Cool News
Harry saw CONAN THE BARBARIAN 3D. It doesn't entirely suck. There's some pretty cool parts.
Ok – so I saw CONAN THE BARBARIAN… the new one. And I’m not spitting mad, not OUTRAGED. In fact, this is a film that is so far away from the greatness of the original… but there were so many bad decisions made making this film, that well… You can tell that Nispel was involved heavily.
The score is frankly shit. Not so bad as to rip you out of the movie wholly upon it’s fault, but this score wasn’t helping the film, injecting the film with soul. Instead it just sort of lays there. The biggest problem is that there is so little of Howard here. The language and the sound of Howard is missing. It’s violent, there’s tits, but it isn’t serving a story that IS great. The dialogue is all 20 levels beneath the original, but I knew all that going in.
I’d read this script. Knew who was directing. Knowing that he misses the details, robs the film of atmosphere, instead concentrating upon big splash panels that scream epic, before settling for a run of medium and close-ups. As soon as the producers settled on Nispel, we all instantly knew what problems would likely arise. They’re all here.
BUT – there’s stuff that I liked about the film. I like Jason Momoa’s look. He has CONAN in him. That is absolutely evident onscreen. That’s amazing, because the dialogue is far from where it needs to be for this character. We need to see more variety to Conan, than what this story called for. The dialogue in this is more generic Barbarian speak, but Momoa has so much more in him than Nispel would know to get at. My dream? Oliver Stone, $110 million, and adapt BEYOND THE BLACK RIVER or my personal fave, THE TOWER OF THE ELEPHANT. If Ollie isn’t into it, let’s go with Walter Hill – who is working with Jason & Stallone right now. But the good news is, they have an actor that can absolutely be CONAN THE BARBARIAN. He looks good as the character, absolutely can swing the sword around, although Nispel cuts so quickly you never get a full long sequence to stand against Arnold’s – but you can see he has the talent to. The director just never gave us that moment.
Almost every character is wasted opportunity. Like Stephan Lang & Rose McGowan. They just don’t have much to do. Because this script is just weak. So while I like the actors and oddly I kinda did dig their weird look… But they’re not really saying or doing anything that has given me anything at all to care about. They look and act cool, but that’s not quite enough.
The film waddles out the gate with a MARCH OF THE BARBARIANS narration by Morgan Freeman – in one of the most perplexing and tonally WRONG choices that I’ve seen. I mean, the Barbarian Age just screams Morgan Freeman. I mean, it is never a bad thing to hear Morgan Freeman speak. In fact, it is quite pleasant, soothing even. What about CONAN THE BARBARIAN is soothing or pleasant? These are not the tones that needed to be struck up front. It was certainly an odd decision. I’ll give them that.
The opening 10-15 minutes are pretty damn cool, if you can get past Morgan, then it’s basically just a different version of essentially the same story from the first CONAN – minus 100% of the pain and suffering. Minus the sweeping natural landscape.
Momoa was asked to be savage and he is. But make no mistake about it, he’s absolutely got that roguish charm that Conan needs, it was on full display at tonight’s post film Q&A at the Alamo Drafthouse South.
The facts are – while a lot of the film choices annoyed me, this did LOOK like a CONAN movie should. I just don’t see why the producers of this film don’t understand that they have a potential LORD OF THE RINGS or 300 style success if they JUST ADAPT Robert E Howard properly… with a TALENTED filmmaker who is passionate. That understands not just the pretty aesthetics, the blood and savagery and the eroticism of the era… BUT THE PSYCHOLOGY of it. The LEGENDARY nature of it all.
Get someone like Mark Protosevich to write it. Then get someone that has a history of seriously great films. Stop hiring hacks to kick off what should be a franchise. This could be JAMES BOND… and Momoa can do it. There’s evidence here in the film, I just hope that the missteps of Nispel won’t doom the franchise.
If you treated this source material with the respect that Warner Bros did HARRY POTTER – we’d have movies to worship. I’m pretty sure they have the actor… let’s hope the film succeeds well enough for a second chance. And if they seize that chance, they do it right.
In some ways it reminds me of the first X-MEN film, where the parts that are right outshine the enormity of wrong. But there’s moments where Momoa looks like a Frazetta or a Ken Kelly. Other points where he seems to pop out of the pages of SAVAGE SWORD OF CONAN. As a CONAN geek I clutch to the aspects that resemble in an abstract way – what I want from a CONAN franchise. But man… it is really out there for you folks to decide now. The film was made cheap enough that if it has any kind of decent opening, it’ll be in good shape…
As a fan of this material though, I have seen worse. This in no way resembles the trauma I experienced during KULL THE CONQUEROR and the agonizing pain of Sorbo. Momoa deserves to be on the screen as the character. He won that kind of respect from me on screen and off tonight. But I don’t want this to be another Pierce Brosnan – where you have a guy that looks dead on awesome as the character, but then… after multiple attempts never got a chance to make a GREAT one. And at the end of the day that’s what I want. Another GREAT Conan film. This isn’t it. Not by a long shot, but there could be a great one.
Oh – the 3D in the film is pretty great looking I thought. So much of the film is in broad bright blue sky daylight that the dimensional play is clear, bright and cool. Wait for the “CHINATOWN” moment… abstract reference involving a nose.
So go in knowing you’re not getting anything near the awesome of Milius’ masterpiece… but it isn’t a bunch of silly bullshit either. There’s no lack of respect for the character of CONAN. The character just isn’t fully realized in the script or by direction… but the basic performance is there. Momoa can do this. Give it a shot, it might surprise you.
Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus-
+ Expand All
-
CONANANA
-
Krom is pleased, I'm sure.
-
had its cool parts, hated the shaky cam quick flash editing with the fight scenes. Can we please see whats going on! But the version I saw, seemed like there was hardly any 3D in it at all. Glad it was free. I like Momoa, but liked him better in Game of Thrones. He needed to be more badass, and rugged. It had potential, and hopefully part 2 is way better. Oh yeah, and I thought that was Morgan Freeman, and did find it it didn't match the tone. Also, Conan's birth I think seemed better on paper than on screen, seemed really creepy and fake. They should have started the background intro with cool motion comic style story telling ala God of War, it might have worked better.
-
How could it possibly compare to the original Conan, the greatest soundtrack ever made for a sword and sorcery film.
-
told ya.
-
which he was amazeballs in. So I kinda wanna see this, just to see. I didn't really think I'd like it. But then again, I'm not a Conan freak by any stretch of the imagination. I only kinda like the old movies. I actually like Destroyer better. *ducks* Maybe I'll see it.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 2:04 a.m. CST
I'll go see it just to watch Momoa carve up some fools... if it doesnt have an REHoward vibe, it aint Conan
by uberfreak
-
The first few reviews I read for this were glowing. I'm still going to go and see this - shame to hear the score's not up to scratch though.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 2:19 a.m. CST
Harry's taste is music is woeful so his criticism really does mean nothing at all
by quantize
as usual, nobody is the wiser if the film is actually good. Notice Harry did not review the Apes film either..because they didnt kiss his balls...and they didnt need to Thats the way it should be
-
Read a fantastic interview with him where he said basically he felt he was caught in a revolving door between Connery and Moore and never really nailed it as Bond (to be fair I think he's being a bit harsh) he also had nothing but admiration for Craig. Shame Brosnan never got to make that 50's set Bond with Tarantino - it would have been different at least.
-
He writes in visionary gestures that just lends itself to powerful images and tones. Why waste all the good people out there who could bring Conan and his world to the screen? Momoa - I hope they keep him for a next one, if there is one. I look at Fincher's GwaDT trailer and that world is more REH than this one.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 2:25 a.m. CST
Is there a copyright issue with adapting Howard's short stories?
by blakindigo
I mean, wtf?
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 2:39 a.m. CST
Its just staggering, as if they go out of their way to be deliberatly mediocre. why castrate movies for a tween audience who doesnt give a shit? just make them properly.
by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm
-
GoldenEye was an excellent Bond flick. It had some great post-cold war themes, an excellent new 'M' in Judi Dench, cool gadgets, hot women (and in the era of AIDS madness, he still managed bang out two of them), a great former 00-turned-villian, a secret lair, a doomsday weapon and the United States Marine Corps rappelling in at the end to help Bond secure the victory. The magic of the Marxist monument graveyard was enough scenery to chew on for hours (although I'm sure that scene disturbs some of your more progressive nut job talkbackers who long for the good ole' days of in your face socialism and extreme anti-American propaganda, and the KGB). I think that we see things like movies through multi-colored lenses from time to time. Everything that we see from the Connery era just plain rocks... in a Madmen kind of way. The martinis, the gadgets, the women, the Austin Martin. Hey, those stories were great, but they weren't perfect. Then we put on the '70s style Roger Moore shades and our perspective changes to ‘everything about him sucked.’ Same for Dalton, who I think was a bit underrated. Yeah, Dalton vs. Walken on top of the Golden Gate Bridge was a tad extreme, but... that was the story, not the character. When you try to compare James Bonds and declare that one Bond actor (Brosnan) never had a 'perfect' or even 'great' Bond film, you are being a bit reactionary and forgetting the time and place in which you, the movie and the entire film industry were when that Bond came out. Is Brosnan as good as Connery? No, but GoldenEye was certainly a damn good James Bond movie. Almost perfect. Especially in 1995.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 2:49 a.m. CST
Re: Bill Brasky it was Moore and Walken on the Golden Gate Bridge not Dalton. And Moores Bond Films are like Harry Potter with Guns and Tits to me. Just great escapism
by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 2:54 a.m. CST
Hey, good catch on that one! But do you get my point about GoldenEye?
by Bill Brasky
Or am I way off there too?
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 3:13 a.m. CST
Totally agree on Goldeneye its a fantastic Bond film but it only makes the other Brosnans look worse in comparison. Campbell did Casino Royale too which is epic he should just do Bonds and stop wasting time with Green Lantern etc.
by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm
-
It was Moore V Walken on top of the Golden Gate Bridge, not Dalton. Really like Dalton as Bond though, expecially in The Living Daylights.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 3:20 a.m. CST
I hope its a HIT none-the-less so we get a GREAT SEQUEL!
by HarryBlackPotter
I mean, the first Bond film, the first X-Men movie, the first (4) batman movies...all fairly mediocre. But Dr No was followed by From Russia with Love! X-Men was followed by...erm, X-Men 2 (but that was awesome). What I'm saying is and echoing Harry, is that not every franchise hits the ground running, and this Conan movie has stumbled, but we have a chance of seeing something better. The big success is that after decades of head scratching, we've finally found a worthy Conan. Now give him a worthy director and a worthy script (how about dusting off Milius' Crown of Iron script?) and respect the fans. If this makes enough money (and fingers crossed it will) then a sequel could fullfill ALL Howard and heroic fantasy fans wildest and bloodiest dreams.
-
Howard McCain should have made this film. Hopefully it makes enough for them to give it a second try, and hand Howard McCain the reigns for the sequels. Fuck off Nispel!
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 3:24 a.m. CST
Hey Hollywood look at the care and respect the Potter franchise was given. Now look at the Gabillion Dollars it made. do you see a pattern at all?
by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm
-
It doesnt entirely suck. There's some pretty cool parts. What you are telling me is the movie is a renter rather than a cinema trip.
-
This movie was horrible!
-
Conan and Fright Night
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 3:30 a.m. CST
Ebert barely gave it 1 star. The 3D was horrible. The movie is dim and then you have to wear shades in a dark mocie theater?
by Orionsangels
But here comes Harry to praise it all. How is this possible?
-
why oh why did i read the woman in black talkback. now i can't stop imaging Harry Potter with claws leaping through the air with that Voldemort yell from the trailers for Part 2.
-
I'll wait for it on SyFy.
-
Why the Pierce Brosnan hate btw? I thought he made 3 out of 4 entertaining Bond movies. The only one I felt was subpar was the Sophie Marceau one, and even that had a decent intro sequence.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 3:34 a.m. CST
strangely, for me, it's the last Brosnan Bond that i can't watch
by antonphd
the middle 2 are really bleh, but i can still watch them and enjoy. but i love Goldeneye. just classic. i know it's not epic, but i still think it's the best 007 movie made in my lifetime (37 years)
-
i watched Layer Cake and thought 'this guy would be a fantastic 007'. but he still hasn't quite gotten to being 007 yet in his 2 films that are really 2 parts of Bond Begins.
-
I like Milius' Conan the Barbarian a lot but to be critical that this one doesn't adapt REH properly and vaunt the 81 Conan as an epic telling of REH stories doesn't really work.
-
Ok, I have to admit, it does remain one of my guiltiest of pleasures!
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 3:41 a.m. CST
Goldeneye is great but seems quite traditional almost Moore era quaint in many ways Casino Royale has gets everything right and is certainly the best Bond made in my lifetime. Quantum just about survives its runtime but C'mon Mendes lets have one more gre
by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm
-
I agree with the sentiments about Goldeneye - it was a pretty dead-on Bond film, one of the best I'd say. As was Casino Royale - which was no surprise, since they were directed by the same guy. But I also agree with the point about Brosnan. He literally oozed Bond from every pore, and yet he got some of the worst scripts and directing in the series. For me, the only truly awesome moment he had was in TND, when he's got the gun to the guys face who had just killed Teri Hatcher. The guy says "I'm just a professional, doing my job" and Bond says "me too" and pulls the trigger. For me, that tiny scene said everything about what the character should be, and was Brosnan's crowning moment. And then, a few short years later, we have him kitesurfing down a glacier in CGI that looked like a pre-360 XBox. When I saw Quantum of Solace, I was bitterly disappointed - because at that moment I knew history was repeating itself. A great opening, followed by a few mediocre films that completely piss away the headstart the debut gave us.
-
Feels like Casino Royale 1.2 to me. I don't hate it, since I've gotten over my initial disappointment, it just feel like much of an event to me. Looking forward to seeing what Mendes can do though.
-
"Its not good, but, its FUN" Fuck this shit. If you can't even give a REAL review for a CONAN THE BARBARIAN movie, then, honestly, what's the point of being a "geek"? Mark my words, THE THING remake will get the same kind of reception. Being "geek" must really mean "Accept anything that Hollywood makes". Harry actually READ the script for this ...BUT DIDN'T REVIEW IT?!?! You had a CONAN script and didn't even attempt a review - I think even CROWN OF IRON got reviewed on this site. This shows how incredibly complacent this site has gotten; its gone from Moriarty reviewing J.J. Abrams' SUPERMAN script and getting it stopped, to Harry (and other contributors) reading scripts, not reviewing them, then making excuses for the mediocre movies. What is this, the belief of positivity ruling all? That if "you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all"? With that philosophy we could have gotten a J.J. Abrams SUPERMAN, and Jon Peters would still be owning the property. If you don't have the backbone to review these scripts, hand them over to another website.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 3:53 a.m. CST
At least Harry review didnt start with: when I was growing up I lived in a village just like Conans and hunted wolves now I have every piece of Merchandise related to the film and wear Arnolds original codpiece to bed.
by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm
-
I don't hate QoS either. It was just a massive letdown after Casino. A massive letdown.
-
You post bad reviews, you don't get invited on set visits next time. It's as simple as that. Surely no-one actually gives credence to Harry as a journalist anymore? If you want decent film journalism, look at Empire magazine. I'm surprised anyone expects credibility from this site anymore???
