Conan The Barbarian(2011) -- Discussion/Grading ***Spoilers***
- Thread starter Cmndr J Crichton
- Start date
Don't hold your breath waiting for a sequel - the worldwide box office gross was only half the production budget! 
Don't hold your breath waiting for a sequel - the worldwide box office gross was only half the production budget!
Ouch!!! I had not realized it did that poorly at the box office!
I'd go for a sequel. It was as you "late to the party" folk noted a fairly decent flick, a few issues aside. I really think headline grabbers like The Help's staying power and monster succes of Rise of Planet of Apes along with bad reviews were the hat trick that sank this film. Kept it from really having a chance with general audiences.
An overly bashed film for sure.
An overly bashed film for sure.
After all the bad reviews I was expecting this to be a real stinker and it certainly wasn't. I think if it had been released at a different time it may have done better like you have said.
Which is why I never allow the media "pros" reviews to sway me.
If I can't tell from a trailer, a few TV spots and maybe an article or two if I'll like the film why even bother with it. Too many people imo allow reviews to make up their mind for them. I don't care if you find a reviewer you think you agree with on an 80/20 basis. An individual should be able to judge entertainment for themselves and if it's worth their theater $$$$. Not all films are theater worthy and I pass on films all the time, not cause they look bad but cause they aren't $10(night) or $7(matinee) worthy.
If I can't tell from a trailer, a few TV spots and maybe an article or two if I'll like the film why even bother with it. Too many people imo allow reviews to make up their mind for them. I don't care if you find a reviewer you think you agree with on an 80/20 basis. An individual should be able to judge entertainment for themselves and if it's worth their theater $$$$. Not all films are theater worthy and I pass on films all the time, not cause they look bad but cause they aren't $10(night) or $7(matinee) worthy.
I think the biggest problems with reviewers is they take themselves way to seriously. It's like they think every movie is supposed to be some deep exploration of the human experience, and forget that some movies are just mean to be a fun and entertaining, without any deeper meaning than that.
I always let the trailer or the TV spots decide if I will see a movie. I do like reading reviews but I never let them deter me from seeing a movie.
I like certain genres and I will see what interests me regardless of the reviews.
Amen to that!!!
Don't hold your breath waiting for a sequel - the worldwide box office gross was only half the production budget!
Ouch!!! I had not realized it did that poorly at the box office!
Yeah, it's incredible. It's far from being the worst movie I've ever seen.
I have yet to see this film, but this evening I watched the 1982 Arnie version which I haven't seen since originally in the theatre in '82. I have to say that I find it a better film than I remember or more specifically than I expected. I enjoyed it enough when I was 23, but I expected it to be somewhat creaky and dated. And it is in some small respects, but overall I think it holds up pretty well and feels mostly true to the source materiel in spirit. It's certainly somewhat slower paced than many action films today and in some respects the action and bloodletting isn't nearly as stylized as today. The f/x are also on the low-key side by today's standards and yet they do the job.
I'm curious to see how the 2011 version holds up in comparison.
I'm curious to see how the 2011 version holds up in comparison.
Well this evening I finally got to see the 2011 version and it's a mixed bag.
One of the first things that struck me was that people mumbled a lot in this film. I found the sound muddy and a lot of dialogue not very clear and intelligible.
It's very stylish and when it came to the bloodletting it was overly stylized. I found this comic book depiction of bloodletting clashed with the detailed live-action look. There was obviously a lot of effort put into the look of the film with some very nice scenery, but for all that the picture felt small. It felt more like a production for television rather than a feature film. With the 1982 version fresh in my mind I'd say the 2011 version doesn't feel as epic or as panoramic. I found the music to be mostly forgettable yet thats true of a lot of feature films for a long time now.
The acting was competent and serviceable, but not one character lit up the screen. Not one had any real screen presence. It felt mostly like they just read their parts and then went home to let the production staff pretty it up.
I wanted to like this, but it felt small scale and run-of-the mill. This is quite in contrast to getting more than I expected out of the 1982 version.
What it really comes down to is a lack of enthusiasm and energy I'd guess. It was technically proficient, but it had no feel of wonder and enthusiasm to it. Jason Mamoa might be technically a better actor than Arnold Schwarzneggar was, but he didn't have Arnie's presence.
When you enjoy a film you come away feeling that it was worth seeing, worth the time you invested in it. I didn't get that from this movie. In contrast I really enjoyed John Carter, a film a lot of people seem to like to dump on.
There will not be a sequel.
An all new start in 5-10yrs is my guess.
An all new start in 5-10yrs is my guess.
Yevetha
Commodore
How is that project going?