Conan - Part 1

[C. Lee]

Most people should know by now...I personally don't give a damn about reviews...you guys can post a thousand good or bad reviews about any movie....if I want to see it I will, if I don't want to see it I won't.

 

[Shawn Wayne]

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

This review is spot on. Momoa's Drogo was a better Conan IMHO

 

[BDOUBLEO]

Anyone see it in 3d? Yay or nay?

Saw it last night in 3D not worth it if you asked me. The movie didn't really utilized the technology. As for the movie it was decent but there wasn't anything really memorable about the movie to make it stand apart from the similar genre type of films. As someone else said the musical score was lacking. The best thing about the movie is JM; I hope it does well so he can become a real star.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Most people should know by now...I personally don't give a damn about reviews...you guys can post a thousand good or bad reviews about any movie....if I want to see it I will, if I don't want to see it I won't.

Oh aye, anyone who posts here regularly knows you hold your own weight when it comes to going against the tide of any opinions you disagree with.

But, in the thread there has been a sense of putting on the blinkers to the bad reviews, and not liking posts that are of a negative vein, or that speculate that it could be a terrible movie.

I'm like you, I'll take it all onboard, negative and positive, and it won't change my opinion one bit, that is, unless of course there is something about the movie I haven't thought about thoroughly that someone has presented to me.

But, if folk are coming into the thread, and deciding to spend money on a movie that they may not like, because there is a bias of good reviews only being posted, well, y'know, that's bad! Freedom of the press! lol They should see some of the bad reviews as well, to make an informed decision.

 

[C. Lee]

I grew up watching cheap Italian Hercules and other strongmen movies where they fought with rubber swords and had men in suit monsters and terrible dubbing....and I have dozens of them on DVD (along with hundreds of grade B sci fi movies)...and most posters at the Hype wouldn't watch past the first 5 minutes of those movies....so I don't worry about if anyone comes on here and says it's great or terrible....I like Conan, I like REH, I like sword and sorcery....so I'm set to go.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Yeah I know, but there have been other posters who have seemed a little 'uptight' about any negative posts, as if they don't want to think about the possibility of the movie being rubbish.

I mean, you don't want to create the sense of posters treading on anyone toes, or spoiling anyone's party, just because they have a negative opinion of the film.

 

[ChickenScratch]

I grew up watching cheap Italian Hercules and other strongmen movies where they fought with rubber swords and had men in suit monsters and terrible dubbing....and I have dozens of them on DVD (along with hundreds of grade B sci fi movies)...and most posters at the Hype wouldn't watch past the first 5 minutes of those movies....so I don't worry about if anyone comes on here and says it's great or terrible....I like Conan, I like REH, I like sword and sorcery....so I'm set to go.

Dude, I'm all about those old sword and sandal epics. Steve Reeves and Reg Park are personal heroes of mine. Talk about a genre that needs to be broght back!

As for the movie itself, I won't have the time till the earliest Monday to see it. But I'm still pretty excited because I liked the novelization.

 

[C. Lee]

I've seen people say negative things in here...the only one I commented on was the guy who complained that it wasn't like the Arnold movie and he hadn't read any of the original stories or comics...he only knew Conan from the movie. And as far as I remember he didn't get into whether one was a better filmed/produced story or anything...just that the story was different...well duh.

 

[C. Lee]

Dude, I'm all about those old sword and sandal epics. Steve Reeves and Reg Park are personal heroes of mine. Talk about a genre that needs to be broght back!

As for the movie itself, I won't have the time till the earliest Monday to see it. But I'm still pretty excited because I liked the novelization.

I've recently picked up a great 50 movie set at Wal-Mart....full of ones I saw years ago and a slew of ones I never did see before.....

 

[ChewySoup]

Anyone see it in 3d? Yay or nay?

I loved the movie - But the 3D was very meh

 

[Wolf Boy]

As expected, the reviews have been pretty poor. Guess i'll just d/l this at some point.

 

[ChickenScratch]

C. Lee - I know the set you have, I also have it. I also got another one named The Gladiators that came with 30 movies. A lot of them are repeats of the other set, but a couple new ones I had not seen on there.

