• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Conan The Barbarian(2011) -- Discussion/Grading ***Spoilers***

Did Conan Meet Expections?

  • A - See it right now!!

    Votes: 3 9.7%

  • B - Worth a matinee

    Votes: 9 29.0%

  • c - Worth a second run theater watch

    Votes: 11 35.5%

  • D - Below Conan the Destroyer and Red Sonya

    Votes: 5 16.1%

  • F - Wait, is this a Deathstalker remake?

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • Total voters
    31
Space Therapist said:
Dream said:
Harvey said:
The critics haven't been nice to it. Considering that I don't even care for the Arnold version, I think I'll pass.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The first Conan was a classic!
Click to expand...

I watched the Arnold version and was bored to tears. Even though this isn't getting rave reviews I will probably rent it when it comes out on DVD.
Click to expand...

I want a Conan movie that will recapture the spirit of the original stories and the Marvel comics adaptations from the 70s.

So far, reviewers only seem to know the Ah-hold movie and are comparing this one to that, as though it matters.

timothy said:
and I thought it was better than the origianl.
Click to expand...

The Ahnold movie is not "the original." The stories date from the 1930s, and the previous movies did not capture much of the essence of what made the stories so enduring. The Marvel comics adaptations from the 70s were much more on target.

Domestic box office is very weak, but the jury is out until the international BO comes in. This sounds like exactly the kind of action-heavy movie that can make up a lot of ground even when Americans reject it.
 
This has been a surprisingly competitive August. I'm not surprised all the new releases this weekend kind of canceled each other out.
 
***Adding my comments here from other thread****

Grade: B-

I saw this at a matinee yesterday, 1pm show, in a 500 seater and there were about 40 people in there. Early show I know, school is back in, people aren't taking vacations as heavily but still I found that a low turnout.

I thought the action sequences were really well done. The visuals of the ancient land that were either matte paintings or cgi looked great.

Jason Mamoa as Conan was great casting. I admit I was leary when they cast the SG:A guy as Conan. I've not seen Game of Thrones but all they talk of him on there raised my hopes along with nice publicity photos.

My one complaint with the movie is that it was perhaps 10-15 min too long. The journey aspect perhaps could've combined something in the cities/ports he journey's to for info/supplies.

I did like his child rearing years moments in the first 10 minutes of act I, thought that was good if for no other reason than Ron Pearlman.

A good movie and I do hope it performs well enough for a sequel despite placing #4 for Friday totals.

PS - was the imagery of the monks temple the same one as was used in the Nic Cage film Season of the Witch from earlier this year? They looked similar at first blush, anyone know?
 
It wasn't a bad film. Had some pretty good action and some of the scenes were actually in 3D. The cast was good. Momoa was fine in the lead as Conan although he doesn't top Drogo from Game of Thrones. Decent villain and Rose McGowen adds another freak to the many she has played. Always good to see Ron Perlman in anything. The kid who played Young Conan was pretty good as well.

My complaint is that the story is an unmemorable one. Nothing really stood out. You could have slapped it on another film with a different title. Just nothing special about it.
 
I gave it a "B".

Momoa is fantastic as Conan, very true to the vision I had reading Howard's stories as a teenager. The entire supporting cast (Rachel Nichols, Stephen Lang, Rose McGowan, and Ron Perlman... and the boy who played young Conan) was great. Unfortunately, the script seemed to kind of crumble a bit after the first act, so they really didn't have a whole lot to work with, and the directing became frenetic. It felt like Nispel was trying to ratchet up the action with quick-cut battle scenes and rapid scene transition, but the result is messy and confusing. The final act shares these traits, unfortunately.
Overall, there were a lot of good, fun moments, and some memorable scenes, but it fell short of the epic feel of the 1982 film, despite Momoa's charisma.

Peace

Worfmonger
 
It's a decent movie and kept me entertained for a couple of hours, and it has a decent cast. Jason Momoa as Conan is excellent, Ron Perlman is as cool as always, and Rachel Nichols and Rose McGowan also delivered excellent performances. I was actually rather unimpressed with Stephen Lang, which is surprising since he was the only thing I liked about Avatar. Here he's just a generic bad guy with no distinctive traits.

The graphic violence while cool was at times a bit too over the top. Particularly, when Conan was poking his finger in the face of that guy who lost his nose where his nose should have been. A complete WTF moment really.
 
Nice to see the Lionsgate exec defend the choice.

An unnamed Lionsgate exec defended the choice, saying:
"There's so much history with this character and this brand they needed someone who could both really 'own' Conan (making him feel relatable for this generation), but also who offered continuity with what fans already know and love. Because there's no competing with Arnold, Jason's performance bypasses all of the comparisons, playing the character in a very different way than Arnold did and instead taking inspiration from the written source."
Click to expand...