-
They did give Superman Returns ***** which I still can't quite understand.
-
I entirely agree - that was an abberation, and I think to their credit they admit that now. But compare that to the last ten years of AICN! ;)
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 4:14 a.m. CST
Empire gave Attack of the Clones 5 Stars too......
by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm
-
I think its been demoted to *** Although.................*whispers* I LIKE Attack of the Clones.
-
I'm typing all this under cover of darkness.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 4:43 a.m. CST
I am at work. is under cover of darkness a Euphemism? Eventhough the demoted AOTC I still have that Empire issue and at the time it was all part of the hype (I think it was a mistake they were paid well to make)
by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm
-
About what I was expecting. They seem to always think "true to Howard" means blood and tits. And the writers always want to give Conan an epic revenge character arc. They don't even understand the genre they are working in or what is so great about characters like Conan. Oh well.
-
Read the second one :P
-
was open to misenterpretation : ) No - its just that I'm at work, and I have to keep on looking over my shoulder as I type these. Back to Conan...........I only know him through the original movie and Roy Thomas's Marvel Conan stories. I'm going to get Howard's Complete Conan to check out what I've been missing. From what I've been reading there seems to be plenty of scope to make an epic Conan movie - shame the movie makers don't fully exploit this.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 5:19 a.m. CST
I find a monitor reaview mirror helps or if you can wrangle it a seat with a wall behind you is bliss. I have the Complete Conan omnibus and there is some great stuff in there well worth checking out.
by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 5:23 a.m. CST
Yeah, I've not had a wall behind my seat for years.
by Righteous Brother
Currently got my back to the entire office. I'm still gonna check this new Conan out. Looking forward to 'Drive' too.
-
...with Stallone directing the battle sequences. That would be epic!
-
Before I begin I just want to mention watching a movie one time is not enough to describe it as a good - great movie .. Great movies are those that will make you watch it again and again . ....................... This blog - comment based on the trailer ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1iJZIMddpM )that came out 3 months ago .. and personal face to face experience with unprofessional cheap Bulgarian crew "movie makers" who I worked with years ago : The new trailer for the movie Conan the Barbarian 2011 is not that good .. I am sure they chose the best they have in the movie and put it in the trailer and there are nothing ells left to be seen in the movie itself .. just to make the hype and I think they did a good job to make people fooled by it .. ---------------- The CGI are not good ... and the prove for it : 1- Watch 0:30 - 0:33 where they pull the big ship ... not realistic .. ( They even couldn't make a good lightning for the 3D ship ).. 2- The human dust .. you can see they are becoming real human being with make up over them ... that mean again they are not good in continuing with the CGI dust ... 3- The mattepainting are again not realistic as movies we watched almost 10 years ago ... ( Lord of the Rings as an example ) .. 4- The tentacles are not original and we saw stuff like this before too and they looked much better ...and less blurry .. And all these take me to the next point : ---------------- Non of what I saw in the trailer is original .. and it is the main problem when some one is making a movie in a low budget in Bulgaria with Bulgarian crew ... I heard once : Everything been made and there are nothing left to be original ! ... I am kind a agree ! .. but the point is how you use the same old (seen before) elements : Scenes .. Story .. CGI ..etc and show it in a new way ... It is not about being old .. it is about the way you show it to the audience .. And this trailer ( and the movie it self ) is a big duplication and ripoff from other movies but not in a good way ... but in a wrong, cheap, lame way ... things we saw years ago you will see it again in a worst look ... ;-) (Example : did you see the lame jump of Conan with his sword 01:06 .. Ok I remember seeing that been done by Brad Pitt in Troy 2004 and it was much better ) .. "The stunt coordinator in Conan The Barbarian was a stuntman in the movie Troy and he is stealing the stuff from there and using it now here in the wrong way " ;-) ---------------- I know movie making is an industry and business .. But I believe good movie must be an art too ... making good art to win good money ... But in the case of such movies that been made in the the poorest place in Europe "Bulgaria" using the cheapest human beings in Europe "Bulgarian" * .. Is big prove that it is all about making money and not showing a good art .. ---------------- and as I said before: there is nothing to be seen in 3D in this movie ... and the only reason it is in 3D is to take more money from you ... ---------------- In the end I just hope you take this blog as an advice for you .. everyone have the right to spend their money for what they like ... But remember by doing that you are helping companies like Millennium Films "Who finally changed their lame 60th look logo " ;-) and Nu Image Films "Who they were ashamed to show their logo who look like been made by a 6 years old child " to continue making movies just for money .. Not Art . Both companies with their long movie production years that is more than 150 movies have just 2-3 movies to be mentioned as good and those are again one time watchable ... we saw their work before and we know how their future movies will look too ... Those two companies even ruined the name of the big legends of the screen like Al Pacino when they made the movie "88 Minutes" and later they tried to make a movie that look like "Heat 1995" but again " Righteous Kill " was a big fail too .. even after 13 years it couldn't get to the knee of Michael Mann's "The Heat" ... and more names were lost like Steven Seagal - Van Damme - Wesley Snipes - Dolph Lundgren .. Making movies in Bulgaria is one of the biggest mistakes a movie maker will make in his career .. My point is ; it is not about Racism ... it is about movies been made in Bulgaria ... with cheap unprofessional "movie makers" !!! who just care about the money not the art ! --------------------------------------------------------- My comments and blogs in IMDb is a copy-past from my personal Blogs .. That is why it is filled with details and information proving my points and critiques ;-)
-
Before I begin I just want to mention watching a movie one time is not enough to describe it as a good - great movie .. Great movies are those that will make you watch it again and again . ....................... This blog - comment based on the trailer ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1iJZIMddpM )that came out 3 months ago .. and personal face to face experience with unprofessional cheap Bulgarian crew "movie makers" who I worked with years ago : The new trailer for the movie Conan the Barbarian 2011 is not that good .. I am sure they chose the best they have in the movie and put it in the trailer and there are nothing ells left to be seen in the movie itself .. just to make the hype and I think they did a good job to make people fooled by it .. ---------------- The CGI are not good ... and the prove for it : 1- Watch 0:30 - 0:33 where they pull the big ship ... not realistic .. ( They even couldn't make a good lightning for the 3D ship ).. 2- The human dust .. you can see they are becoming real human being with make up over them ... that mean again they are not good in continuing with the CGI dust ... 3- The mattepainting are again not realistic as movies we watched almost 10 years ago ... ( Lord of the Rings as an example ) .. 4- The tentacles are not original and we saw stuff like this before too and they looked much better ...and less blurry .. And all these take me to the next point : ---------------- Non of what I saw in the trailer is original .. and it is the main problem when some one is making a movie in a low budget in Bulgaria with Bulgarian crew ... I heard once : Everything been made and there are nothing left to be original ! ... I am kind a agree ! .. but the point is how you use the same old (seen before) elements : Scenes .. Story .. CGI ..etc and show it in a new way ... It is not about being old .. it is about the way you show it to the audience .. And this trailer ( and the movie it self ) is a big duplication and ripoff from other movies but not in a good way ... but in a wrong, cheap, lame way ... things we saw years ago you will see it again in a worst look ... ;-) (Example : did you see the lame jump of Conan with his sword 01:06 .. Ok I remember seeing that been done by Brad Pitt in Troy 2004 and it was much better ) .. "The stunt coordinator in Conan The Barbarian was a stuntman in the movie Troy and he is stealing the stuff from there and using it now here in the wrong way " ;-) ---------------- I know movie making is an industry and business .. But I believe good movie must be an art too ... making good art to win good money ... But in the case of such movies that been made in the the poorest place in Europe "Bulgaria" using the cheapest human beings in Europe "Bulgarian" * .. Is big prove that it is all about making money and not showing a good art .. ---------------- and as I said before: there is nothing to be seen in 3D in this movie ... and the only reason it is in 3D is to take more money from you ... ---------------- In the end I just hope you take this blog as an advice for you .. everyone have the right to spend their money for what they like ... But remember by doing that you are helping companies like Millennium Films "Who finally changed their lame 60th look logo " ;-) and Nu Image Films "Who they were ashamed to show their logo who look like been made by a 6 years old child " to continue making movies just for money .. Not Art . Both companies with their long movie production years that is more than 150 movies have just 2-3 movies to be mentioned as good and those are again one time watchable ... we saw their work before and we know how their future movies will look too ... Those two companies even ruined the name of the big legends of the screen like Al Pacino when they made the movie "88 Minutes" and later they tried to make a movie that look like "Heat 1995" but again " Righteous Kill " was a big fail too .. even after 13 years it couldn't get to the knee of Michael Mann's "The Heat" ... and more names were lost like Steven Seagal - Van Damme - Wesley Snipes - Dolph Lundgren .. Making movies in Bulgaria is one of the biggest mistakes a movie maker will make in his career .. My point is ; it is not about Racism ... it is about movies been made in Bulgaria ... with cheap unprofessional "movie makers" !!! who just care about the money not the art ! --------------------------------------------------------- My comments and blogs in IMDb is a copy-past from my personal Blogs .. That is why it is filled with details and information proving my points and critiques ;-)
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 5:48 a.m. CST
how do you idiots interpret this as a positive review?
by WINONA_RYDERS_PUSSY_JUICE
it doesn't ENTIRELY suck! Meaning, it fucking SUCKS, but there's some COOL SHIT in it! It's got a 100 million budget and Conan swinging a big sword cutting off heads and chopping up monsters, of course it doesn't TOTALLY suck. But its probably a BAD movie.
-
You realize that the original movie had NOTHING to do with REH?Right? Follywood should have adapted "The Hour of the Dragon."
-
NO, people aren't saying that the original CONAN was a classic because studio marketing plants are creating a rumor. They're saying that because that's what the generation that saw it in the theatre actually thought. Saying that CONAN THE BARBARIAN is "gone and forgotten" is like saying that SCARFACE is "gone and forgotten". The franchise may not have kept going, but the original CONAN is an Arnold classic right up there with PREDATOR or the first TERMINATOR or TOTAL RECALL.
-
What's up with that, bitch?
-
It had its problems, but what saved it was first the scale - it's epic nature - and secondly, Valeria. She undeniably held the film together - even when she wasn't on screen, it was about her. Arnie was, as many people have said, not REH's vision of Conan AT ALL. But you could have put pretty much anyone in that role and the film would have kicked ass, because it's a GREAT FILM, and it will continue to be great for generations to come. Just as Spartacus is still revered, so CTB will be in 50 years time. Milius may be an asshole, but that film is his masterpiece.
-
Is anyone seriously surprised? I predicted, as soon as it was announced, that "Momoa would be alright, and the film would be mediocre, maybe vaguely entertaining at best". Everyone knew that's what would happen, and that's exactly what we've got.
-
This movie is utter dogshit, but the cast and crew were present when I seen it, so I'll give it a pass.
-
It's freaking hilarious. You worshipers of this franchise should check it out and get pissed off.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 6:36 a.m. CST
Is Harry going to pull an Inception on Rise of the Planet of the Apes?
by melonman
Ignore it's existence for weeks, then write a bizarre condescending review smugly claiming it's the work of executives not artists. Because he was too busy with his face in bucket of ribs to actually follow a basic plotline.
-
The moment Harry stated he fell asleep during Inception was actually the moment I realized this is now a comedy site. There had been slips before of course, but somehow I'd always managed to put it down to Harry 'just being Harry'. But that review was the final straw. Now, I see the site for what it is - a joke. An amusing joke, for sure, but still a joke. If I want serious film news, I'll go to Empire (or even Drew's site). If I have a few minutes to kill and I'm in a mind to read some total bollocks that is vaguely film related, I'll take a look here.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 6:49 a.m. CST
Ebert is a joke. Old, bitter, confused and probably incontinent. Probably.
by HarryBlackPotter
I couldn't give a s**t about what he says is good or bad. I lost all respect for him when he went to war against the video games industry saying they were were NOT artists and that video games will NEVER be considered art. Me, I think one day (15, 20 years from now), video games will become so immersive and photogenic, a 2D (or even 3D) movie could very well become redundant. I mean, why watch Lord of the Rings when you could be one of the characters LIVING in Middle Earth. Ebert saw this 'virtual' future and it terrified him. The nature of entertainment is evolving and Ebert is Kind Canute trying to stop the advancing tide. Really, really sad.
-
I'm glad Momoa has 'it'. I always thought he would, even before GAME OF THRONES. I'm sad Nispel doesn't have it. That was a long shot anyway, but still... sad. But I'm going to see it, regardless of how the tomatoes fall. R-rated 3D sword and sorcery? I'm genetically obligated to spend money on this.
-
Honestly, your writing was really good on that one. I'm impressed. I'm still going to see this movie.
-
I'm predicting the eventual Apes review will include Harry's surmising that it's not a REAL Apes movie because they used CGI instead of men in suits. And the apes didn't talk enough so some scenes were really, really confusing for him to understand. Because it's damn hard to watch a movie when your eyes are focused on licking the sauce from the bottom of the bucket in your lap. Clearly the work of an executive who doesn't understand the cinema-going geek masses these days. But the ribs sure were tasty.
-
Sorry buddy, but that is at least 50 years away, most likely more. Photorealistic (I think you mean that, rather than photogenic) graphics are not the problem at all - that will come soon enough. The problem is the interaction mechanism between the person and the environment. Until that hurdle is traversed, VR will never become a reality (pardon the pun). Doing it physically is probably going to present too many practical problems - the truth is the only way to achieve it will be with direct brain stimulation, and we are fucking light years away from that, not even close. It's certainly do-able in principle, but we will not see it in our lifetimes - our kids might.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 7:02 a.m. CST
For me, Big Wednesday and The Wind and the Lion are Milius' best
by melonman
IMHO Conan being 3rd. I just always thought the final section felt a little… cheap. Something a more visually dynamic or action oriented director could have pulled off better than Milius. The big crazy fuck was always a stronger writer than actual director.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 7:17 a.m. CST
Shame, if only Milius could have gotten Crown of Iron off the ground
by KillaKane
I like Momoa (he was great inThrones) I hope this does decent box office at least to keep the franchaise running. I'd get the director of Solloman Kane onboard for the sequel, he got 'Howard' on that one imho.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 7:28 a.m. CST
"Get someone like Mark Protosevich to write it." ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDDING ME??? That piss-ass fuck who fucked up I AM LEGEND with that fucking retard stupid bullshit script i read years ago?
by AsimovLives
That fucking cunt-ass shit fuck Mark Protosevich would be the savior of a Conan movie? The fuck he would! The fuck he would! Fucking shit, man!!
-
Brosnan's best Bond for me was "Tomorrow Never Dies." GE is great, but is way too long, even for a Bond flick. Actually, Brosnan's best performance as Bond is in "TWINE," he's very emotional and dark in this flick and the wonderful, Sophie Marceau- fantastic. Too bad he wasn't paired with her in a follow-up. The film that starts off great until the intro of the worst bond girl-ever, Denise Richards! Die Another Day- had the kitchen sink mentality and I love it for that, bad FX don't discourage me one bit. Casino Royale is the best modern Bond film to date. QOS rocked because that was Craig/Bond at their meanest and leanest. Loved how he went after three witnesses and ended up killing them. Plus the opera sequence, calls them all out- DIE.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 7:30 a.m. CST
So from this review i get this notion: reboot Conan, keep the actor. Sounds fair to me.
by AsimovLives
-
It's not Robert E Howard's Conan, that's for sure. But James Earl Jones gave one of my favorite performances of his in that movie. It's a roll he could have slept-walked through, and no one would have blamed him, but he didn't and gave one of the better villains. I think he elevated that movie much the same way Alec Guinness did with the original Star Wars. IMHO, of course.
