is a child promised a future hot witch.
Quote from: etmoviesb on August 25, 2011, 12:14:03 PM
FatFreddysCat, I understand your pain.
It is made worse because the young actress Yoana Petrova that plays the Rose McGowan character in the scenes where Conan is a child promised a future hot witch.
...and the fact that she actually
played a hot witch on TV's "Charmed" for quite a few years. She was babe-o-licious for most of her tenure on that show. :teddyr:
Well, that was interesting reading everyone's opinion. I have plans to see it on Sunday, so I'll post my opinion on it sometime soon.
Quote from: Hammock Rider on August 25, 2011, 08:48:46 AM
It looks ok and there aren't enough Sword & Sorcery movies coming out these days so I'll go check it out, at the matinee. :wink:
One thing I think no one has gotten right about Conan is his sense of menace. From reading the stories I always had the impression that Conan is almost an animal in human skin. He should always project a sense of menace even if he's in a good mood. He's one of those guys that should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, even when he smiles. Especially when he smiles.
Agreed. The trailer looks like they got his attitude wrong.
The trailer makes the movie look like another one of those hyperstylized 300 type movies, which isn't bad in itself. It's just that this style is so distinctive that seeing it in another movie makes it look like a copy. But I will admit, the trailer looks like a lot of fun. I hope it gets a theatrical release in Australia.
Well, I finally saw it on Sunday in a theater with just myself and one other nerd.
It was a good looking film, except for one of the final scenes, if you have seen it, then you know the one, which is one of the fakest scenes I have ever seen in a film. It is too bad that the rest of the film did not measure up to its look.
It was one of the worst acted films I have ever seen.
It was one of the worst written films I have ever heard.
And even for that genera, it was one of the most far fetched films I have ever seen.
But, you know what. I liked it.
I especially liked the effort to differenate the villains.
As for the fight scenes, they were okay, but they could have been better. Like alot of fight scenes in today's films, they were needlessly confusing.
When I see something next time, I'll again post my opinions.
Wow, I just got a text message from a friend who says, "Don't see Conan, it is S**T".
This is not cool.
I really do not follow what so wrong. Sure there are few flaws (over all in the final), but it is comparable to many other movies.
For example I cannot explain why people love so much Gladiator (2000) and hate this movie.
Well, my friend did lament the lack of 'CROM!!!' and the fact that he looked like a wuss compared with Arnie, so he's obviously comparing it with the original. I haven't seen the original for ages, and I actually prefer Conan the Destroyer and Red Sonja to the original Conan movie. So maybe I'll take a chance on this one.
The lack of Crom is probably the effect of the age. Nowadays in general movies are more atheist for the politically correct nonsense.
About the `original' (that is not since Conan come out from the pen of Robert E. Howard) I saw it again few days ago (Conan Le Barbare - Edition Prestige; probably the most complete edition).
And as I recalled, it is a completely different movie. The original wants to bring Conan world to life, it explain places, cultures and it details the Conan life until his freedom.
The new one instead is mostly the adventure of Conan in his seek of revenge. It is some time that I saw The Destroyer, but I think if you liked it you probably will like this one too.
Quote from: FatFreddysCat on August 24, 2011, 07:47:45 PM
All I need to know is this: Did Rose McGowan look hot? :teddyr:
FatFreddy, sad to say that after her recent botched plastic surgery Rose will probably never be hot again.
(http://dlisted.com/roseeyes.jpg)
Well, photos always lie. With light, blur, bad moment and such you can blend the truth... but if there is anything true it is horrible! Only one question: WHY?
Quote from: etmoviesb on September 02, 2011, 01:51:07 AM
Well, photos always lie. With light, blur, bad moment and such you can blend the truth... but if there is anything true it is horrible! Only one question: WHY?
I saw her in DEAD AWAKE and I can confirm she looked horrible. Of course, she was supposed to be playing a crackhead; she was perfect for the part.
I found the new Conan to be watchable, and actually the the guy playing Conan was pretty solid (Mamoa? I forget). He actually is closer to the book character than the Arnold version is. Several lines of dialogue are straight from the stories as well (like the "Follow you to hell" line in the trailer).
That said, it's not a great film. Just watchable, passable entertainment with some satisfying moments... I think a 6/10.
Well, now that someone actually watched it I can also talk about what I did not like much.
1- I would liked a little more about Conan infancy, there is only few dialogues, but no scenes from his story after he left the village.
