Conan - Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just saw this today and I gotta say I was kindof disappointed. They definately changed the origin story and pretty much else really,which I guess is good,but would of liked some resemblence of original.
To make it simple what I didn't like:
* The story, it was alright I guess.
* The flow of the movie, it just seemed not to flow well..
* The over use of blood for some reason it just didnt work well in some areas,also the sound effects of the blood/body parts smashing, just IDK didn't set right?

The good:
*Boobies:woot: There where some nice scenery imo
*Sword play, the fighting sequences were good for the most part.
*Did I mention Boobies:wow:
Overall, I guess it was entertaining nothing special and I don't know if I cared for the guy who played Conan? I still say original was just better!!
 
Last edited:
nocomics said:
[BLACKOUT]
I just saw this today and I gotta say I was kindof disappointed. They definately changed the origin story and pretty much else really,which I guess is good,but would of liked some resemblence of original.
To make it simple what I didn't like:
* The story, it was alright I guess.
* The flow of the movie, it just seemed not to flow well..

The good:
*Boobies:woot: There where some nice scenery imo
*Sword play, the fighting sequences were good for the most part.
*Did I mention Boobies:wow:
Overall, I guess it was entertaining nothing special and I don't know if I cared for the guy who played Conan? I still say original was just better!!
[/BLACKOUT]
Click to expand...

You do know that the
origin in the Arnold movie is not the origin from the original Conan stories?
 
nocomics said:
I just saw this today and I gotta say I was kindof disappointed. They definately changed the origin story and pretty much else really,which I guess is good,but would of liked some resemblence of original.
To make it simple what I didn't like:
* The story, it was alright I guess.
* The flow of the movie, it just seemed not to flow well..
* The over use of blood for some reason it just didnt work well in some areas,also the sound effects of the blood/body parts smashing, just IDK didn't set right?

The good:
*Boobies:woot: There where some nice scenery imo
*Sword play, the fighting sequences were good for the most part.
*Did I mention Boobies:wow:
Overall, I guess it was entertaining nothing special and I don't know if I cared for the guy who played Conan? I still say original was just better!!
Click to expand...

Since I don't want to read you whole "spoilered" post, let me see if this is what you said; you were basically dissapointed because the movie did not follow the story of the 1982 film? Is that correct? If so, that's actually quite good to hear!!
 
Well I guess you are going to get that.

People will think this is a remake of the Original movie.

I would would have liked if they gave the movie an original name, or just called it Conan.
 
Last edited:
...yeah, the inept mainstream media keeps labeling it a "remake". It's no more a remake than "Batman Begins" is a remake of Tim Burton's "Batman". (Sighs).
 
Yeah, too many people see Conan the character as the John Milius version. It was a great movie, but not a very interesting interpretation of the character. They really latch onto the 'Barbarian' notion in that film, whereas REH's version was so much more interesting. He really portrays Conan as the perfect, pure human. Wandering the world, just learning things. Anything he doesn't understand, he tries it out until he's the best at it then moves on. So much more interesting than just a fierce Barbarian.
 
Well, I try to look at it like any exposure is good exposure. REH deserves to be more widely read imo and maybe if the movie is decent it will lead more people to discover the books.
 
Well, we ***** about everything being PG-13. Apparently this one was too "R" for him.
 
He does say in the review that he felt guilty for enjoying the craziness of it all, I mean, 'R' rating is one thing, but it does sound ott to the point where you could get a right good laugh out of some of it...

On Conan's birth scene... he says Ron Perlman pulls an 'obviously rubber baby' from Conan's mother(who is dying on a battlefield while giving birth), and screams 'NAME YOUR SON!'

and in the early stages of the movie Conan chops some guy's nose off, and then when he is interrogating him later on in the movie, Conan sticks his fingers up what is left of it, lol.
 
Last edited:
nocomics said:
Never read the comics...
Click to expand...

When I said "original Conan stories"...I was referring to the original short stories and novel published in the 1930's by REH.....the real Conan stories. You are complaining the new movie doesn't follow the storyline of the Arnold movie that didn't follow the storyline of the creator and original writer of the character.
 
rogue trooper said:
Since I don't want to read you whole "spoilered" post, let me see if this is what you said; you were basically dissapointed because the movie did not follow the story of the 1982 film? Is that correct? If so, that's actually quite good to hear!!
Click to expand...

Yes, it's unfortunate that so many are opposed to the idea of a new Conan movie, simply because they think it's a character that was created for a 1980s movie. (The irony being that they'll accept non-Arnold sequels to Terminator and Predator without any problem. :huh: )

I think it speaks more to how woefully inept the previous Conan rights holders than anything else. Their handling of the property was a joke throughout the 80s and 90s. So much so, that most people have no idea there has already been other incarnations since the first two movies.
 