-
The kitchen sink mentality is what I think killed DAD. The writers were so busy trying to throw everything in because of the anniversary they forgot to write a decent film. And that invisible car... totally ridiculous. Whoever came up with that idea should be shot. Totally inappropriate, totally unbelievable.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 7:38 a.m. CST
bill brasky, when guys like you say you miss the Connery movies, you mean you also miss the chauvinism, sexism and the gratitious slapping of women?
by AsimovLives
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 7:42 a.m. CST
melonman, there's nothing cheep looking in Milius' Conan movie to me. There's nothing wrong in his directing of action either.
by AsimovLives
The ending of Milius' Conan is the logical ending to that story. The dude is a great writer and director.
-
Sign of the times mate.
-
The film sounds utterly whacko.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 7:59 a.m. CST
Asimovlives: Missing the Connery era films means missing stylish films well made. regardless of some of the content that dates it. Its like you accusing people of liking Gone With the Wind because they miss Slavery
by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm
-
So Jason Momoa, who played center for the Tennessee TItans for years, is better than George Lazenby? And does Milius rhyme with supercilious?
-
Not that franchises don't plan for multiple movies, but seriously the story doesn't seem to anticipate or require one. Conan's daddy issues (although it's never explained why he's so angry as a child and then what happens to that anger when he gets older) are the only conflict presented and it's resolved. OK. What would the sequel be about? I felt closure.
-
Was the movie really so bad or so bland that you weren't inspired enough or couldn't be bothered enough to think of something better? "It doesn't entirely suck,"? Really? That's the kind of statement you should have used for the title of your Fright Night review, as "suck" is a word commonly associated with vampires. See, this is why you need an editor. Someone to point out the simple corrections, the mistakes; someone to show you what you can do to make this place better. "There's some pretty cool parts," sheesh.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 8:49 a.m. CST
maybe Harry hasnt really seen the film. how many movies could you say to someone yeah its quite good sorta there are good bits and bad bits its ok and cover probably 80% of releases. Laaazzzzyyyy
by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm
-
When he reads all the reviews that say how good Mamoa is at being Conan. Asi did nothing but shit-talk the guy from the very beginning.
-
I was at the screening and Harry was in attendance. I watched him ask a question during the QA and talk with Momoa after the film ended. In fact, Momoa even came back after leaving specifically to discuss the movie with Harry.
-
LMAO! Well played sir/madam!
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 9:06 a.m. CST
Why does Hollywood feel that shit movies deserve a "better" sequel??
by BilboRing
The new Conan sounds like a fail unfortunately. Why would it get a part II? Other movies that sucked balls that had a sequels or where people felt they deserved a sequel include Fantastic 4, Green Lantern, the new Superman, Hulk, Thor, Alien vs. Predator, new Terminator franchise, etc., etc. Is this the new Hollywood cop out? It's a shitty movie but there is potential so let's make a sequel.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 9:18 a.m. CST
Moriarty thought the 3D was terrible. Harry thought it was pretty great.
by D.Vader
Who to trust? YOU DECIDE!
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 9:22 a.m. CST
Harry Liked Jar Jar Binks and didnt 'get' Inception. Theres your taste barometer right there
by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm
-
This "review" feels more like a text chat than an actual review.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 9:28 a.m. CST
"Asi did nothing but shit-talk the guy from the very beginning. "...because he is a fuckwit
by quantize
This whining crab clawed excuse for a human being like the sound of his own farts...He comes here to review films he hasn't seen. A plethora of opinions...none of them based on fact or even experience
-
They should have done that.
-
ALWAYS WITH EVERY REMAKE....
-
GFY.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 10:08 a.m. CST
It always befuddles me when Hollywood chooses to adapt something from a proven, popular source, where all of the story work is already done, and then proceeds to use none of it.
by The Reluctant Austinite
I've read the story synopsis and the charcter breakdowns, and absolutely none of it, in any way, resembles Robert E. Howard's world. I agree with Harry here. There are several fantastic long form Conan stories that could be adapted, like the Lovecraftian "Tower of the Elephant" or the epic "Red Nails" story. There are also plenty of shorter Conan stories that could be pieced together to make a film, and John Milius did some of that in the original movie. I never understand why anyone would want to make a film (based on proven material) enough to get the damn thing greenlit, only to abandon all the source material immeditately and come up with their own story. And hail to Harry for namedropping the great Ken Kelly! I love that guy!
-
With Arnold...
-
The guy who wrote the fucked up idiot script version of I Am Legend? he's dead to me
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 10:25 a.m. CST
So he gives us a Conan the Suckerian review but no Planet of the Apes??
by DrPain
-
made me excited. Hyper-violent and exceedingly weird? Fantastic. Harry's limp endorsement made me nervous. I'd rather it be spectacular in some way -- good or bad, just noteworthy. I dig Drew's reaction; he's very clearly reeling from the experience. EVERYONE BUY A TICKET FOR THIS SO WE GET MORE R-RATED BLOCKBUSTER MOVIES.
-
In the original (a masterpiece), Arnold looks like a man with a glandular problem, who might possibly be developmentally delayed. With this one, Momoa looks like an east-side thug on 8-balls, who most definitely would rape and kill me, but not necessarily in that order. 1.) Which one is a more accurate depiction to Conan in the novels? 2.) Is the real Conan actually written as good-looking?
-
The guy who wrote MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE (and very different) drafts of the I am Legend script and changed everything according to which director/producer was in charge at the time. Yeah, that's the one. Save your wrath for the guys in charge who gave him the notes.
-
"Masterpiece"? I think not. It has many problems. Chiefly, its villain is from the era of KRULL, which is seemingly the same cloth from which the new CONAN movie is cut. And this is precisely why I opt not to go see this crap. The mesmerization scene at the film's opening, where Thulsa Doom supposedly hypnotizes Conan's mother, simply doesn't work. As much as I love James Earl Jones, I think he's a weak villain, and the faces he makes -- particularly in this scene -- are ridiculously stupid, ranging from confidence to sadness. There are too many Oliver Stone influences in the film, chiefly the flower children in the Age of Hyboria, and the Doom cult material. Weak. The orgy scene is lame, and the creatures cooking the human flesh in the big cauldrons look like they escaped a Disney movie, or the set of LEGEND. Valeria isn't all that impressive a character, and Conan views women as objects in the Howard material, and never falls in love like the Conan in this film. And Conan doesn't need a surfer dude archer to assist him, so that character seems superfluous. The witch sequence is just thrown in for no reason, and the giant skeleton from the past age of the storyline is only a slight bump in the road, and is never - well - fleshed out. There IS a lot to like about the film, though. The visuals are great, the score is awesome, and the set pieces are nice. The whole cult thing has been done better elsewhere, and Jones as Thulsa Doom was a misstep, in my opinion, as was having Conan escape a crucifixion, implying he's more powerful than Christ. Offensive to some, particularly if they're of a Christian persuasion. I do like the film. It's a relic of my childhood, and I rewatch it from time to time, but it's uneven, and far from a masterpiece. Calling it that is hyperbole. Unless, of course, one is comparing it to its vastly inferior sequel, or the TV show or cartoon that followed.
-
i got to the part where you trashed Krull, and then politely smiled and nodded absent-mindedly through a bunch of other words. Then i got to a criticism of Valeria. i'm sorry to interrupt you, but i really must be going. It's been nice meeting you, tho.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 10:43 a.m. CST
Harry can't be honest because he talked w/Momoa
by Melanie Griffiths Sour Patch
...and ended up liking him. At the end of the day the ginger bastard is a star fucker who likes to name drop and tell people he has Jason Momoa's email and cell number in his contacts. If he told the truth and lashed out at the film then new Conan won't take Harry's calls. If you guys can't read between the lines and see that, you are blind. The review is a love letter to Momoa because Momoa met Harry and touched his hand. If Harry had not met Momoa at the screening the critique would be a manifesto how they screwed up the franchise and Momoa is no Arnold. Reading Harry's reviews are more entertaining to see how the character of Harry tries to put cake frosting on shit. Whoever wrote that the fact Harry had an early draft of the script and failed to review it is a sign this site is done was right. Now it's just fun to read his reviews and see how much of a sell out he is. Watching someone try to rationalize bad movies is almost more entertaining that watching the movies these days. Harry's part of the trend of accepting less and pretending it's more in movies today. In fact, he is the poster boy for that. Congrats Harry, you eat it, we pay for it.
-
Screw all involved in making this film. And Crom Mamoa, all the guy does is look angry and grunt when he speaks.
-
You need to up your style a bit, Harold. Your writing skills are embarrassing. At least have someone read it over. You receive an F.
-
The epic nature of the film is only one of it's flaws. What really makes the film fail is Thulsa Doom. James Earl Jones is an acting god, but his Thulsa is anything but a terrifying, powerful sorcerer. The final confrontation is anti-climactic. Woosh goes the sword and his head flops to the ground. The film builds to this moment, which lacks any tension or excitement. Great score, pretty cinematography. It's not as bad as Red Dawn, but it's close.
-
Easily one of the better Bond films. Pierce's Bond's were very interesting actually. Golden Eye(Classic), Tomorrow Never Dies(Straight up 80's action movie), World in Not Enough is one of the most interesting movies to me. It actually tried to have a decent plot with a female villain but couldn't help bring in campy elements that weigh the film down. Die Another Day is basically Batman and Robin like it tried very hard to be the campy Moore movies... Also love reading some guy talking about Goldeneye. Great points, minus the obvious jabs at "Progressives". I love moron old white guys from the midwest thinking "Progressives" loved the Soviet Union. But the best part was when he mentioned "Then the US Marines came in to help Bond save the day". What a moron... You do realize that entire scene was making fun of America right? Bond blew up the entire base, killed the bad guys and saved the day. Then when it was all over the Americans went in. The fact this guy saw it as America kicking ass with James Bond is just so sad.
-
And in fact, it seems like you didn't really watch Milius' Conan at all. Subotai a "surfer dude"? Any credibility you had was blown out of the water with your poor hyperbole.
-
eck - Agreed, sir. Agreed. pink - Sorry if I caused offense. It was just an opinion. You're entitled to yours as well. Sandhal Bergman is awesome, but I was speaking from a Robert E. Howard perspective; her character is like the girl in YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES (a film I generally love), and serves to explain why Conan never has a woman. This was never a part of the original character's background. I wholly understand why the Valeria character has a following. Let's just be glad I didn't reference RED SONJA...
-
discuss
-
It's less of an 'action' movie, and more of a somber, deliberately-paced novel that plays out in front of you. Don't expect an adrenaline charge, as much as a gritty, richly-textured painting in motion. Valeria was a heroine for me growing up. i never read any Conan novels. Red Sonya was awful. i reiterate: i don't believe Nielsen could fight her way out of a Macy's clearance sale, much less wield a sword.
-
I saw CONAN THE BARBARIAN at the theater when it came out; I was a teenager. I've seen it repeatedly since then. The actor who played Subatai, in real life, was a pro surfer; I knew this going in even then, and never could get past it. But whether or not I knew this, the character wasn't a staple in the original stories, and Conan never needed a sidekick - not even for exposition. Defending the amateur who "portrayed" Subatai, in my opinion, is weak; Subatai isn't even a constant in the film - he comes and goes at the director's discretion. Yeah, he's funny and likeable, but I stand by what I said. Fact is, you just don't like what I said about a minor and superfluous character. Sorry about that. Didn't intend to tick you off. Just expressing an opinion. Didn't know opinions weren't allowed here.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 11:21 a.m. CST
So we could have another Hulk - immediate reboot with same CGI Hulk, different actor / Ghost Rider - immediate reboot with CGI Cage and flaming Cage!
by HarryBlackPotter
-
The film is about what is the root of power. At the beginning, we see Conans father telling me that he can trust no-one, not men, not women, not gods; but his sword - that you could trust. True enough, everyone in Conan's life leaves him (notably his mother, vanquished by steel). Conans strength is forged by steel, and the skeleton is a Ozymandian relic, more evidence of the transitory nature of man (although note that his steel - his sword - survives). The suggestion is that Steel is power, and later Jones tries to show Conan that influence and charisma is power. Conans resurrection was achieved through will, not steel - his and Valerias - and in the end Conan finds out that Valeria is exactly the thing that he can trust beyond anything - man, god, or steel - her will to return to his side. Meanwhile, his father's sword is broken, and Jones is easily killed by the broken sword. Steel has failed, and influence and charisma has failed - all beaten by man's will.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 11:24 a.m. CST
Schwarzeneger wasn't exactly brilliant as Conan though.
by LORDOFLIGHT
The film itself was pretty good but anyone who plays Conan should at the very least be a good actor. Schwarzeneger couldn't act his way out of a paper bag.
-
I have avoided your reviews for most of the last year. I got tired of wading throught the personal anecdotes. Congratulations on a well-written, descriptive review. Looking forward to seeing Momoa as Conan. His character on Stargate:atlantis was fun.
-
Momoa's got the black hair but hasn't he got brown eyes.? That ain't what Robert E. Howard said Conan looked like. Why the fuck couldn't they have made Momoa wear contacts or something?
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 11:33 a.m. CST
Schwarznegger was crap as Conan and mostly evry part he ever played..
by CeejayNightwing
But he has a fanbase who think everything he does is great and most of those idiots come here!
-
You can express your opinion any way you want, but you're not backing up your opinions with anything substantial; that's the problem. You say Subotai is funny, yet Subotai was never played for comic relief, and in fact, I can't think of a single scene in which Subotai is, as you say, "funny". You say he's there for exposition, but where is his big exposition scene? You ignore that Subotai is there as an example of how Conan can instill loyalty in others just to complain about things he actually never does. Its statements like those that make me think you really aren't remembering the film correctly. Or you're intentionally being false to back up your points. Other problems with your analysis include comparing Thulsa Doom to the villain in Krull (of which there are zero comparisons that I see) and then extending it to the new Conan, of which, again, there are zero similarities beyond the genre in which both films exist. Or there's your claim that characters from the orgy sequence look like they're from LEGEND, which is an unnecessary and almost bizarre criticism considering LEGEND came out years later. Then there's your attitude toward the film as a whole which is one big complaint about what you think it *should* have been as opposed to what it *is*. Complaints like Conan doesn't need a woman or Conan doesn't need a sidekick completely sidesteps how *well* those factors work in the film. You're ignoring what's good to focus on how different it is from the source material, which means you're focusing on the wrong things.
-
a misstep, in my opinion, as was having Conan escape a crucifixion, implying he's more powerful than Christ. Offensive to some, particularly if they're of a Christian persuasion.
-
d.vader, buddapest didnt say the characters from the orgy scene looked like they're from LEGEND. He said the monsters from the orgy scene... wtf? I dont remember any monsters in that scene? They were just Thulsa Dooms human followers right? I think the guy is just trolling a movie he hasnt seen for 20 years and cant remember properly.