I liked the movie myself. Maybe the film should've opened earlier in the summer?
 
D.


All you guys using the occasion of this thread to bash the old movies, here's a deal. I like the old ones, so I'll keep them, and you can have this crapfest that I wasted thirteen bucks on yesterday.

- At least Ahnold looked like he fought monsters and wizards and other barbarians. Jason Momoa looks like he plays basketball with them.

-Rachel Nichols can't hold a candle to Sandahl Bergman.

-Only things that keeps this from being a total "F" is the overabundance of boobage and Rose McGowan's mystical forehead OF DOOM.
 
I don't know why they feel such a need to always give Conan a tragic backstory that inevitably leads to a revenge plot of some sort. I think one of the appealing aspects of the character is that you know very little about his past. I think the more backstory you give a hero, the more human and less iconic he becomes. Maybe it's just me, but it diminishes the character. It's like in the original movie. Conan doesn't define himself, he becomes defined by people like Thulsa Doom and slave traders who make him what he is. I liked that movie. It was very well-crafted. But I didn't like that aspect of it. I haven't seen the new movie and very likely won't.
 
I saw this movie today. I thought it was decent and deserves to be doing better at the box office than its receipts show. I've only seen part of the original Conan film, with Arnold, so I can't fully compare them. Though I can say that Arnold's film felt a bit more epic, with a larger scope. In the new film you get place names and a couple nice shots, but rarely do they feel either inhabited or really desolate like what I got from the original.

I thought Momoa was fine as Conan. I also liked Rose McGowan. Most of the reviews I read from the critics all seemed to slam her, but I think she and Momoa were the only ones who seemed to really being having fun. McGowan's witch had a great look and was sufficiently creepy. I wish she had been the main villain.

I generally like Rachel Nichols but I didn't get much chemistry between her and Momoa. I was disappointed with Stephen Lang. I liked him in Avatar, but really liked his brief role in Public Enemies-perhaps my favorite part of that film. I was expecting more out of him, but he didn't bring much besides some physicality to a pretty already cliched, generic role. Besides seeing Ron Perleman again, I wasn't raving about him being Conan's father. His acting was adequate to the task, but nothing special. I wonder if maybe they should've had him as the evil king, or got someone like Mark Strong or Clancy Brown. I wouldn't have minded Djimon Hounsou starring as Thulsa Doom, since there is already a comic book miniseries using his likeness, and there was talk about him starring as Doom in a film once. Maybe even Karl Urban, (the director did Pathfinder after all, with Brown and Urban).

The new film seemed to have a tighter plot than the old one, which meandered a bit, from what I saw. However the meandering was done IMO to show Conan's development. We didn't get much development in the new film. They skipped over most of that after Lang's raid on Conan's village.

I thought the action was pretty good, hardcore at spots. I think the film needed a bit more humor. Also I wish the film had used more creatures. The sand people were pretty cool and the tentacled thing was alright, but I wish there had been more.

I must admit that I got a little bored as I watched the film, and the ending didn't do much for me. I was hoping that once Lang put on the crown it would transform him like Skeletor in the Masters of the Universe movie or Deacon Frost in Blade. But it didn't do much of anything. And the one power it seemed to possess, the ability to bring his wife back, he waited forever to get that one going. I also didn't care for the starro design. It was perhaps the ugliest crown in cinematic history.

I hope Conan's failure doesn't ruin Momoa's big screen career. It's failure isn't his fault.
 
It just so happens that my local daily paper ran an article on the winners and flops of this summer. Their opinion on Conan The Barbarian seems to be that the film failed to note that audiences have become somewhat more discerning in fantasy films, TLOTR being perhaps the best example. The thinking is that CtB lacks nuance, genuine epic scope and overdoes the violence and gore. Essentially it's a mix of shallow and over-the-top. Individual good moments and elements can't overcome the cheese and adolescent thinking.
 
Warped9 said:
It just so happens that my local daily paper ran an article on the winners and flops of this summer. Their opinion on Conan The Barbarian seems to be that the film failed to note that audiences have become somewhat more discerning in fantasy films, TLOTR being perhaps the best example. The thinking is that CtB lacks nuance, genuine epic scope and overdoes the violence and gore. Essentially it's a mix of shallow and over-the-top. Individual good moments and elements can't overcome the cheese and adolescent thinking.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I can agree with a lot of that. I also don't think the marketing campaign for Conan was all that good. Perhaps the movie should've also gotten a bigger star to play the villain, someone who audiences knew and could help promote the movie on the talk shows, etc.

As someone else said, it was a remake that no one wanted, but at the same time I can't use that as an excuse. I mean, Clash of the Titans wasn't something people were demanding either, but it did a lot better than Conan. Not sure if it was a blockbuster but it did well enough to warrant a sequel. Granted it had bigger stars and better marketing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top