Shawn Wayne said:
Just saw this. Conan purists, do not waste your money.
Click to expand...

Hmm? Well, here's a purist who very much liked it: http://mchaneyrobertehoward.blogspot.com/

"They have succeeded splendidly on all points, and then some. The most important thing about this film is that they chose the right man to get the job done. Momoa is a demanding, charismatic presence, and you would almost believe he was born to play Conan. His physical performance in the movie is flawless. His sword work is precise and deadly, his speed and co-ordination are not lumbering and slow like his predecessors, and for the first time in the history of the character, Conan is portrayed by someone that can actually act!"

"I’d have to give Conan the Barbarian both my thumbs up."


"The producers of the new Conan made basically the same statement, but what they did that Michael Bassett apparently couldn’t do was to give us a decent film. Solomon Kane plods along, like a bus making too many stops to get to a destination, and every single little detail must be explained in excruciating detail. No wonder no distributor in the United States was interested in the film. It is a bore. Cut 30 minutes out of its overlong running time, and it might have sold over here. James Purefoy comes across well as Solomon Kane, he just wasn’t given great material to work with."

 
Gonna try and see it tonight at 9pm.
 
Shawn Wayne said:
Just saw this. Conan purists, do not waste your money.
Click to expand...

Over at Conan com, there have been a couple of hardcore Conan fans who have said the movie was a lot of fun, one of whom whose posts I had been reading in months past, who was expecting to hate it.

There have been negative posts too though, like, really frickin negative, hating the film.

I think this is one of those times when you have to leave your purist sensibilities at the door, and see if you can enjoy it on it's own terms.


I am actually relieved, it doesn't sound like a great movie, but it does sound like the kind of daft film I could have a blast watching, and Mamoa has been getting pretty much unanimous praise, even in the most negative of reviews.

Tbh, I was not expecting it to get such good reviews, I was half expecting things like 'turkey of the year', Battlefield Earth type of reviews, or even the kind that Chronicles of Riddick got on it's release, which frickin slaughtered it.

I was also saying that this flick might be on a par with Wolverine Origins, but take into consideration that Harry Knowles slaughtered X-Men 3 in his review, and hated XMOW so much he did not even deign to give it a review, so when he had something positive to say about this Conan flick, which he was expecting to outright hate, I took that onboard as a reaction i might share. Even though i didn't hate those X-Men flicks as much as he did, i did agree with a lot of his review of X-Men 3, and understood why XMOW angered him so much.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to see it tonight at 10:00 PM, also. I've already finished watching "Fire and Ice", and later I'm gonna watch "Solomon Kane" to get pumped for the film!!:yay:
 
Thebumwhowalks said:
Over at Conan com, there have been a couple of hardcore Conan fans who have said the movie was a lot of fun, one of whom whose posts I had been reading in months past, who was expecting to hate it.

There have been negative posts too though, like, really frickin negative, hating the film.
Click to expand...

....not to mention that there are some(few) who still are bothered with Momoa's mixed ethnicity. They wanted someone with 100% Celtic features.
 
Not quite sure what a Conan purist consists of. I've read all of the original REH stories....and I loved the first Arnold Conan movie. It wasn't the Conan I knew...but I loved the movie as a sword and sorcery kick-ass action adventure movie. I love the genre...so I will go see this.

I wish SOLOMAN KANE was out here in the movies or on DVD (don't say I can download it off the net, I don't do that).
 
rogue trooper said:
....not to mention that there are some(few) who still are bothered with Momoa's mixed ethnicity. They wanted someone with 100% Celtic features.
Click to expand...

That was not mentioned and had no bearing on any of the posts I was talking about.

There seems to be an overabundance of good reviews posted up in here though, I mean, it's almost as if you guys are not posting up any of the negative reviews you come across on the net, after all, there must be quite a few, if the RT meter is at 28%, or whatever it was at.

I read one extensive review by a REH scholar that absolutely ripped the movie's gizzards out. I'll try and find it again and post it up, lol.

edit: I mean, one person has come into the thread and said they were gonna pay in to see it in theatres now, cause of all the good reviews, well, in the sense of fair play and presenting a balanced overview, here is a very well written and thought out review by a Conan and REH expert who tears it to pieces.
He even says don't read the second part of it, if you want to try and go in and enjoy the movie, but fug it, i read it, my own sensibilities are strong enough to hold their own in determining whether i like it or not, no matter what anyone else says:

http://www.conanmovieblog.com/2011/08/15/conan-the-barbarian-the-conan-movie-blog-review/

So, y'know, ye of the weak minded and easily swayed by other's opinions, beware this review! hahaha
 
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
12K
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: 3,923 (members: 24, guests: 3,899)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,265
Messages
22,075,647
Members
45,875
Latest member
shanandrews

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"