Seriously though, with our modern cameras and technology I don't see why some enterprising studio like Nu-image couldn't start doing straight to DVD movies like those again. Thrown in some bluecreen, some CG monsters, nudity and make somethign better than your standard Saturday Sci-fi fare.

Seriously though, with the digital back lot method of filming I don't see why these movies, have not made some sort of comeback. Straight to DVD action and sci-fi is ruling now.

 

[PunisherPoster]

But, if folk are coming into the thread, and deciding to spend money on a movie that they may not like, because there is a bias of good reviews only being posted, well, y'know, that's bad! Freedom of the press! lol They should see some of the bad reviews as well, to make an informed decision.

I posted many of those reviews, but there was no real bias intended. Let's face it, when a film has a 25% rating on Rotten Tomatoes- and the bulk of the media stories are heavily focused on said rating- I don't think anyone's going to be misled by fans compiling a few that are positive. LOL

It also wasn't a case of scouring the internet in a desperate attempt to find good reviews. I simply took them off Twitter as they appeared- excluding the negatives since they were already posted on Rotten Tomatoes.

Anyway, while I hope no one was actually confused by any of those posts, I did frequently point out that the movie was not so well-received on Rotten Tomatoes.

I loved the movie - But the 3D was very meh

Yeah, the movie was mindless fun, but the 3D was largely unnecessary. Aside from giving the matte paintings a nice level of depth and the occasional sword/knife thrust, I don't recall anything that stood out.

 

[C. Lee]

I just got back from seeing it....freaking loved it.

 

[TripXyDE]

Comparatively, where the Milius and Schwarzenegger Conan was given ample time for quiet and more thoughtful moments, Marcus Nisepel's and Jason Momoa's Conan was always in a rabid action mode; more arrogant, thoughtless, and after a while, his monotone and lack of character made him too boring and too cardboard-like to sympathize with. The lines he spat out were all barbaric machismo and of vengeance and savagery, which after a while began to sound annoying and awfully corny.

Read the rest of my review HERE

 

[WildcatNC]

I just got back from seeing it....freaking loved it.

I think I will also. To many are trying to highbrow about it and its not that kind of movie.

You have to like it for what it is, an *** kicking barbarian movie.

 

[rogue trooper]

I just came back from seeing it! It was a blast(or slash)!!

The film may not be totaly satisfactory to down-to-the-core Howardists, but the casual reader(those who have read "some" of the Howard stuff, and some pastiches from Roy Thomas or Robert Jordan), and those who loved Savage Sword of Conan magazines, should groove on this!

Momoa nailed the part(very pantherish), despite one or two out-of-character moments. He's Barry W. Smith's Conan rendition come to life!!

Stephen Lang was a decent baddie. Rose McGowan showed some effective sense of perversity. Nathan Jone's jailer looks like a John Buscema-drawn ogre!!

Some flaws were Rachel Nichols, and some scenes were a little rushed.

The score was not particularly memorable, but it doesn't weaken the film either. It does its job.

All in all, a pretty enjoyable Conan pastiche. Next, bring on a more direct Howard-adaptation.


Oh, and I'm pretty sure there will be an extended or director's cut of this.

 

[Figs]

I just got back from seeing it....freaking loved it.

Nice! So did it follow the stories fairly well?

As expected, the reviews have been pretty poor. Guess i'll just d/l this at some point.

Did you actually expect this type of film to get good reviews by the critics? It's like following critic responses to a horror film, ignore them and judge it by yourself.

 

[rogue trooper]

Nice! So did it follow the stories fairly well?

There are traits of stories like "Queen of The Black Coast", "Red Nails", and there's a reference to "Tower of The Elephant".

 

[Figs]

Right on. I've never read the stories, but I'm curious if the fans of the stories liked it.

 

[rogue trooper]

Right on. I've never read the stories, but I'm curious if the fans of the stories liked it.

The story is a little bit more Roy Thomas or Michael Fleischer than it is Howard, imo, you know, more "Fire and Ice" than "Solomon Kane" probably, but Momoa's characterization of Conan is the one of Howard.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I posted many of those reviews, but there was no real bias intended. Let's face it, when a film has a 25% rating on Rotten Tomatoes- and the bulk of the media stories are heavily focused on said rating- I don't think anyone's going to be misled by fans compiling a few that are positive. LOL

It also wasn't a case of scouring the internet in a desperate attempt to find good reviews. I simply took them off Twitter as they appeared- excluding the negatives since they were already posted on Rotten Tomatoes.

