Conan - Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, I watched 'Red Sonja', frickin awful film, lol, CtD was much better, and that was crap....so my guess at the worst(best) line of the movie that Movielord posted is this one...

"I have killed 177 men, and only one survives....and he has no legs!"

So, i will go back, check the vid and see if I am right...

edit: em, all you posted was her shouting 'Gedren, where are you?'
 
Last edited:
Is it just me or does the rotten review seem to give it a better write up than the fresh one?
 
thought I should re-post the reviews roguetrooper posted up, which landed at the bottom of the page, haven't read em yet...
rogue trooper said:
At RT, so far, one Fresh, and one Rotten: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/conan_the_barbarian_2011/

Fresh(from Urban Cinefile by Louise Keller): "There is brutal violence with fountains of blood as heads and limbs are dismembered by swords, arrows, axes and scythes in this reworking of the 1982 fantasy adventure Conan The Barbarian. This was the tailor-made role that propelled Arnold Schwarzenegger, muscles rippling, from body building fame to the screen, and here there is an equally impressively developed body which embodies Conan the protagonist. Former Baywatch heartthrob Jason Momoa is the child born of battle who lives in order to revenge the death of his father.
It's an extravagant spectacle with a suitably dark production design, a non-too subtle score and an action-packed narrative filled with expensive stunts, visual effects and exotic settings. There are two striking women, too: one is the pure-blood heroine, the other, the evil sorceress. The story is complicated but predictable and the young male target audience won't care if they miss the nuances. After all, it's about the heroic alpha male that lives and dies by the sword; besides, this is show and tell for the muscle-seeking crowd that flocks to Fitness First every night to work on those abs and glutes."

Rotten(from Urban Cinefile by Andrew L. Urban): "Primitive cinema it is, set in primitive fantasy times, when people and places had strange (yet somehow familiar) names, battles were brutal and bloody, everyone wore rags and big, clunky bling. A touch of the supernatural mingles with the superstitious; slaves are mercilessly whipped, while heroes strike down evil rulers after saving women (or usually one attractive woman) against impossible odds. I almost forgot the monster - in this case an underwater beast with the tentacles of an octopus and the bad temper of a bear with toothache.

In the 1982 adaptation of stories by Robert E. Howard, Arnie plays Conan, and it's a whole different movie. I say this to point out that it's not a remake. And Jason Momoa is not an Arnie 'clonan'. He's a likeable guy, and handles himself well in this physically demanding role.

This 2011 Conan is a film that could and possible already has, morphed into a video game. The lead actors are human, but much else is computer generated, from the fantasy lands where the action takes place to the structures on it, like old stone castles and temples and palaces and such."
Click to expand...

and the one Rac posted...

Rac said:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayl...crom_conan_the_barbarian_is_unbelievably_awf/
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
@Wolvieboy17

...yeah, the rotten one does seem to give a rather more positive vibe, somehow.

Anyway, like "Rambo"(2008), and "Underworld:Evolution", right now, I don't expect mainstream critics to welcome "Conan The Barbarian" with wide open arms, but I think moviegoers will.
 
Aye, even though I may end up agreeing with some of the bad reviews in some aspects, I think there will be more chance of me enjoying the film despite any flaws.
Again, i think it'll be somewhere on the level of Wolverine, the 2nd FF film, or maybe even the theatrical cut of Daredevil(which I liked a lot), movies which a lot of critics totally carved to pieces, but which I enjoyed despite there being heavy flaws in the storytelling.
 
Well, the standard to which I'm holding this film to is "Solomon Kane" and "Predators".
 
Well, I am a bit more pessimistic than you in regards to this film, what I am hoping for, first of all, is that , like those other movies I cited, despite their flaws, 'Conan' at least feels like the character I have read in the stories. If the movie has that starting point, and is a decent action film, I'll enjoy the film.

But, if it feels like any old S&S movie, like the Arnie film(which is very enjoyable anyway, a v well made film), i will be very disapointed, because I'm hoping that this one will at the very least bring the character of Conan to life on screen for the first time. Something it will automatically have over the Arnie flick.


and in regards to the films you cited, I have not seen them, , in regards to mine, if Conan was as good as DD I'd be very surprised. Because, what Mark Steven Johnson did with that movie, was stick very closely to the Frank Miller source material, which is why the characterisation felt very similar to the books.

These guys though, have come up with their own story and origin for Conan, but, on the positive side, Jason Maomoa is a fan of the original stories, and will bring that to bear on his performance, just as Affleck did, DD being the only comic book he read regularly when he was growing up. So, if they bring in enough elements from the REH world, and Mamoa gets the characterisation down with some help from the script, we will have a chance of seeing him onscreen finally.
 