2- Rose McGowan's character seem to have some Electra complex, but this thing is never used. I was expecting he betrayed the father, break the resurrection of the mother or something... no. The point is not used.
3- The mask, the all-powerful mask with the knowledge of years of necromancy is activated and... Conan breaks it outright. End. I think they could use the plot device better.
4- The helper rogue was fairly useless he opens few doors and disappear, once again they could use him better.
That's it. And the fun thing is this points hardly ever appear in the reviews! I seldom think that me and reviewers have completely different tastes.
I'm returning to this thread as I've just started to watch Conan and will give my impressions as it unfurls.
1. Morgan Freeman doing voiceover. As always, he is the awesomeness, but some of the monologue isn't exactly the best.
2. Battlefield caesarean. "Let me see my child before I die..." WTF??? Are you kidding me? I'll just cut open my wife, hoist out the baby, and she will suddenly become calm as she slips into death. Umm...
3. A chase through the forest between a bunch of boys and what look like ... Apaches? In Cimmeria??? Well shot and kind of cool, though.
4. Wow, unrealistic but VERY NICE fight scene with the Apache dudes! I like this!
5. "Fire and ice, together. This is the mystery of steel." I'm beginning to like this movie.
6. Training with the boy, and the return of the Apache dudes!
Okay, I'm going to stop the running commentary, this is turning out to be rather cool. Concentration begins!
I've just finished watching Conan, and I have to say that I quite liked it! It's not as crap as a lot of other people were saying, or at least, I didn't think so. The direction was tight, acting was okay, there were some strange editing glitches that I think could have been solved better (Conan and Tamara jump off the castle into the sea with very little visual lead up to it), but overall I thought it was a decent movie.
The bloodletting was hilariously extreme. Sword cut? Blood explodes. Man hits rock? Blood explodes. The action even brought some modern devices in, like an overturning carriage that quite literally exploded through the sheer force of impact, or Conan doing a Superman punch with the hilt of his sword. Jason Momoa did a fine job with the fight scenes and the choreography and direction was exciting, too.
Not something I would rave about, but certainly not something I'd declare the worst movie I'd ever seen! Perhaps because my expectations were so low, I am pleasantly surprised. It's nonsensical, over the top, and fun.
Quote from: Archivist on August 08, 2012, 03:13:47 AM
I'm returning to this thread as I've just started to watch Conan and will give my impressions as it unfurls.
1. Morgan Freeman doing voiceover. As always, he is the awesomeness, but some of the monologue isn't exactly the best.
2. Battlefield caesarean. "Let me see my child before I die..." WTF??? Are you kidding me? I'll just cut open my wife, hoist out the baby, and she will suddenly become calm as she slips into death. Umm...
3. A chase through the forest between a bunch of boys and what look like ... Apaches? In Cimmeria??? Well shot and kind of cool, though.
4. Wow, unrealistic but VERY NICE fight scene with the Apache dudes! I like this!
5. "Fire and ice, together. This is the mystery of steel." I'm beginning to like this movie.
6. Training with the boy, and the return of the Apache dudes!
Okay, I'm going to stop the running commentary, this is turning out to be rather cool. Concentration begins!
If I remember my Robert E. Howard correctly, the "Apaches" are suppose to be Picts who lived north of Hadrian's Wall, or the area that is now known as Scotland. But Archivist is close. In the world of Hyboria, where Conan lives, the Picts or "Apaches" were suppose to be the Native Americans.
this movie sould be reviewed here. an alright action movie, i think the violence is the thing that made this movie entertaining. minimal story and character development. it reminded me of hercules(kevin sorebones) alittle. conan was played well for the most part, even with the batman voice. the evil king wasnt so evil, or scary. he only had like 20 soldiers pulling him around in a wooden boat! rose mcgowen- she looks like evilyn with leukemia! disgusting. ron pearlman- harry and the hendersons. the movie jumps from night to day within the same scene at times. during the love scene, where did that fully furnished cave come from? why did the thief have keys to the castle? did ron pearlman breast feed that baby? i am a biased though, i grew up with the original. i dont think it even compares. my biggest complaint about this movie is the sword. it looks weak compared to the original, and he didnt use it throughout the movie! and wheres the crazy asian witchdocter? crom.
I thought it was just ok. A little overlong, but it was mostly action and that was decent.
Plus, I love Jason Mamoa. It's worth it to see this movie just for the one shot where you see his bare buns :D
The director also went to the effort to keep cgi minimal and use practical effects wherever possible, which I rather
appreciated.