-
Yeah, that's....that's not a problem for me. Potentially offending delicate Christian fee-fee's is something no artist should concern themselves with.
-
film11, actually Conan did die when crucified, but then got resurrected a bit later. Same as our boy Jesus!
-
And AICN cut off everything except what he was quoting. As for the affair of the crucifixion, Conan didn't escape from it. He was saved from it by the "superfluous" Subotai who went looking for Conan because he was a loyal friend. Conan was nearly killed by the Tree of Woe but was brought back from near death by the love and loyalty (and magic) of his friends Valeria, Subotai, and the Wizard.
-
The only thing that comes close to the "creatures" Buddapest mentioned is the hulking masked men who carried in the human soup cauldron. That's the only thing I can think of.
-
Momoa was perfect in Game of Thrones as pseudo-Mongol, but horribly wrong for this. Conan is a blue-eyed Cimmerian from the North. 'nuff said. What will they do next, cast a black guy as a Norse god? Oh, wait... T.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 12:43 p.m. CST
Someone asked about why REH stories aren't adapted
by Damned if I can login
Because for some STUPID reason that none of us are privy to, the idiots in Hollywood making these decisions are just that...IDIOTS. There is a complete refusal to adapt one of the many incredible REH stories as it should be done. Instead, the best we could hope for are elements of many stories jumbled into a hodgepodge of complete shit. The strange this is, the 2nd Fantastic Four film sorta-kinda attempted to adapt a truly great story. But they found out that leaving out 2/3 of the story brassed off the fanboys, and rightly so. Wow...what would it be like to actually see faithful adaptations of great stories like The Black Stranger (aka The Treasure of Tranicos) or The People of the Black Circle? It's like a pipe dream, yeah...that's it. A complete and utter dream.
-
R u high? His original script for conn was high gheyness- thank god milius used basically none of it. Some shit about cyber- mutants .. In a fucking conan movie?? Goddamn, he's such a fucking bonehead... Err stonehead. Fuck Oliver stone up his stupid ass. Three fucking cuts of Alexander and the still sucked my butt each and every time. What a fucking stool. Subtitles on a battle to help explain it and still makes dick for sense... Christ. And mark prodickholeich 4 Script? Double christ
-
I too, see a lot of the stuff you mentioned in the same light. Not all, but a lot. I also thought Thulsa Doom was not particularly a good choice for the villian. I also didn't really care for Conan's backstory, I much prefer REH's version, with no giant grinding stone. But overall I still enjoy the film. Although I'm not sure I agree with your statement that Conan never fell in love in any REH story. In The Queen of the Black Coast he gets there, or at least damned close to it.
-
Was that not meant to be happening a few years ago? Did it die? I'd have loved to have seen that as it may have opened the door to other adaptations of the source material. Milius' Conan is a good movie with some great sequences and it's a movie that somehow become the definitive proper Conan when it's not. Same thing happened when Greystoke came out - people would say 'This is what Tarzan was written like' and that just proved that they hadn't read a Tarzan story in their life.
-
I was saying that the crucifixion/vulture scene was taken from a Howard story. And that Gerry Lopez was indeed a "surfer dude" in real-life. (But he couldn't act, which was why his lines were (poorly) dubbed.
-
I don't even care that he hates this movie. It's probably a piece of shit. It's just that Ebert thinks he needs to weigh in on on every goddamn thing under the fucking sun. He hasn't been able to shut the fuck up since he lost his ability to speak.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 1:49 p.m. CST
I love Harry and I think he's 100% honest about every review he writes. That said, I'm as dubious as you guys about reviews written from celebrity attended, themed Alamo parties.
by The Reluctant Austinite
Sometimes, in my heart of hearts, I think that nobody from AICN should write a review of a movie that they saw at an Alamo "event" screening. I've been to some of those screenings, and they're JUST TOO DAMN FUN! The food and booze is themed to the event. You're surrounded by the best film fans in the world. Everyone is crazy excited, and the stars of the film show up to do Q & A's with the fans. Tim League and the Alamo could make watching an Uwe Boll film fun (and have!). You end up really liking the stars when you meet them in person (most of the time), and you simply have a completely different experience than you could possibly have at any other multiplex in the world with any other audience. It's hard for ANYBODY (Harry, me, Roger Ebert or ANYBODY) to seperate the blast you're having from the film playing on the screen. Hell, that's why the studios generally love these types of event screenings. Sometimes they can go badly, of course, and the BNAT screening of "House of 1,000 Corpses" comes to mind. That might have even been salvaged if Rob Zombie showed up to do a Q & A. But most times you get something like Harry's infamous "Godzilla" review after the Madison Square Gardens screening sitting next to Muhammad Ali. Harry even apologized for that one after seeing with a "normal" audience. In this case, the review is quite ballanced. It's hard to tell if the presence of Jason Momoa in the audience made an impact on the review, but it might have. I feel the same way about the "Fright Night" screening. I would have loved to have been there. Seeing this kind of shit with Harry and my friends in Austin at Tim League's movie church is something I live for and look forward to. Generally, I try to keep my senses in tact when selling my friends on movies I've seen this way, but it doesn't always work. I screamed high and low about "Kick Ass" to everyone after having the time of my life seeing at BNAT, but then months later I saw it with a "normal" audience who did not laugh, squeal or react at all. I heard people saying, "That sucked" as they left the theater, and my friends thought it was "okay." It suddenly seemed like a completely different movie. So I keep this in mind when reading reviews as seen through the awesome eyes of the amazing Alamo.
-
Now THAT would have been brutal and genuine.
-
Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies were great Bond flicks.
-
Because every time I'd see it scheduled on TV I'd click over to it, mistakenly thinking it was LION OF THE DESERT. The continual disappointment of tuning in to find no Anthony Quinn soured me on the film over all.
-
...that is probably better than this piece of shit. sadly, it will never get made.
-
1. Arnold was just magnetic in the role. He's not a great actor -- but you get the idea that he's a brute force of nature. 2. The score to teh film was one of the greatest of the past 30 years. It is absolutely spot perfect. If you put a crappy score and -- say, Marc Singer or Jan Michael Vincent in that role -- the original Conan movie sucks ass.
-
This shouldn't be that fucking hard.
-
That's from his Texas Chainsaw Massacre review. You know, the film Harry was IN. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/16270 Now all of a sudden, Harry says Nispel "misses the details, robs the film of atmosphere, instead concentrating upon big splash panels that scream epic, before settling for a run of medium and close-ups." Hmmm, intersting.
-
You can tell he's a really big fan of RE Howard and Conan -- and put his heart and soul into this movie trying to make it successful. He even wrote a screenplay for the sequel, for crying out loud! Yet, he got saddled with a shit script and a shit director and a shit budget. Momoa actually has good instincts for plot and character, as evidenced by his push to show a brief fight scene for Khal Drogo in Game of Thrones. He argued with the who runners that we keep hearing about how wonderful a warrior Drogo is and how he's never lost a fight -- yet we don't see it in action. Turned out to be one of the best scenes in the whole series.
-
You can tell he's a really big fan of RE Howard and Conan -- and put his heart and soul into this movie trying to make it successful. He even wrote a screenplay for the sequel, for crying out loud! Yet, he got saddled with a shit script and a shit director and a shit budget. Momoa actually has good instincts for plot and character, as evidenced by his push to show a brief fight scene for Khal Drogo in Game of Thrones. He argued with the who runners that we keep hearing about how wonderful a warrior Drogo is and how he's never lost a fight -- yet we don't see it in action. Turned out to be one of the best scenes in the whole series.
-
You can tell he's a really big fan of RE Howard and Conan -- and put his heart and soul into this movie trying to make it successful. He even wrote a screenplay for the sequel, for crying out loud! Yet, he got saddled with a shit script and a shit director and a shit budget. Momoa actually has good instincts for plot and character, as evidenced by his push to show a brief fight scene for Khal Drogo in Game of Thrones. He argued with the who runners that we keep hearing about how wonderful a warrior Drogo is and how he's never lost a fight -- yet we don't see it in action. Turned out to be one of the best scenes in the whole series.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 3:20 p.m. CST
This movie SUCKING will delay the ELRIC saga (perhaps it is for the best)
by the Green Gargantua
However, the film in my dreams is amazing.
-
According to Harry, at least.
-
If an actor walked in and looked exactly like a Frazetta or REH description of the Cimmerian, it would still not make a movie. What is needed is REH's tone by capturing the harshness and suspense of a barbaric world that is further corrupted by so-called civilized men. The present mindset throughout the world is perfectly suited for the arrival of that kind of CONAN film. He represents the warrior caught in a fucked up world. If you were either weak or preyed on the weak, Conan had no respect for you. Conan is Josey Wales with a sword. Not just cool images from 70's posters, but what those posters were trying to convey.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 3:48 p.m. CST
So harry throws Nispel to the wolves but supports ANYTHING that Albert Pyun does??
by BooBoosDaddy
-
My theater only has it in 3d. Fuck that on top of everything else.
-
Its the definitive filmic Conan only because it's the only one (lets not even mention the "sequel"). That said, its a fun movie, and one that i can still watch thanks to nostalgia. Ill catch this remake on HBO one of these days.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 4:56 p.m. CST
To do REH's vision justice, im thinking it needs a sort of R-rated Western tone.
by dahveed1972
With a side of Road Warrioresque post apocalysm thrown in.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 5:12 p.m. CST
What Happened to the animated Red Nails adaptation by cushing1967
by Kevin
hey cushing1967, Never left development:-(
-
Well siad.
-
I am so fucking sick of that lazy ass one second fast editing it is disgusting. I was going to see this if I read it did NOT do that shit. But, alas, it does. LAZY FUCKS!!!!!!!!!
-
Fuck'n great idea! Bring in Mel for the sequel!
-
The Arnold-Conan movies were TERRIBLE. The only thing remotely cool about them was the music. Haven't seen this one, but the previews look cheap. I would like to see a good film-maker with a budget give Conan a fair shake.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 5:29 p.m. CST
dahveed1972, Milius' CONAN movie IS a masterpiece. One need to be pretty obtuse not to understand why.
by AsimovLives
Hand over your revoked movie geek cards all you who can't understand why Milius' movie is a masterpiece of the genre, and a damn great movie in general. You are revoked for life, and condemned to watch CONAN THE DESTROYER until you scream for redemption... which you will not get.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 5:30 p.m. CST
People who beliettle the Milius's CONAN movie, are they perhaps thinking of CONAN THE DESTROYER? Maybe that's the movie they think that Milius did, hem?
by AsimovLives
-
Read what i wrote about Momoa after i had watched the first episode of GAME OF THRONES. I did a complete backtrack to my inicial opinion of Momoa, thanks to his work in that show. So much so that if anybody says he's the best thingin the new Conan movie, i have little difficulty believing. I becamea believer. So, keep up with the times, dude. You want to get smart-ass on me, but you didn't do the research. Keep up, dude.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 5:43 p.m. CST
Sop now it's cool to bash Millus's CONAN THE BARBARIAN movie? When did this stupid retard dumbass pussy arsery began? Which limp-wristed fuckass started the fashion?
by AsimovLives
People bashing Millius's CONAN to try to look hip and "teh kelwz"! Fucking asses!!
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 5:48 p.m. CST
by hesiod2k7: "Why can't they make a good Conan movie?" That's because the world is now filled with PUSSIES who think that Milius made a bad movie, which means they are clueless assclowns who can't get Conan even if he was shitting on them seated above.
by AsimovLives
And some of those PUSSIES are now making movies, which mean they can't make a good Conan movie ebcause they are fucking clueless about it. All they know is michael peice of shit bay and that's the standard thet revel in. The standard of PUSSY-ARSERY!
-
Hand over your revoked movie geek cards all you who can't understand why Milius' movie is a masterpiece of the genre,< Please name some from the genre?I'll wait. > and a damn great movie in general. < A good movie,not great and nothing to do with REH.
-
okay so I enter a contest to go see dont be afraid of the dark,and if deltoro was mopping the floors of the studio it was made in id still want to go see it because he gave his seal of aproval.but wait not so fast getting to edwards theater in houston 30 minutes early wasnt enough.it was filled up but they said sorry for the inconveniance would you like to go see conan instead,well duh!so I went and it was terrible the only good things about it were the special effects and the delightfully flat rose mcgowan :)!no comment on the 3d had to sit to close for it to matter but momoa was a big dissapointment.I love him in game of thrones and stargate,but he was completely flat in conan no believable emotion whatsoever.the villian(cant remember his name)was at the same time great in the role and completely unbelievable.not sure how to explain that it was just how I felt about the performance.overall good one time watch but would not want a repeat viewing
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 6:13 p.m. CST
anjin-san, what genre? SWORD AND SORCERY FANTASY GENRE, ignoramus! Ever heard of that?
by AsimovLives
My mistake, you will not get your geek card revoked, and that's because YOU NEVER HAD ONE TO BEGIN WITH!
-
... this movie is as an adaptation to the books, not Arnold's movie. We already knew that was untouchable, but at the very least maybe be closer to the books.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 6:16 p.m. CST
I guess this is a Conan movie made deliberatly for this ERA OF PUSSINESS! Cona for the Michael Retard Pussy Ass Shit Bay Generation. How nice!
by AsimovLives
You can have that shit, i don't want it anyway. I rather have a proper good movie, like, say, JOHN MILIUS' CONAN THE BARBARIAN.
-
...,fans of the franchise of books and the viewer It butchered the Queen of the Black Coast storyline The fight choreography consisted of 'roided and oiled up girly mans pantomiming chopping wood
-
I understand what he means being caught between Connery and Moore. He was trying to play a Connery style hard-ass straight-man Bond but, aside from Goldeneye, he was playing in Moore-style stories. Moore's might have been over-the-top and bordering on near parody, but Moore played it that way and fit in. Brosnan stands out because his character, as he played it, is from Connery's universe, but existing in Moore's. I won't bring up Dalton's who was a homicidal maniac. You can tell when he snaps too... at the scene where his contact gets killed by the automatic door, and Dalton pops the Balloon with the "I got the Message" line. Yeah that message was "I'm going to kill all you fuckers, and do it with a smile on my face!". His movies are almost Charles Bronson movies because they are all about revenge!
-
You fucking pratt. I will have men, nutters, from parkhurst, in yeti suits, ready to chop your tarty fucking legs off. Now fuck off.
-
This fact has been consistently proven over the course of many talkbacks. Asi, you're bent mate. Simple as that. BENT.
-
Bond is supposed to be larger than life. Smartest, smoothest, most sophisticated, toughest, most favored by fortune with incredible luck, irresistible to women. Take away the un-PC elements of his personality and he's Jason Bourne with a British accent. No thanks.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 8:01 p.m. CST
I so love your reviews Harry, youre the only thing right with this place.
by LowDevil
Too bad about this. Of course we can only compare to the first and doom to all who follow. The score for the first is the best ever made. I dont care who laughs at that. Second there was Arnold. Third, Millius. You can not compete. So make it different and make it better. So what do they do? Hire Niespell!!!! Fuck sakes. Great review Harry, your a true geek that never sells out. Well you did a little for GL, but thats OK.
-
Isn't it kind of silly to be on a thread talking about how great CONAN THE BARBARIAN is and then complain about how James Bond treats women?
-
Get fucked, Harry.