Last edited:
Thebumwhowalks said:
and in regards to the films you cited, I have not seen them, but if you hold them above Daredevil, then I guess you didn't think that was too good of an adaptation of DD, myself, if it was as good as DD I'd be very surprised. But, what Mark Steven Johnson did with that movie, was stick very closely to the Frank miller source material, which is why the characterisation felt very similar to the books.

These guys though, have come up with their own story and origin for Conan, but Jason Maomoa is a fan of the original stories, and will bring that to bear on his performance, just as Affleck did, DD being the only comic book he read regularly when he was growing up.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed DD quite alot when I saw it in theatres. Then I saw the director's cut and I enjoyed that one much more. Looking at the film now, well, it felt quite rushed. Since then, better structured superhero films like "Batman Begins","Kick-Ass", "Captain America", and "Iron Man", have made Johnson's DD film look very simplistic now, imo. I still like it, mind you, despite its flaws.

Now, "Solomon Kane", like this new Conan film, is a pastiche; it's an original story providing an origin for the character of Solomon Kane, which Robert Howard never did in the stories he wrote of Kane, just like he never provided a very detailed origin for Conan. However, "Solomon Kane" does capture the feel/spirit of the pulp, purple prose of Robert E. Howard. It had the Lovecraftian sorcery, the raw violence, and macabre villains. And most importantly, James Purefoy filled the role of Kane excellently. It's no "masterpiece" like "Lord of The Rings" or "Excalibur", and some visuals probably looked too "videogame-like"(probably budget), but it is a very well-made S&S flick.

I thought "Pradators" was a pretty solid film with a blanced pace of hard-violent action and a very macabre element of danger, which is what Robert Howard always delivered in his stories. Not as iconic as McTiernan's film, but a very watchable film, nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
I would take "Solomon Kane" over "Excalibur" any day.

The compelling thing about Solomon Kane is how well it delivers a darkly magical version of early 17th century England, and gives us a very plausible hero for that environment.

We need a sequel with better production values to really realise its potential.
 
I'm not worried about bad reviews at all. In fact, action movies with bad reviews usually turn out to be pretty damn good. Every Rambo movie after First Blood got bad reviews, but all did well. Same with Commando and many more action films.

Oh, by the way, I've been thinking about this for the past couple days. The only character on film that has truly ever given me the Conan feel is Rambo. He moves through environments with a natural catlike competence that Conan is always described as having, he's pretty damn good in battle and seems to live for it. It came to me watching the last Rambo movie the other night and watching him run through the jungle before the bomb went off. It suddenly clicked to me, "That's how Conan runs!"
 
rogue trooper said:
I enjoyed DD quite alot when I saw it in theatres. Then I saw the director's cut and I enjoyed that one much more. Looking at the film now, well, it felt quite rushed. Since then, better structured superhero films like "Batman Begins","Kick-Ass", "Captain America", and "Iron Man", have made Johnson's DD film look very simplistic now, imo. I still like it, mind you, despite its flaws.

Now, "Solomon Kane", like this new Conan film, is a pastiche; it's an original story providing an origin for the character of Solomon Kane, which Robert Howard never did in the stories he wrote of Kane, just like he never provided a very detailed origin for Conan. However, "Solomon Kane" does capture the feel/spirit of the pulp, purple prose of Robert E. Howard. It had the Lovecraftian sorcery, the raw violence, and macabre villains. And most importantly, James Purefoy filled the role of Kane excellently. It's no "masterpiece" like "Lord of The Rings" or "Excalibur", and some visuals probably looked too "videogame-like"(probably budget), but it is a very well-made S&S flick.

I thought "Pradators" was a pretty solid film with a blanced pace of hard-violent action and a very macabre element of danger, which is what Robert Howard always delivered in his stories. Not as iconic as McTiernan's film, but a very watchable film, nonetheless.
Click to expand...

I think we might've been saying different things in regards to citing films.

If I understand you right, you were saying that you think the director should be able to make a movie as good as Solomon Kane, given the budget and his pedigree. (I haven't seen it, but hear good things about it)

Whereas, I was saying, pessimistically, that he will probably **** it up somewhat, lol, and we will be lucky to get something as good as Wolverine, but hopefully as good as DD.

I think the DD example is a good comparison, because in both cases we have directors who did not have very good reputations, but came into decent budgets and good source material to draw from.