Anyway, while I hope no one was actually confused by any of those posts, I did frequently point out that the movie was not so well-received on Rotten Tomatoes.

Aye, you did cite the RT score amongst the plethora of good reviews of course, but there was also talk of these 'highbrow' or 'mianstream' critics, being snobby about such flicks, as if to dismiss the bad reviews.

eg, when one so-so review was posted and had 'indie' in it's blog title, rogue trooper immediately said that anyone with the title 'indie' would automatically be biased against Conan, ...whit?! lol

When a poster came in and said that purists wouldn't like the film, rogue trooper cited a review by a 'REH purist' as if to say 'you're wrong.', with no mention of the other review I ended up posting, which was written by probably the most prominent REH scholar who has been following the production of the movie on the net, impossible to avoid if you have been looking for reviews on the net.

Also, when I brought up the fact that there had been both postitive and negative responses from the hardcore purist fans over at Conan com, rogue trooper immediately brought up some notion that the negative ones had some kind of race problem with the actor...wtf?

There was also the sense of only reviews being posted and quoted that backed up the 'predictions' of that poster, as to the film's quality, as if to say he was right all along.

This is what I'm talking about, and we all know that already anyway.

Hell, he just dismissed me as a 'casual' fan, since I brought this up, lol. I mean, i don't care about that at all, I have read 4 volumes of the SSoC books, with all the REH adapted stories, I may not have read the literary originals, but I know what the character and stories are about for the most part I would guess. I guess 'casual' reader is a fair enough description, but it's just funny that he always finds some angle to try and dismiss anyone presenting a negative, or even balanced overview, that is not in the overwhelmingly positive.

 

[rogue trooper]

and when a poster came in and said that purists wouldn't like the film, he was shown a review by a 'REH purist' as if to say 'you're wrong.', with no mention of the other review I ended up posting, which was written by probably the most prominent REH scholar who has been following the production of the movie on the net, impossible to avoid if you have been looking for reviews on the net.

I guess that's the way you've decided to interpret it. And I say you're quite off.

I showed that purist's review because the poster made a pretty bold statement in basically saying that purists should avoid this film. He's generalizing. Well, if you go to conan.com you wll find that there are purists who liked the film. And others who didn't, ofcourse.

This is a discussion forum. We are here to discuss, my friend.

 

[rogue trooper]

eg, when one so-so review was posted and had 'indie' in it's blog title, rogue trooper immediately said that anyone with the title 'indie' would automatically be biased against Conan, ...whit?! lol


Also, when I brought up the fact that there had been both postitive and negative responses from the hardcore purist fans over at Conan com, rogue trooper immediately brought up some notion that the negative ones had some kind of race problem with the actor...wtf?

There was also the sense of only reviews being posted and quoted that backed up the 'predictions' of that poster, as to the film's quality, as if to say he was right all along.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. I did say that there are a few. Never in my comment did I say all of them. Most have become quite fond of Momoa. But there are still some. I'll even give you the name of a poster who does. Thulean Warrior. So again, don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I guess that's the way you've decided to interpret it. And I say you're quite off.

I showed that purist's review because the poster made a pretty bold statement in basically saying that purists should avoid this film. He's generalizing. Well, if you go to conan.com you wll find that there are purists who liked the film. And others who didn't, ofcourse.

This is a discussion forum. We are here to discuss, my friend.

ah whit...I was the one who cited the fact there were both negative and positive 'purist' posters over at Conan com, funny how you decided not to quote that part of my post.

and you know fine well that all you did in response to that was try to undermine the negative ones by citing that posters over there had a race problem with the actor, you never went into specifics, obviously, you just wanted to quickly and briskly tarnish the fact I said there were negative reviews over there from posters. Even though I cited there were both positive and negative reviews, get a grip man, grow up and stop trying to do some fancy footwork in regards to dodging what you have been doing, your footwork just isn't fancy enough in the first place.