-
Ollie's such a fucking sack of vinegar.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 9:06 p.m. CST
that's what the generation that saw it in the theatre actually thought.
by Subtitles_Off
Um, hate to burst your bubble while you're in mid-blow. Few, of any generation, none with any brains or sense of relativity, have ever considered the original CONAN movie to be "a masterpiece." Harry often uses words without restricting himself to those words' actual meaning. Don't make Harry's mistake.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 9:36 p.m. CST
Harry is normally ecstatic about everything...this must be HOLY SHIT BAD
by Badger23
Did anyone actually think this was going to be good?
-
It's possible it could be poor adjustment of projector brightness/contrast. One theater looks great , the next one looks poor. Even in the early 80's 3-D revival I saw House of Wax and it looked very poor because of the projectors were very dark. I have seen other sources that the 3-D was excellent.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 9:50 p.m. CST
Every AssholeSmells post : blah blah blah blah blah... about everything he hasn't seen yet
by quantize
or something he owns on DVD that he's masturbated to 1 million times
-
of course he hated this movie. it sounds like a live action video game.
-
Conan started at 80% at Rottentomatoes. That really got my hopes up. now it's fallen to 25% lol, how disappointing.
-
i'm not that old. i have a pretty liberal use of the word masterpiece, to be honest. It applies to anything i either have a desire to see again and again, or already have done so. If you want to get bent out of shape over the use of a word or it's meaning, fine. i don't care enough either way to argue about it.
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 11:21 p.m. CST
Raise your hand if you (YES, YOU) said how cool this looked when u saw the kid Conan clip...
by DoctorWho?
You know...because there was blood and gore and shit. Kewl!
-
Aug. 18, 2011, 11:22 p.m. CST
And also raise your hand if you think more Blade Runner is a cool idea too...
by DoctorWho?
I'm taking names bitch.
-
The "original" Conan movie was NOT a movie about Conan. So to say it was a classic is bullshit. First of all it was a dull silly movie totally miscast with non- actors as well as a fat James earl Jones who looked like he was trying to impersonate Gene Simons from Kiss. (sans make up) He was the VOICE of Darth Vader, he himself is not that scary. The story had a few bits thrown in from the books but the character of Conan was NOT a slave boy pit fighter. He just wasn't, if you change the character too much it loses everything that made the character great. In both of these movies Cimmerians are just tribal people who get slaughtered. So much for Conan being a barbarian bad ass from a society of bad-asses. The point of Howards stories was how debilitating and corrupting to humanity civilized society is. The barbarians were superior physically and morally with their simple uncorrupted religion. Conan was natural man reasserting himself into the pathetic existence of the vile domesticated society. These movies are both a disgrace and have nothing to do with the real stories Howard told. The Conan name is a marketing tool, nothing more. They both suck balls.
-
Fuck reviews. I've been a Robert E. Howard fan since I was 11. It's a new Conan movie....I HAVE TO GO SEE IT OPENING WEEKEND.
-
Yeah, I lived in Phoenix for a while and the Cine Capri was leveled years ago. Smokingrobot, is there a new Cine Capri? And this new Conan could never live up to the original, no matter how good it is. We have the Arnold version burned in our minds and the amazing music and lack of dialogue truly made it a unique experience. I guarantee this new Conan blows Conan The Destroyer out of the water. That movie was a giant shit sandwich.
-
Aug. 19, 2011, 12:17 a.m. CST
ackman81...just because Milius' CONAN is not verbatim Howard...
by DoctorWho?
...in NO WAY takes away from the greatness of that film. Yes, I said greatness. We've all read ad nauseum how Arnold does not resemble the Conan from the books, too muscular, not cat-like, too dumb, wrong origin etc blah blah blah.<p> And yet, that movie captures the spirit and tone of the Hyborian Age. Somehow it does. It establishes a place, time and mood clearly and effectively. It's excellent storytelling. The score contributes greatly to the tone and mood. Conan's father telling him about Crom and the riddle of steel would have made Howard proud.<p> So, if the fact that Conan is not "...a barbarian bad ass from a society of bad-asses" torpedos the whole movie for you, well then I just feel bad your unable to enjoy it. <p> Someone may make a Conan movie 100% faithful to Howard's vision. But I doubt they will make anything with half the gravitas or longevity of the original movie.
-
Aug. 19, 2011, 2:40 a.m. CST
jebus tapdancing christ, asimovlives, i didnt say it was terrible.
by dahveed1972
Just not a masterpiece. The only Arnie movie that even comes close is The Terminator, and he plays a mostly mute robot. Not a coincidence.
-
that he didn't seem like enough of a manwhore. It never occurred to me how important that was until it was missing. But at no point did I see him as a skank. The suave action man stuff he had down, but he seems like too nice of a guy otherwise. Daniel Craig seems slutty enough but they haven't really explored that properly. In my mind, I've already envisioned a Tom Hardy Bond. As much as I hate the constant rebooting, I would so love to see that.
-
Aug. 19, 2011, 3:58 a.m. CST
asimovlives... you are a tool bag. No, a box of douches. A douche bag. Maybe even a douche-tool. A bag of douche-tools. Now, go wash out your asshole because you are also a contradictory nihilist that needs some educating.
by Bill Brasky
@asimovlives - "bill brasky, when guys like you say you miss the Connery movies, you mean you also miss the chauvinism, sexism and the gratitious (sic) slapping of women" HEY Fucktard, go back and read my post you fucking contrarian. I said nothing about personally liking the Connery ear films. I used that as an analogy to viewing movies through different perspectives. To my argument, the straw man was all of the talkbackers who chime in on the Connery Bond and how great he was, etc, etc. My point was about GoldenEye. I loved that film. I thought that it was a darn near perfect James Bond film for the year in which it came out - 1995. I even made the mistake of 'misremembering' who fought Walken on top of the Golden Gate Bridge. I said Dalton, when it was Moore from 'A View To A Kill'. What I didn't say was anything about missing "the chauvinism, sexism and the gratitious (sic) slapping of women." You said that. You are a misinformed tool. And that is a universal truth. Now, go attack someone else before I bitch slap you some more from behind my HD monitor you fucking nihilist.
-
I have to say, when you're critiquing bond, and presenting yourself as a knowledgeable source, 'misremembering' Dalton as being Bond in A View To A Kill is a pretty big fucking misrememberment. Anyway, with that said, I agree with all your other points. Anyone who doesn't like GE, doesn't like Bond, end of story. There was only one thing wrong with it, and that was the gay Eric Serra score. Other than that, it was perfect.
-
He's afraid to review it! Probably wise, after the ass-raping he got over his ridiculous Inception review.
-
Aug. 19, 2011, 6:14 a.m. CST
Hmm, Fright Night remake and Conan reboot coming out at same time...
by Stegman84
Fright Night remake gets much praise on AICN - the same AICN that, funnily enough, got a free screening and interview face time with the stars. Meanwhile Conan gets a faint damning - meaning they can't get away with pretending it is as bad as they want people to think it is, but they still want to promote Fright Night as the film that everyone should go see this weekend at Conan's expense. Hmmmm... You know, not that I'm cynical of this site or how blatantly transparent it's pwestents for promotion antics are these days...
-
there wasn't 5 paragraphs about your childhood and about your day at the theater and you actually talked about FILM ELEMENTS. it can't be Harry.
-
I've seen the Fright Night remake, and I found it pretty damn mediocre to be honest. Not good, not awful, just kind of there. In an odd kind of way it reminded me of Disturbia (with fangs). Personally I didn't find that a good thing, others mileage may vary. Sure, there's a couple of decent performances (you can pretty much guess which), but honestly, that's about it. If you are going to go see it then personally I recommend not buying into the hype that AICN is predictably spreading far and wide. Watchable with a couple of decent performances and a nice moment or two certainly does not equal 'one of the best films of the year'...not by a long damn stretch. As for Conan, I expect pretty much about the same, quality wise. In other words, mainly mediocre-to-passable, with a couple of decent casting choices and a sprinkling of cool scenes, but nothing too great or memorable overall. Again, much like Fright Night. So, fuck the hype, and pick the poison that best suits your tastes. Neither one is going to swallow all that easily.
-
And were being hypocritical? SHOCK!
-
Conan does view women as objects AND falls in love like that. Valeria's character was based of Belit from Queen of the Black Coast as much as Valeria of the Red Brotherhood. Conan fell in love with her big time. You should re-visit some Robert E Howard stories before stating these bold "facts" about the character.
-
That is genius. He should DEFINITELY make a Conan movie. Sign me up, all is forgiven.
-
Yeah, i understimated Momoa, until i saw him at work. But it was his work in GAME OF THRONES that convinced me. His work previous to that show sure didn't. And wherre's the hypocrisy in that, dude? Are you trying to deliberatly pissing me off? Do you evne know the meaning of that fuckign word? Chill the fuck off, dude! You could had the argument all to yourself if you just had stuick merely to "so, you admit that Momoa actually works" and i would had replied "yes he does, i stand corrected". But no, you had to go on some dumb ass shit about an ill understood personal definition of hypocrisy that only you have. Way to fucking up what could had been a cordial conversation. Tell me what kind of sick ass satisfaction you are getting from that. Fuck's sake, man! Fuck's sakes! Very bad played. Very bad! What the hell has happened to you lately? What the hell is wrong with you?
-
Aug. 19, 2011, 9:20 a.m. CST
animas, what in Harry's chidlhood could he ever found anything to relate to Conan?
by AsimovLives
Though it's strange that he didn't mentioned that both he and REH are texans as a way of his connection to Conan. I'm actually suprised by that omission.
-
Who the fuck said "masterpiece"? That fucking 12 year old, Buckwheat, had a problem with calling CONAN THE BARBARIAN a "classic". It is not necessary to be a masterpiece to be a classic. SLAPSHOT is a classic. Not a masterpiece. SCARFACE is a classic. Not a masterpiece. RED DAWN is a classic. Not a masterpiece. FIRST BLOOD is a classic. Not a masterpiece. REPO MAN is a classic. Not a masterpiece. Do I have to go on? The original CONAN was a huge hit, and has been quoted (a la SCARFACE) and a staple of tasteless peoples' poster art preferences (again, a la SCARFACE) for decades. How is it not a classic? How could it POSSIBLY be called a "forgotten" film, which is what Buckwheat asserted it was? Learn to read.
-
Yes, Goldfinger,the mvoie where the sexist powers of Connery Bond cures Pussy Galore of her lesbianism. Becazue lets we know, lesbianism is a desease that females should get cured from, and they cvan only get that by being defeated ina fight and sexually coerced by an alpha male Connery liek gentleman. Yeah. You know, i could also make the case that you are a truckload of douchebaggery yourself. You aren't immune to that as well, you know? So chill. It's too easy to make a case fo the sexist chauvinism of the earlier bond movies, specially those of the Connery Era, because they are sexist chauvinistic because that was the way of society of the time. But you can't ignore that now about those movies, not today you can't. If you chose to overlook that, you do so deliberatly. Which means, it's always there. It's the typical unfortunate implications of every work made in the past, spcuialyl those of a more commercial nature designed to appeals the audiences of the time, like the Connery Bond movies were. If it serves as any consolation, many women of that time also liked that type of sexist chauvinism and considered that was how things should be. You can't have male chauvinism without the suport of a good many of the womenfolk as well.
-
Aug. 19, 2011, 9:29 a.m. CST
Mel Gibson directing a Conan movie? That would work. Yeah!
by AsimovLives
The dude is certainly unaffraid to show violence onscreen. And he's a smart director and has a good sense of scale and a creative visual imagination. And his movies have always good acting in themon account he's an actor himself. Actors turned directros are very good at making his cast deliver good acting. I would watch a Gibson directed Conan movie in an heartbeat. Yeah!
-
I say CONAN THE BARBARIAN is a grerat movie, period. The only thing that brings it down, i think, is because too many people are obsessed to see him in a given genre and can't work out a mind to see it transcend such cathegorizations. CONAN THE BARBARIAN works great at anything a movie can work well. It is a great movie. If it's fantasy or not, that's beside the point. It being a fantasy movie is mere classification, not a statement of quality. The movie is good because it's good, not because or despiste the genre it falls into.
-
You went off the fucking rails insulting the man and the filmmakers based on superficial things like his looks, accusing him of being gay and an Abercrombie model, crap like that. You also went crazy about his looks and how WRONG they are for Conan. You were on every talkback complaining about how wrong he was for Conan based on his *looks* alone, whilst completely *ignoring* how Arnold didn't look like Conan at all either. There's the hypocrisy. You don't speak english as a first language, so don't pretend you understand the definition of the word better than a native speaker. I did nothing to "fuck up" what could have been a "cordial conversation". I didn't use insults, I didn't use curse words, I didn't act like a crazy person foaming at the mouth because of what the other said. But you, yes you Asi, did all of the above in your last post. All I did was ask "So you admit you were wrong and being hypocritical?" because fact of the matter is, Asi, you were. And you *never* admit when you are wrong. I wanted to see if you had enough wisdom yet to do so in this case.
-
...I loves me that movie!
-
Just asking is all.
-
As long Bond's sexism is not celebrated but treated as a character flaw, it's OK. People have virtues and flaws, including Bond. But the Connery Era Bond movies celebrated the sexism and treated it as the way men should be, and how women should be treated. Any right thinking person of today have to feel a little disconfort and uneasiness to the way women are treated in those movies, by Bond himself. It's not a question of showing off the beautiful bodies of beautiful women that's the issue. Bond himself was an estrogen bait for the female public. That's movies. That's entertaiment. That's how it is and as it should be. No, the problem was that bond sexism and treatment of women were considered to be what's to expect from a man. And over-looking that in those movies today is a bit weird and worrying. Aslo, i'm not one of those who subcribe to the dogmatic belief that Connery was the best Bond just because he was Sean Connery or because his were the first movies. Every one of the actors who played Bond had great moments to them that can match the best in Connery, even Roger Moore. I have some favorite Bonds myself. But frankly, i don't think there has been a truly one best Bond ever.
-
It's why people love Don Draper as a character. Bond has to be arrogant, he has to be a hedonist, he has to think he's god's gift to women - or he's not Bond.
-
Aug. 19, 2011, 10:05 a.m. CST
d.vader, i severely understimated Momoa... violently and recurreringly. Yeah. Until i saw GAME OF THRONES.
by AsimovLives
but what i knew of the dude before GAME OF THRONES never once gave me any indication that the dude could make for a good Conan. A good kushitte adversary, perhaps, a good Conan, no! I went from what i knew of the dude. I didn't go supportive on the dude just because ot was the fashionable thing to do. I went form what i knew, and what i knew didn't bode me well. It's good that he grew in GAME OF THRONES and surpassed what he was before. He has grown as an actor and screen presence. That's great. That i can like and admire on an actor. It shows his heart is in the right place. It shows he takes his job seriously. So, yeah, i went from a disbeleiver to a believer. Isn't that great? But i believe from what i saw, not from what's the fashion of the fucking moment. You know what i mean? Before GAME OF THRONES he showed to me no indication he could play Conan. In GAME OF THRONES he showed he could play Conan. You know what i mean? So, what is still your problem? No, i don't go about supporting soem actor of movie just because you and a bunch of other guys do so, and follow it blindly on faith. If i did that, i would mistake bulslhit crap shit like Abrams Trek for a good movie, which aint. Momoa proved to me thanks to GAME OF THRONES that he's an actor to watch. That's a good thing, don't you think? You used to piss that i can't change my mind. I change my mind about an actor i was derisive and now you give shit to me? Now that's what i would call hypocrisy there, my friend. Either you are happy that i changed my mind about Momoa due to what i saw him do, and party with me on our mutual satisfaction with his casting as Conan, or just shut the fuck up if your only intention is to gloat based on some weird sense of self-satisfaction as revenge because i didn't took your word as gospel. Sorry, but i don't take anybody's word as gospel. I don't take it from Mr Jesus Christ, i certainly don't take it from mere mortal you. You know what i mean? Do we understand each other, friend?