I don't know the Ghost Rider comics, but if MSJ drew that movie straight from the books, they were very poor books indeed. Whereas with DD he stuck to various Miller stories, and the movie was far superior to GR, because his limited skills as a movie director and screenwriter were propped up by great source material.

In other words, if there is a poor screenplay for Conan, I'm scared we're going to get a 'Ghost Rider' here from Nispell, as opposed to a Daredevil.

and aye, I have not seen Cap yet, but I agree DD is not as good as those other sh films. There are still sh films being made that it is far superior to though, Iron-Man 2 for instance, haven't seen Thor yet, but I imagine there will be the chance I prefer DD to both Cap and Thor.
 
Thebumwhowalks said:
I think we might've been saying different things in regards to citing films.

If I understand you right, you were saying that you think the director should be able to make a movie as good as Solomon Kane, given the budget and his pedigree. (I haven't seen it, but hear good things about it)

Whereas, I was saying, pessimistically, that he will probably **** it up somewhat, lol, and we will be lucky to get something as good as Wolverine, but hopefully as good as DD.

I think the DD example is a good comparison, because in both cases we have directors who did not have very good reputations, but came into decent budgets and good source material to draw from.

I don't know the Ghost Rider comics, but if MSJ drew that movie straight from the books, they were very poor books indeed. Whereas with DD he stuck to various Miller stories, and the movie was far superior to GR, because his limited skills as a movie director and screenwriter were propped up by great source material.

In other words, if there is a poor screenplay for Conan, I'm scared we're going to get a 'Ghost Rider' here from Nispell, as opposed to a Daredevil.

and aye, I have not seen Cap yet, but I agree DD is not as good as those other sh films. There are still sh films being made that it is far superior to though, Iron-Man 2 for instance, haven't seen Thor yet, but I imagine there will be the chance I prefer DD to both Cap and Thor.
Click to expand...


Oh, I see. Yeah, in a worst-case scenario, hopefully, the film be somewhat like Daredevil or "X-Men Origins:Wolverine", as oppossed to "Jonah Hex". Ofcourse, here's hoping that won't be the case.

What will Marcus Nispel deliver? We'll see. "Pathfinder" was pretty lackluster and that might be putting it kindly, but he did deliver with "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and I think he did very well with a tired franchise like "Friday The 13th". I mean, what more can you do with Jason Vorhees without changing the character to a point where fans will get upset? It can be quite a thankless task. Same with the "A Nightmare On Elm Street" remake. Nispel's film was definately better than anything that came after "Jason Takes Manhattan".

What's really encouraging is that co-writer Sean Hood has acknowledged some of the Howard-written stories when writing the screenplay.

The main reason I'm going to hold "Conan The Barbarian" to the standard of "Solomon Kane" is becuase they're both pastiches. With SK, director Michael J. Bassett did an origin story that at first didn't go well with the Howard fans, but managed to do it in such a way that didn't stain the essence of the character.
 
Last edited:
I've been hearing that(very minor spoiler)
Morgan Freeman does the narration for the film!



Also, those who have read the novelization, this is what a poster from conan.com named Arthyron said:

"So I went to Wizard World Comic-Con in Chicago, Illinois this weekend and ran in to the author of the book adaptation of the new movie. He told me that what he did with the book was he took out some of the Conan parts and added some more Khalar Zym parts to flesh out the story and balance out the focus of the book. So apparently the book adaptation is missing some things from the movie about Conan and has some extra things about Zym that weren't in the film."
 
Aye, the Texas Chainsaw remake was not bad, well put together, I have that on dvd, to be honest though, I bought it mainly to see Jessica Beil run around in that t-shirt, and it was on sale, lol.

I have Pathfinder on tape here somewhere, I didn't know it was the Conan guy who directed it when I set the video for it, I just thought it looked like it might be interesting. Then I come onto this Conan thread last year and folk start saying how crap it is, so I did not exactly feel like putting the tape on when i came across it again the other month, but I will probably take a look at it soon if I see the tape handy.
 
The best reviews I've seen all make it sound more violent than Rambo and more action-packed than The Expendables. If that's the case, I think I'll be happy with the end result- especially since I never expected a faithful adaptation of Robert E. Howard anyway.

I do hope it performs well enough for a sequel, because ironically, the script under consideration for part two is actually quite good. It makes you wonder why they didn't use it instead. Then again, from what I've read, it was hard enough just convincing the studio to allow Conan an R-rating.
 
Two new positive reviews:

http://blog.quickfli...rbarian-review/

"You won't find the geopolitical quandaries or the ever-shifting power relationships of Game of Thrones here, but you will be treated to a non-stop barrage of brutal, ferocious battle scenes."

http://www.filmink.c...barian-3d-film/

"Nispel certainly succeeds in making a gutsy, ballsy, bloody action-adventure flick worthy of its central character's towering, archetypal mythos."
 
This Conan film is one where the portrayal of the main character is the main thing that interests me. If I feel like Momoa has truly captured REH's Conan, I'll be happy to pay for this film.
 
Another positive review: http://www.accessreel.com/movie-reviews/accessreel-reviews-–-conan-barbarian


"Overall ‘Conan’ is a breath of fresh air into the sword and sorcery genre, in an era of films generally presented to the widest audience possible it’s refreshing to see a film with strong production values that takes some risks and brings more mature content to the big screen. Without a thorough knowledge of the source material I cannot largely comment to the effectiveness of this translation in capturing the spirit of the character, however this is an enjoyable film populated with a setting which is ripe for further exploration."
 
rogue trooper said:
This review from Den of Geek gives 4 out of 5 stars: http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/1017103/conan_the_barbarian_review.html
Click to expand...

"But for those of us who grew up in the eighties, on a diet of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Conan and the slew of bloodthirsty sword and sorcery movies that followed in the wake of its box office success, then this new take on the character will prove to be a somewhat nostalgic treat."

:wow:

This is one crowd I thought the film would have difficulty converting, since most people are strongly biased against anything from their childhood being "remade". (Even though this technically isn't a straight remake in the traditional sense.)

However, if the film can earn their goodwill and win them over, I think it may have a real shot at the box office.
 
http://www.**************.com/fansites/rorschachsrants/news/?a=44467
..for its many flaws, unoriginal plot, wooden acting and atrocious pacing, Conan succeeds on some level because it fulfills the quota of a manly man beating stuff to a pulp.

..All of the scenes are driven by exposition, some set pieces are tame, others are quite stunning but it is too jarring and each scene simply strings onto the next.

Jason Momoa is excellent as Conan, he kills stuff really well, demeans women and eats stuff really fast, there is not much more you can look for in a barbarian. Unfortunately, the pure blood Marique and Zym are after Tamara is played by Rachel Nichols and is the most grating and poorly acted character. In fact, she makes everyone else beam in comparison - delivering her lines poorly, stumbling over the fantasy names and having no accent at all. Zym and Marique snarl and growl a lot and everyone else who is not them or Conan provides helpful information to the audience about the plot.

Conan is not a good film, it misses that mark by a long shot. But for its pulp and gory action it can easily be recommended. If you are in the mood for a brainless guilty pleasure, look no further, and like all films of this ilk, the poor ending hints blatantly at a sequel.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried - I knew we'd see some like this
 
Kind've funny to see so many reviewers begrudgingly admit the film delivers what it sets out to do.


http://www.liveforfilms.com/2011/08/16/conan-the-barbarian-review-of-the-jason-momoa-version/

"What Conan does do well is execute its set pieces and action sequences with few hiccups. The pacing is high octane and, as various sword fights, chases and killings ensue, the action remains at a surprisingly entertaining level, in fact, more so than a majority of Transformers 3. What’s more, the use of 3D is actually acceptable, which again surpasses dire expectation."


Here's (a glimpse at) a Miami New Times review that has been all over Twitter, yet is no longer found on the actual site. (Perhaps they weren't supposed to publish it early?)


http://www.past24hours.com/conan-the-barbarian-reboot-is-bloody-good-miami-new-times/32053

"A cinematic reboot for the patron saint of 98-pound weaklings, Conan the Barbarian is both truer to the vision of its character's creator, Robert E. Howard, and more satisfyingly pulpy than John Milius's 1982 movie incarnation."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Poll Poll
Conan - Part 2
7 8 9
Replies
202
Views
25K
rogue trooper
rogue trooper
T
  • Poll Poll
Gravity - Part 1
12 13 14
Replies
348
Views
13K
dark_b
dark_b
T
  • Poll Poll
Oblivion - Part 1
4 5 6
Replies
146
Views
8K
Iceman
Iceman
T
  • Poll Poll
Predators - Part 1
3 4 5
Replies
119
Views
6K
Nathan
Nathan
T
  • Poll Poll
Battleship - Part 1
5 6 7
Replies
151
Views
7K
Micromind
Micromind

Staff online

Members online

Total: 3,448 (members: 31, guests: 3,417)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,317
Messages
22,084,496
Members
45,883
Latest member
marvel2099fan89

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"