-
Aug. 19, 2011, 10:11 a.m. CST
lampers, i also like FIRST BLOOD a lot. i don't evne put it together with the rest of the Rambo movies, certainly not with Rambo II and III.
by AsimovLives
The Rambo character in II and III certainly is not the same guy we saw in the first movie. It's the same name and the same actor playing, but it's not the same character. First Blood is a good movie. The next two movies are total retard fucking pieces of shit. John Rambo actually surpised me in that it's actually a proper movie. And a pretty good old fashion action movie at that. small wonder, the movie takes more inspiration form the first then the other Rambo pieces of shit movies made. In fact, one could say John Rambo is a direct sequel to First Blood and pretends the others never existed in the first place. That's how i think about that.
-
Antman you mong, while you are frantically thrashing about in your strap-in chair, and mashing the keyboard spasmodically with the fucking plastic stick tied to your forehead, I strongly suggest you temporarily halt your fit for a few precious seconds and actually READ what I wrote. Now while you think on it, those footsteps you can here are your Mums - she's coming up to change you again!
-
....agreed, agreed. John Rambo was epic. I remember 2008 quite well. I'd spent every day since 1989 hoping for a new Indy movie, and then in 2008 it finally came and it was excrement. I hadn't given much thought to a new Rambo, and then all of a sudden out of the corner of my eye...BAM! That is EASILY the most fun I've had in a cinema in YEARS (unlike Harry I've never had a reach around in the second row, yuck!). Absolutely reclaimed the character and made him relevant and interesting again. Genius, this is why I have such a boner for Stallone, just when you think he's done...KABOOM! I do have soft spot for Rambo 2 mind, I read James Cameron's original script draft a while ago and that could have been a better movie, you can't deny the excitement of John J. getting to go back and WIN this time. Utter 80's wish fulfilment escapism. It's not even in the same universe as First Blood but it's a good popcorn flick. The only good thing I could say about Rambo 3 is that it wasn't as bad as Rocky 5, end of.
-
Figures. You've gotta twist it into some sort of "I underestimated the guy" completely ignoring the fact that you ridiculed and insulted him based on his looks alone. You called it "the pussification of Conan". And don't act like you were insulting the guy only because of his previous acting ability. Don't act like you watched Stargate or North Shore or anything else he was in- because you didn't- and that's the reason you were insulting. Don't try to twist it for the folks at home. The fact is, you insulted him ONLY based on his looks. You're the worst kind of talkbacker sometimes, going completely off the rails on someone you've got no experience with, and in this case, it was only because of his *looks*. You never said anything about his acting before, and its because you've never really seen the guy act. So its hilarious to see you backtrack and say its nice to see this guy "grow" as an actor as if you've been following his progress for a long time. No one was supporting him because "it was fashionable" and certainly no one did it "blindly on faith". Many, myself included, were simply open-minded about the guy because A) he had the look and B) hadn't really been challenged in this way before, so we hoped for the best. But its funny that you try to insult everyone by saying they supported Momoa early on because it was "fashionable", and yet when did you turn around on the guy? When did you say "hey maybe he can be a good Conan?" Only WHEN IT WAS FASHIONABLE to support the guy bc everyone said he was so great on Game of Thrones. Only *then* did you waver and become open minded about the guy, when everyone else convinced you of it. I've already told you my problem with your position on this. You talk shit about someone in every talkback and base it on the guy's looks, and only when people say he's great and its fashionable to like him do you pull a 180. And again, your complaints about him were based on his looks and how he didn't look like Conan. Yet you praise Arnold's Conan, when he looked nothing like the character as REH described him. That's the hypocrisy, I've already said it before. Yet you choose to ignore that fact. Curious, isn't it? I never said you can't change your mind; I have no idea where you came up with that, I hope you're not confusing me with someone else. But trust me, it does give me great pleasure to see you go from a raving lunatic about someone you've never seen act to somewhat of a supporter only because others told you he was great and you finally decided to see for yourself rather than relying on your past biases. It does show growth. Speaking of which, did you ever see Super 8 yet?
-
Its cool man. No reason to get too riled up and angry.
-
Well that clears things up asimov. "Arguments" (and broad declarative statements) like this are what make debating you a pointless endeavor. 5 minutes of my life, totally wasted. Anyway, this movie looks horrible, so I wont be paying good money to see it. I think i had some other cogent points, but now I forget.
-
Today's contestant ... Rose McGowan. DOES she give anal?
-
Aug. 19, 2011, 10:57 a.m. CST
One problem is the liberal use of the term "masterpiece"
by dahveed1972
The definition isnt "a matter opinion", though the application of said term can be. I merely ask that you grab a dictionary and read it for yourself. If you think it still applies (i.e "First Blood is an absolute masterpiece" or equivalent), then the rest of us - which includes myself, god and his/her angels, all sentient life in the universe, and Pauline Kael - respectfully disagree. The Godfather is a masterpiece. Doctor Strangelove is a masterpiece. The Seven Samurai is a masterpiece. First Blood is a decent movie. Not a masterpiece.
-
Much like Antman, it seems to me that you produce these ill-researched bouts of hateful polemic by simply mashing the keyboard spasmodically with the plastic stick tied to your forehead, while you thrash about in your chair and scream unintelligibly in impotent rage. Is that a fair evaluation of your debating approach? I can only imagine your Khan-out-of-Star-Trek-II style vicious hatred of Momoa is a reflection of some bitter childhood shame - some violation suffered at the hands of an lustful older boy perhaps? Maybe one that looked somewhat like Momoa?? Am I getting warm? You need to move on mate. Life is too short for fussing and fighting - let alone bitterness and self-recrimination about some childhood indignity. That said, I agree with your point about Rambo II and III, which I felt was both intelligent and cogent.
-
Well-played, sir.
-
At 101 and Scottsdale. Big curved screen, stadium seating, great sound system. It's the only good thing about living in Phoenix, which otherwise sucks to high heaven.
-
...I DO appreciate what you're saying. The word "genius" is another that is waved around with wild abandon, rarely appropriately. But if I see a movie as a masterpiece, then I feel rightly justified in calling it that. I MAY have to add "In my opinion" before I go on to say "First Blood is a masterpiece". It's fair to say that not everyone will share my opinion. But the same goes for al the other "masterpieces" that the Kael's and the Siskel's and the Ebert's say that we have to acknowledge without question. Citizen Kane is pretty bloody brilliant, in my opinion, but I know a lot of people who are bored by it. I personally do not see what the hoo-hah about Gone With the Wind is, I've never disliked a so-called "classic" so much in all my life. Pants. If I were going to be locked in a room forever and I could only take one movie, it would be First Blood. Or maybe Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. I can watch those films over and over and over and find new things to love with every viewing. They tapped into something primal in my youthful brain that I still get a buzz out of 20 or 30 years on. That wasn't an accident, I've seen deleted scenes from First Blood that they were right to cut. That would have changed the whole tone of the film for the worse. Little things that a lesser filmaker might not have considered for the chop. Watching it again recently I was amazed at how short it is, the film is as lean as Sly, no fat. The colour palette, the casting. Jerry Goldsmith's score is amongst the best of his life and THAT is a masterpiece in itself! Nope, the film FULLY deserves the accolade to me and I will not restrict my usage of it because Pauline fucking Kael doesn't like it and therefore in your guide it's only 4 stars out of 5. IN MY OPINION.
-
Aug. 19, 2011, 12:22 p.m. CST
Barbarian was awesome. Destroyer sucked. So does this remake.
by Grammaton Cleric Binks
End of discussion.
-
Aug. 19, 2011, 12:27 p.m. CST
This is EXACTLY the review I expected. Right down to the details.
by kevred
You see, we DID get everything we needed to know from the trailers. Everything we speculated about from the trailers is confirmed in this review. I commented some time ago that this looked exactly like a film that had the elements available to be a great Conan film, but that it would fail to deliver them to their potential - which could be even more maddening than an outright bad film. You have a good enough actor. You have good enough production values. You have the time and budget to do what you need to do. You just forget where Conan comes from, you leave out all the heart and soul of the original stories, you think that some Hollywood hacks are better storytellers and dialogue-writers than Howard, and this is what you get. We see it again, and again, and again. And now Conan is another victim.
-
Apocalypto nailed what the tone should be.
-
I don't have a dog in this fight but this review sounds nitpicky and biased
-
TOLD YA BITCHES.since day 1.
-
mudslinging of yours against him.it this not how it goes since you yourself admitted that you were wrong about him?
-
http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmaltin/archives/conan_the_barbarianmovie_review/
-
Aug. 19, 2011, 5:19 p.m. CST
Most of my personal faves are NOT masterpieces, just good movies.
by dahveed1972
That said Lampers, thank you for the specific and coherent argument for your opinion. Im happy not to lump you in with asimovlives. And I agree that the score is excellent. Im still not sure were on the same page, semantically speaking, but I completely accept your view that Milius' Conan is a great movie.
-
Jason Momoa was never in the NFL. You're thinking of Kevin Mawae, who was center for The Titans, Jets and Seahawks, and is now president of the NFLPA. asimovlives - Why is it so absurd to accept Sean Connery's Bond "curing" Pussy Galore of her lesbianism? I did that once, and I'm no Sean Connery! *I also prefer to say "helped change her mind" about lesbianism. Using "cure" in this context is terrible, considering lesbianism isn't truly a disease. Yes. I get that you're being ironic when you referred to Connery "curing" Pussy's "disease" of lesbianism. Jeez, that's alot of trouble to go through to try and be PC. Think I'll stop.
-
I haven't seen him as Conan yet. But after i saw him in GAME OF THRONES, i have little doubts now he can make a good Conan. But it took GAME OF THRONES to do that. I still think he would make a better kushitte then a cimmerian, but he will do nicely.
-
Aug. 19, 2011, 6:01 p.m. CST
Leonard Maltin liked it? That's the kind of thing that causes an instant backlash on me.
by AsimovLives
-
"Im happy not to lump you in with asimovlives." Explain that, if you please.
-
"I did that once, and I'm no Sean Connery!" Bullshit, she was not a real lesbian, she was just in her experimental age. Don't hold yourself so highly on that, mate. And in the era when GOLDFINGER was made, you can bet most men believed that lesbianism was a deseased needing of a cure. And He-Man Connery Bond sure cured that Pussy Galore women of her lesbianism. That's the whole gist of the movie. Is it a terrible thing to think? You fucking bet your ass it is. And that's how people though back then. Back in those Sean Connery as Bond days. Never understimate the chauvinism of that era. MAD MEN have it too easy on it.
-
In the book she is a lesbian. However, in the film it is never established beyond a sly implication that she might be. She says to Bond "You're not my type" and that's pretty much it and that doesn't mean anything. That shows a chauvinism that was about in the 60's - the reluctance or inability to have a lesbian as the heroine in an action adventure film based on a source where the heroine is a lesbian But as an argument against the chauvinism of 60'S era Bond it doesn't really work as all we know in the film is that Bond is not her type - which is open enough to mean anything. So, in the film Connery doesn't cure lesbianism as such as there isn't really any lesbianism to speak of. And, in my opinion, the Connery films actually produced some of the strongest and most believable Bond films and if Connery had stayed on for O.H.M.S.S then there would have been a character arc in his love for Tracey. Anyway, just a point that I felt was worth making :)
-
Thanks for the info :) That's sad news though as animated Conan's would be a brilliant way to adapt the stories.
-
come on to this site and make claims that they have slept with hundreds of women, or cured one of being a carpet muncher. It's a combo of funny, sad, and ironic.
-
Weak script, poor characters, bad casting, wrong tone. It looked good (for the most part) and Jason was perfect as Conan. It was pretty much one long action scene, chase, fight, over and over and over.
-
Watched Stargate Atlantis for a few seasons and they were pushing Momoa as a badass, but the dude was so skinny I just couldn't see it. Gotta hand it to him though ... in both Conan and GoT, he looks effin badass now. Way to hit the gym.
-
Aug. 19, 2011, 9:24 p.m. CST
Just saw Conan the Barbarian (2011) is was very entertaining!
by Stereotypical Evil Archer
Is is a great movie? No. Is it fun? Surprisingly yes. Is it re-watchable? Yes. It perfectly captures the feeling of the old serials from the 40s and 50s, the stuff that inspired Indiana Jones, but does it as a hard rated R action movie. The new version goes from set piece to set piece at a rapid pace in a very contrived manner with little to no transition or geographic logic. The contrived story is way too convenient; and the origin story of young Conan at the beginning suffers the most from this. It is forced to be a revenge story that ties it self up too perfectly. There's several digital matte paintings of fantastic places with Robert E. Howard's original place names, but there is no map. There is no sense of where any of this movie takes place in a regional or global location. The fantastic geography is for the camera; like a single frame of a comic book. Bam. We're somewhere else because it looks crazy or its just plain different from where the story was taking place previously. Oceans are crossed, continents are traversed with a simple edit. Action! There is so much action! The action is filmed and edited just well enough by Nispel. Nothing here is great or outstanding. It's done at the lowest level of competence; but it is indeed competent. The actors do their job well enough. The only standout is Momoa. He's a great Conan. He's much more similar to Robert E. Howard's original character than Schwarzenegger ever was. Although Momoa doesn't have the body of Schwarzenegger's or Frank Frazetta's paintings, Momoa is still huge and intimidating. He has the glowering menace. He has the poise. He has the physicality. The only thing Momoa is missing from Howard's literary character is the straight black hair and the blue eyes. The cinematography goes from great to absolutely horrendous. The same can be said of the special effects. It's too bad they spent money to have the movie in 3D. Had all that money went into more practical effects and refining of the digital effects and better lensing, then the movie would be much better to look at. The production design was surprisingly great. So great that it usually surpassed the mediocre direction of photography and framing. It looked like the old comic books brought to life (except whenever the digital side reared it's ugly blurry pixelated head). The makeup was anywhere from great to ridiculously terrible. There are monsters just for the sake of there being monsters; from human, to sand demons, to your average tentacled dungeon serpent. Somehow these work when they really shouldn't. The fun outweighs the lack of suspension of disbelief. The musical score is there; it functions but it's completely forgettable. When it comes to violence and action, this movies delivers. I read somewhere that onscreen it averages over a KILL PER MINUTE . Yes it does, it may even surpass that average. It's a morbid thing to celebrate, but it's so damn fun. If it bothers you, take a shower after or say some prayers. It's freaking entertaining. Somehow the good outweighs the bad enough to make the film an enjoyable action romp. For a $5.00 matinee it's a lot of entertainment. It doesn't even come close to the greatness of John Milius's version of Conan the Barbarian (1982). That movie is a highly underrated beautiful classic epic about the power of will and its clash with the simultaneous decline and rise of civilizations with one of the greatest movie scores ever recorded. However, the new Conan is much more enjoyable than 1984's Conan the Destroyer, and it's pseudo sequel/spin-off Red Sonja; even despite the soft place in my heart for Red Sonja, I must humbly admit that Nispel's movie is more entertaining. In the end we have a Conan movie that's closer to the Conan from Robert E. Howard's but we're a long ways from perfection. I originally had my doubts before the movie but Momoa is Conan. Give him straight black hair and blue eyes and he'd be perfect. If by some strange reason this movie makes enough to warrant a sequel I hope the story is filled with just as much action, but please, please be much less contrived and less forced. Find a much better cinematographer, a more competent director and a 100 more deaths with practical effects. If you're still reading this, I hope you go to the movie and enjoy it. If you hate it, then you're going to hate that you ever read this. And by Crom, don't see it in 3D, SEE IT IN 2D.
-
Nobody is gonna care.
-
I'd like to say that the Arnold/Milius 1982 was way too campy, to tongue-in-cheek to hold up to a Marvel comic, much less the original Robert E. Howard pulp serials. Momoa is a savage--no two ways about it--and he only becomes a hero as the story progresses. The 3d was so good--I was watching in UltraAVX that a couple of times I thought the cleaning staff had left a potted tree in the aisle! But...so much of the cinematography was video game quality--I actually noted a few UV textures maps on the walls of buildings--that it through me out of the story. And you are right about Nispel not allowing the sword play to tell the story it could have. All these, new, hip directors need to be chained to a chair and forced to watch Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone's battles in 'Robin Hood'; yes, Hollywood, you actually can move the plot forward in an action sequence.
-
I've been reading Conan comics since they first started coming out. I own Conan #1 through about 250 and then from there I have random issues. I've got stacks of Savage Sword of Conan (which I actually liked more) starting at #1. Red Sonja was my hero, I wanted to be like her when I was a kid. As I sat and watched, I could see all of the movie in comic book panels. I could see the dialogue bubbles. This was so much like an old Savage Sword of Conan story that I was just loving it. And Jason Momoa... holy crap. That guy looked like he was cloned from a Conan comic. Arnie was good, I really liked that version and I own it, but Momoa is perfection. He's got that swagger and that arrogance going that Arnie kinda lacked. He also has a sleeker, taller build (I think Arnie is only 5'10") and he's muscular without looking like a professional body builder. He was very convincing with that swords. Also, Jason is 6'4" and he tends to dwarf other people like Conan should. And, omg, the catapult messenger... tell me you didn't totally love that scene. I wish I'd had a back button so I could watch that scene again. I also loved all the exotic cities that were often depicted in the the comics. This was just a really fun Conan comic brought to life on the big screen. I can't wait to see it again.
-
3D gives me horrible headaches and makes my eyes water. What an awesome Conan story that was. I could see myself reading it in a Savage Sword issue.
-
Aug. 20, 2011, 2:36 a.m. CST
This movie would have been better if they had at least sourced some of the original Poledouris soundtrack...
by hiperaktiv
listening to the Basil Poledouris soundtrack, and yes it is a fucking masterpiece. The 'Anvil of Crom' track sends shivers down my spine.
-
I have to admit I get a kick out of you guys and some of the stuff you say. As for Harold's review he described it in his own way. Personally, I have yet to see the new one (I dig the original) since a feeling of the movie PREDATORS is upon me with this movie here and Fright Night ( with which the original cannot be beaten with a buffy writer and Dr. Who.)
-
It's beyond obvious, seen today, that Pussy Galore is supposed to be a lesbian. Her lesbianism is flared up like a red sign. What might had been subtle back in the 60s is beyond obvious now. It was there for those who could see back then, and for those who didn't, they just though Galore was just being an hard-ass on Bond. Back then in the 60s it played both ways. Today, it's beyond obvious the intentions of the filmmakers was to present her as lesbian. They admit as such in the documentaries made about the movie. So, yeah, in GOLDFINGER, bond cures Galore's lesbianism thanks to injections of his man-meat and a few well place jabs and throw around in the hay. I'm sorry if that ruins your enjoyment of the Connery Bond movies, but you have to acdept the fact all of his Bond movies are notoriously chauvinistic and sexist, as they were movies of their time. When people started dogmatically hailing Connery's bond movies as the best, they should had had been more careful. Because there is a nasty serpent in that bond paradise.
-
Aug. 20, 2011, 4:22 a.m. CST
stereotypical evil archer, i read it, and i thank you for your post review.
by AsimovLives
I ssupect i'll not have the same positive opinion of the movie, however. It's a gut feeling i have.
-
...I was ranting about First Blood. I'm so far off-topic I don't know what day of the week it is! I do like it though, especially Thulsa Doom.
-
Aug. 20, 2011, 7:39 a.m. CST
No one "dogmatically" hails Connery's Bond as being the best, Asi
by D.Vader
Its just the majority opinion, most places you look. Stop assuming, Asimov, that because people don't agree with you, they're doing it without thinking, only doing it "dogmatically" or because its "fashionable". That's a completely foolish, completely arrogant, and completely ignorant viewpoint.
-
I love that writer. Apocalyto is the most "howardian" (?) movie ever.
-
Aug. 20, 2011, 8:55 a.m. CST
asimovlives, yes, I don't expect you to like it.
by Stereotypical Evil Archer
I think I wrote that review to discover why I enjoyed it. Because I'm very surprised I did. There's so much wrong with it. There's so much that should have been done differently. My usual critical self somehow had a good time. Asi, I sure as Hell don't expect you to like it.
-
Sorry mate but no, you haven't spoiled my enjoyment of the Connery films or in fact tempered that enjoyment. Connery was a charismatic power house when playing Bond and as you say the films are of their time and even if they weren't then they are still films that have a character who is built around his actions and flaws. I don't deny that the films are very muscular chauvinistic male orientated films but perversely I find Moore and Brosnan films worse in that respect. Sure, they may have had women who were tough secret agents (but the women also had to be rescued by Bond) and also as Moore got older with one exception his female leads didn't and that is far creepier. However - the reason that I like Connery's Bond films better than any of the others is that they have tremendous scripts, some brilliant direction and some great performances. The production design is exemplary and the soundtracks are just perfection.
-
....where Harry is hoping that a sequel to a remake that is mediocre movie at best for the the hope that it can be slightly better. I'm tired of all these remakes..
-
Aug. 20, 2011, 1:08 p.m. CST
LOL it's in 4th place behind Spy Kids. Crom laughs and demands KING CONAN!!
by DrPain
King Conan will make money and would have been number 1. People know Arnold and his Conan. They don't want to see shaky cam movie of the week staring that dude from that lame ass cancelled stargate b spin-off.
-
Aug. 20, 2011, 1:39 p.m. CST
My fav headline from a critic "Conan is a Barbaric Bore"
by Orionsangels
-
I liked it a lot more than The Phantom Bore. I fall asleep watching that movie today. AOTC while not great. At least had some connection to the classic movies. They show the birth of the Stormtroopers. The Deathstar plans. Something to remind you it's Star Wars and not Dinotopia. You have Jango Fett who's like Boba Fett. Slave 1 battling in an asteroid field. Hundreds of Jedi battling in a war. Yoda Fights with a Lightsaber! Almost no Jar Jar! The only thing TPM had was Darth Maul. That's why young fanboys hold it in such regard. He's barely in the movie though and dies like a chump.
-
We follow Conan through his life as a reaver, pirate, mercenary, etc until the last film Conan the King. But no. Everyone in charge of the cool shit on this planet sucks. Terribly. I mean they suck- terribly.
-
Oliver Stone would make a bada$$ un-compromised Conan. With flesh eating creatures and he would shoot it in a German forest. That is the true CONAN. This movie looks to SyFy channel. I won't be going!
-
Coneman the mullbarian.
-
Momoa did a bang up job as Conan. I do feel that he needed to add about 20 more lb. of muscle, and the deliberate downplaying of Conan's strength was a definite fault. However, no one's ever put Howard's work this accurately on screen(Even though it wasn't that accurate, but it's the best anyone's seen so far!). To me, it did seem to capture the wild spirit of Howard's tales, even if it wasn't fleshed out enough. It had its faults, but it was just so much fun, and an wonderful popcorn movie.
-
I talked a lot of shit and said you'd never make a good Conan. I was wrong. You were great. (Still need to add more muscle.)You owned it.
-
Aug. 20, 2011, 6:35 p.m. CST
So very, very typical of AICN (and Harry, especially)
by SierraTangoFoxtrotUniform
Movies that tickle the financial fancy of AICN or at least let them in on something get positive reviews (see the oft maligned Alpha Dog and The Expendables for example). If Harry has met someone on a movie he doesn't like, it gets a barely passing grade (see this movie). Yes, this is all old news to us, but I can't help to keep bringing it up in an attempt to remind or shine a new light on Harry for people coming here. Point is: DO NOT TRUST HARRY...for anything! He has sold his soul to the studios and instead of being a rebel like he once was, he's now the ankle-grabbing whore to the studio's every whim.
-
Aug. 20, 2011, 6:36 p.m. CST
Too bad the studios didn't send Harry a replica Conan sword -- then we'd get a super positive review!
by SierraTangoFoxtrotUniform
-
After all the derision I expected something more akin to Punisher: Warzone in terms of being bombastic and over-the-top so needless to say I was amazed at how much of the mythos and characterization this film got right. It’s not perfect and some of the edges are undeniably rough but what has been put to celluloid (or digital) here is a far closer approximation of the source material than the Milius’ flick. The opening with Conan as a kid was perfect and establishes him not as some child easily enslaved but as a tiny warrior eager to become the type of man his father was. I also love that the Cimmerians are shown as genuine badasses instead of some pathetic tribe easily slain. The fact that Conan is literally born on the battlefield and is trained in steel by his father makes him the product of his bloodline and culture rather than some orphan raised and trained by others. Momoa nails the character perfectly and while some have alluded to the need for a physically larger Conan there are two things to consider: his size (which is still fairly large) works well in tandem with a more agile “panther-like” Conan and this particular tale takes place early in Conan’s life, thus him being smaller and not massive would actually make sense. Regardless, I’ve seen plenty of artists render the character in proportions equal to Momoa so it’s hardly a deal-breaker. I also love the sheer brutality of the film and the constant references to the expansive mythology, including the Heart of the Elephant and a creature straight out of Lovecraft’s Cthullu mythos. The problem of course isn’t that the film is bad but rather people insist on placing it up against the Milius film, which is essentially its own tale with little concern or bearing on the Howard cannon. Personally, I appreciate both but I prefer this new film because it actually respects the source material and strives to emulate it. I think most Howard fans (or fans of the comics and expanded novels) will enjoy this film though I’m not surprised to hear it’s doing poorly. Regardless, I finally got a Conan film that does the source material justice so I’m content. (I did miss that wonderful original score however)
-
This is pretty damn off-topic, but I recently hit the ground running on "Game of Thrones." My school semester starts on Monday so I wanted to check it out before then, see if I could get invested in it. I watched all 10 episodes on demand... in less than 2 days. Fucking amazing, amazing stuff. And I've since gone out and bought the first book, and I'm about 200 pages into it already. It is officially my new pop culture obsession. Damn you, Mr. George R.R. Martin... you've just murdered any drive I could've had in my school work. I can't wait until my professors start getting e-mails saying "sorry, can't come to class today. Just bought 'A Clash of Kings.'"
-
A "Slithering Shadow" adaptation would be incredible, but a Pay Cable series accurately based on Howard's Conan mythos would be more incredible. Howard fans, could you imagine looking forward to that kind of stuff every week? The mere thought sends me into geekgasms.
-
They will actually be dropping out for the semester, because you can't stop at Clash of Kings ...
-
Aug. 20, 2011, 9:13 p.m. CST
I lowered my expectations, based on this site, and thank CROM I did because it liked it.
by Dr.Atropine
People, this is not literature, this is CONAN. I loved the action, the dismemberment, the beheadings, and the hemicorporectomy. I do recommended some pre-parting prior to watching this and going it with a primal mindset. If you can do this the movie works. Just my 2 cents.
-
LLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMMME!
-
Aug. 20, 2011, 10:27 p.m. CST
Legendary Pictures + Don Murphy + Fox = genre destroyers
by chien_sale
Fox has had history with wasting great genre movies before. How about Murphy and Legendary Pictures? taking genre progects and turning them into pieces of shit. Transformers, GI Joes, Watchmen, Conan. Everything they touch turns to shit. That's because they turn to shit people to make them. Zack Snyder must really have dirty pictures of the guys at Legendary: made the loud and stupid 300, turned Watchmen into crap, coned people into making Sucker Punch and now will crap on the legacy of Superman. The Batman franchise was good DESPITE Legendary!
-
Aug. 20, 2011, 10:31 p.m. CST
"Damsels in distress" now going into battle - political correctness gone crazy?
by GibsonUSA Returns
I have never seen the original Conan.<BR> But first we have Maid Marion in a suit of armor going into battle in the new Robin Hood movie...and now here we have Conan's love interest, this slender young "monk" woman, taking down multiple SOLDIERS with a little knife! When the attackers invade the city, there she is in here white dress, whipping out the knife and taking down one SOLDIER, then ANOTHER, and then posing with it.<BR> Then on the ship she takes down more soldiers. And whenever Conan tries to command her, she gives him this "umm, okay?" look. She's just the modern gal, isn't she?<BR><BR> I'm not saying females need to be helpless damsels. In fact, in this movie there were indeed female warriors and archers. But they made this "monk" lady way too strong. She's no soldier, and shouldn't be taking down multiple large men with a little knife.
-
Just got back from a Saturday night show and I enjoyed the shit out of it. I'm not sure what exactly people are expecting from this movie. Some of the dialogue is weak and the plot is kinda simplistic but so was the the Arnold version, which some people are looking back on with way too much nostalgia. It hasn't held up well at all, although I agree the score is classic. Momoa is a great Conan, like anyone who saw Game of Thrones knew he would be. I also liked Rose McGowan as the creepy daughter of the villain. There was just something disturbing about her and her relationship with her dad that gave me the creeps. I'm not sure how this movie will end up doing in theaters but I get the feeling this will do really well overseas so maybe we'll get a sequel if we're lucky.The 3-D was decent but I don't think anyone will miss out seeing it in 2D.
-
Aug. 21, 2011, 12:02 a.m. CST
Movie SUCKED. Do you know what the difference between this film and Milius's?...
by DrPain
When I watched this new one today, I sat there, bored out of my mind of the played out "action" every damn three minutes. I didn't care about any of the characters and the plot, story and dialogue was weak. And why was Conan screaming like an idiot all the time? What was the point of that stupid mask?? It wasn't like it made him stronger or anything. Unless he wanted the power of looking stupid. I was just bored. Boring story, boring characters, boring action, boring SCORE. I really had some hope Tyler Bates would step up and prove he was capable of creating something great, on the level of his 300 score that he plagiarized, I really thought he would try to redeem himself after that fiasco, boy was I wrong. I can watch Milius's Conan a million more times and I'll always have a smile on my face. Why? Because it's just a damn awesome movie to behold. This new film is on the same level as The Scorpion King. I'm glad to see it come in 4th place, let's hope that means no sequels. Conan can now only be rebooted or get King Conan: Crown of Iron made with Arnold.
-
http://io9.com/5832738/a-few-rules-you-should- follow-before-watching-conan-the-barbarian
-
Aug. 21, 2011, 1:47 a.m. CST
1982 Conan enjoyable but not great with lots of flaws mainly a lack of respect for the source material
by eman1111
I was 18 when I saw Conan in the theatre in 1982 a freshman in college. I had read the series of 12 Conan books edited by L. Sprauge De Camp, and Lin Carter. They also wrote a couple of stand alones, book 6 and 11 if memory serves. But mostly what they did was edit Howard's Conan stories and put them in chronological order. These were really fun books with lots of great short Conan stories. Violent, intense, fun, powerful and imaginative. In short lots of great stuff for a good screenwrite to adapt to film. Unfortunately outside of the score, which was fantastic and resides on my Ipod to be listened to when I want to motivate myself at the gym, there were a lot of flaws with the movie. They made changes they didn't have to make and fucked up Conan's origin so bad it was ridiculous. Arnie was just too slow and nowhere near fierce enough to really pull of Conan. While the director pulled in some parts of the Conan legend the story they cobbled together was so much weaker than every single one of Howard's stories it boggles the mind that they used it. All that being said I did enjoy the movie when it first came out and do think of it as the best fantasy film up to that time, but see it more as a fantasy movie and not a Conan movie. You can dress someone up and say he is Conan, but that doesn't make him or the film a good representation of what Conan should be. When you see LOTR and see just how great a fantasy film can be and guys that was more about the directing and acting and the amazing adaptation of the source material than the special effects, than you realize how far the 1982 version of Conan failed to even come close to the source material. I am not saying that the Conan stories rival Tolkien in quality, but they are really good and deserve better than what the 82 film brought to the table. So all of you defending the 1982 version like it was some sort of amazing cinematic achivement are barking up the wrong tree. If you want to say it was fun, enjoyable, entertaining than I can see that, but a great Conan movie no fucking way! It veers way too far from the source material for that and like I said any of Howard's short stories are way better than the story they put together for Conan 82.
-
He's a terrible film director. Good music videos.. horrible movies.
-
Ok, I liked 1983's DEATHSTALKER better than the original Conan. Or, maybe I just at liked Barbie Benton's T&A. Honestly, there were enough laughs (some intentional), mayhem, and boobs in DEATHSTALKER to satisfy any Swords and Sorcery fan. And yes, I really did fall asleep in the theater when I saw Conan in '83. But then it was a Friday afternoon, I was tired and.....well.....I don't have many good memories of it. But Barbie Benton in her prime!? Oh, man.
-
God what a dweebie bunch of pathetic little shits. I don't know whether you are just trolling or really just have that bad a taste in movies. But if you call yourselves swords and sorcery fans yet dislike the original Conan then it's one or other of the Goddamn two. I honestly believe that some people were put on earth to be a reverse barometer. Not sure about something? Ask them, then do the opposite of whatever they say. They have achieved perfection in being fucking wrong about everything. Then there are those that sadly, pathetically think that claiming to dislike movies that are widely acknowledged as great makes them unique, special, cool, edgy, or some radical yet deep thinker. No, it just makes you look like a fucking retard. The original Conan is a great movie. Is Arnold a great actor? No, but then that's the beauty of the role of Conan. Hell I doubt he speaks 100 words in the whole film. But he sure as hell had the look and presence to pull it off. It had a good script. James Earl Jones was a fantastic villain. And the sound track is one of the best ever attached to a film of any genre, fantasy or otherwise. If you can't see that then perhaps you should just let this whole genre go. It's obviously not your bag. Oh, and on a parting note. I am convinced that even God is so sick of hearing people whine about a movie straying from some prior written material that he has fashioned a special anal retentive, book purist, sub section of hell. A place where these particularly irritating little shits are bend over a rail while a demonic Jar Jar Binks squirts lighter fluid on his dick, ignites it and fucks them up the ass as they squeal about how Conan should really have blue eyes, Dobby was really the one that told Harry about Gilley weed, or Arwen wasn't speaking the proper form of elvish in this one scene.
-
Have simply not read the Punisher comics it was meant to evoke. Aside from a bit of a monologue from Frank towards the end, the movie is a note-perfect adaptation of the Garth Ennis MAX punisher series.
-
Aug. 21, 2011, 10:37 a.m. CST
There's nothing wrong about respecting source material
by TheLastCleric
If you’re going to adapt a character and his subsequent mythos for a film it makes sense to actually include those elements that make the character compelling. To be fair I see a major difference between bitching about eye color than noting more fundamental aspects of the character being omitted and I expect any adaptation to make certain concession and alterations for the purpose of a transmission from one medium to another. I certainly don’t hate the ‘82 Conan and considering the era it was made it holds up fairly well but the fact remains that many of the alterations made to the character render the Milius Conan something entirely removed from the lengthy and storied history of the character as he has appeared in literature and comics. Milius wrote Conan as a simplistic man and a bit of a cement-head whose entire pedigree of combat experience comes from somewhere other than his own tribe. Making Conan a slave is the equivalent of making Batman a killer and while it doesn’t render the Milius film moot or bad there’s nothing wrong with wanting a film that more closely captures the true spirit of a beloved character. I appreciate both films but I frankly prefer the new film because not only is it a mostly well-made flick but the writers and directors understand and emulate the source material far better. However, I still think the Milius film deserves continuous praise given that it was made in 1982 during a time when concern over adapting source material was nonexistent. Like Burton’s Batman, Milius doesn’t shit all over the source material but rather creates something that is separate from the established mythos while still paying it a great tribute.
-
Aug. 21, 2011, 10:58 a.m. CST
Miike from 13 Assassins...stop effing around. Oh and I guess it's OK to keep the "BROM"-style art direction as that fits right in with Miike's twisted mind.
by Boober
Sometimes things can be so simple. Why does Hollywood eff it up so badly and so often?
-
cringeworthy
-
Aug. 21, 2011, 1:32 p.m. CST
=Conan tries to command her, she gives him this "umm, okay?" look.=
by KilliK
he should bitch slap her at once.and then make her give him a blowjob.after all he is the goddamn Batman sorry Conan.
-
I know the assumption has always been that it's a proven way to make money instead of risking it on a new idea that people may or may not like. But as just someone who kinda pays attention to the box office, I never feel like remakes make the money they're supposed to. So I don't see how it justifies continuing to greenlight remakes that no one wants, when they don't seem to be any more successful than something new. Are they making money in some other way, like overseas or on video, that justifies them after they bomb?
-
he is the main reason i am going to watch it.that and the boobs.
-
See it for Jason, he's the only good thing in the movie.
-
Aug. 21, 2011, 4:51 p.m. CST
Every woman is depicted not in terms of the value of her as a character but by who she's slept with and how easily, as well as how attractive they are
by nostairway
I hate to break this to you, but with the exception of the last 100 years or so that's essentially how women have been treated throughout world history. In fact in many third-world nations women are still treated like that. I'm not defending it, simply saying that it's the way things always were. Change doesn't happen overnight, even in Hyboria.
-
Aug. 21, 2011, 6:36 p.m. CST
Oddly enought you can actually put some of the blame for this on Brett Ratner
by TheAD
While Nispel's directing might not be particularly good, everyone pretty much hated the script for this. The producers thus decide to get a rewrite/new script. They hire the Outlander/ Rise of the Lycans guys (Blackman and McCain) to write it. They love R.E. Howard and wanted to do the script justice. Meanwhile Brett Ratner wants to direct the Conan movie... So he reads the script everyone hates and decides he loves it!!! What the hell! Anyway so production goes ahead with the original script and Blackman and McCain have to rework their ideas to be a sequel script to the script everyone hates. However, Ratner drops out and they hire Nispel to take over where Ratner left off. Now I don't know if they will still use Blackman and McCain's script for a sequel or not and we also have Momoa trying to say he's come up with the idea for the sequel... It's all a big shame.
-
...starring Arnold Schwarzenegger was the only Conan movie I had any interest in seeing. The original Conan is still a delight to watch. The spot-on casting, memorable (and quotable) dialogue, cinematography and incredible score serve to make Conan the Barbarian truly a classic of the genre. To this day, whenever I come across the movie, regardless of act or scene, I stop to watch. I usually can't tear myself away until I see Conan lop off the head of the evil Thulsa Doom!
-
Aug. 21, 2011, 8:36 p.m. CST
I don't think we'll see another CONAN movie in the theater for a long time.
by THE_CHOPPAH
If at all. You don't need CHOPPAH to tell you that there's some legitimate potential in the stories. Just think if they had gotten this one right. Oh well. We'll always have the Milius-Arnie version, the GONE WITH THE WIND of barbarian pictures.
-
Aug. 21, 2011, 8:48 p.m. CST
Ha! US$10 millions first weekend. Good. That will teach them.
by drompter
-
Aug. 21, 2011, 10:54 p.m. CST
I think this film failed largely because of the titanically bad marketing campaign.
by kevred
I mean, constant hacking with swords, horrible nu-metal music, a horse getting punched in the face and young girls being threatened with violence... ...did they really want no women at all in the theater? Apart from that (and apart from the seemingly poor quality of the film itself), in many places, it's the week that school starts. Which means that college kids are busy, and younger kids are seeing movies with mom & dad. Which means grotesque sword & sorcery films go to the bottom of the list. Open this a week earlier or later, it scores another $5 million easily, maybe even doubles its gross. Promote it better, or have marketing that isn't just one-dimensional (hmm, how many girls do you think went for that standing-on-a-hill-of-skulls poster?). But in the end, you had a pretty ugly movie fronted by an unknown, filled with a cast of unknowns, with a fairly ugly and crude marketing campaign. What did they expect?
-
In the 1982 original. I didnt like this new Conan movie. Just kind of boring. I didnt care for the characters or what happened to them. Too much cgi everywhere. Momoa's perm bothered me but he did a good job. Now we wont get a real Conan movie for 10 years. And Morgan Freeman? What the hell?
-
Waited a long time for this one to finally be made. Momoa was great and IS Conan. I kept thinking to myself, I wish they could re-edit the 82 classic with Momoa in it and not Ahnold. This shit was pointless and the fucking octopus mask the main villian wanted was also pointless. It had no power at all. Shaky cam action scenes also sucked BUT when u were able to see Momoa fighting his swordplay looked amazing!
-
Repulsive film, horrible script, horrendous suporting actors. Momoa not bad. Nispel's work is an insult to Howard and his world.
-
Aug. 22, 2011, 6:24 a.m. CST
CONAN Doesn't Stand Around Making Tough Guy Faces and Poses
by Autodidact
This is Conan for WWE fans. I finally figured out what's bothering me about every poster, picture, and bit of footage I see from this movie: In every instance, Conan is highly posed, like a WWE wrestler. He's always mean-mugging, trying to look pissed off, big and dangerous. He's spreading his lats, holding his palms wide, and always sporting that practiced scowl. I can't look at it now without thinking about all the stupid aspects of wrestling (e.g. every aspect). A barbarian with massive strength and deadly skill would never put so much effort into *looking* mean and pissed off. Compare to Schwarzenegger's Conan, who never put on a face for any reason. The true face of strength never wears a mask.
-
That's who this shit reminds me of.
-
And directed by the guy who did PATHFINDER? Both those movies: A) take place almost entirely in the grass and mud of a forest B) claim to be moving the story around but it's all the same little patch of woods C) have very intriguing premises that go almost nowhere D) have an odd sense of pacing like getting a story from an autistic kid I could go on. I can't believe the OUTLANDER guy is also involved. Who else is involved, Albert Pyun?
-
a 100 million budget Conan to the Pathfinder guy? Pathfinder was O.K., it wasn't completely terrible, but it was obvious from the start of this project it was gonna be over his head.
-
Aug. 22, 2011, 9:34 a.m. CST
The fact this movie is shit sees a surprise because?
by Arkhaminmate001
Everyone and their mom knew this movie was going to rival GL for crap movie of the year. At least Arnie's movies were actually FUN to watch.
-
Aug. 22, 2011, 10:03 a.m. CST
@autodidact No, the Outlander guys' script got pushed into possible sequel status
by TheAD
Brett Ratner made them use the Original script that everyone hated and then left the project for Nispel to take over.
-
So I guess this means Rod "Commander in Chief" Lurie's Straw Dogs will make about 2 bucks in theaters.
-
...before it has become. Don't you understand the plan, Mr. Man? Didn't you sing the song, Mrs. Long? Ohhhhhhhhh...Ohhhhhhh...
-
Just like Marky Mark as Thor, you have these beefy characters played by pencil necked geeks. Not convinced.
-
Posters 1,2, 3 and 4 sucked, Trailer #1 sucked, Trailer #2 sucked: Let's do the maths..oh yeah, easy: The movie sucks. How did we not see it coming..
-
I fully second this motion. You nailed it. Conan Wrestlemania.
-
Momoa ... speaks in one of those trying-too-hard baritones heard in young jocks whose greatest fear is being called gay.
-
Saw Conan tonight. Not a bad sword and sorcery movie, complete with necromancer, damsel in distress and Lovecraftian creature. Lots of shallow violence, revenge and growling barbarians. But still (like the Schwarzenegger/Milius movies) a missed opportunity at bringing R. E. Howard on the big screen. Crom is barely mentioned. Conan is played by a non-Caucasian with no blue eyes and frizzly hair. Lenses and straightener were out of the budget or political correctness imposed this to make sure critics didn't play the racial card on the movie. The plot mentions Howardian stories but has no real elements of any. The idea that barbarism is the natural state of man and that civilized folks are pussies is just exposed by Conan's political-correctness/tokenism-imposed black friend, not shown by Conan's actions in the movie. Conan does not really interact with civilized people. There's an unnecessary "origin" story which also plagued the Schwarzy movies. Everything else is good to watchable-- I liked the action scenes, the magic felt howardian, the mask and creature design are positively lovecraftian (I hoped for an elder sign to appear somewhere and that would have made the film better for geeks and would have not impacted the enjoyment of the movie by the unwashed masses). How would I have written the movie? Like episodic flashbacks told around a campfire by someone who knew him, with a final twist -- piece together several things you saw in the episodes and you can guess the ending. Conan shows up for an action finale that involves the person the story has been told to, then disappears again. All the episodes would have been faithful to Howard's plots-- I would have certainly used Tower of the Elephant and Red Nails. Keeping Aquilonian stuff for a sequel. But nobody's paying me to write blockbusters so I'll shut my big trap.
-
There was nothing barbaric about this movie, well maybe the fact that it was actually made! If it was called something like Baywatch the Warrior, ok maybe I would MIGHT have let it pass, but this is Conan-THE BARBARIAN we're talking about here! This Conan was never anything like what we would imagine a barbarian to be like, and as some people already pointed out, this guy is more of a wrestler/model TRYING to be a muscle-bound warrior. But here's what really annoyed me; why is it called Conan the Barbarian if through out the movie he was called Cimmerian?!?! It might be me, but if I'm going to see a movie about a barbarian I want to see a barbarian! Not some some watered down version doesn't come close to it! But the biggest thing failure of this movie is that it was not fun. As "cheesy" and flawed as Arnie's Conan movies(Yes! that includes The Destroyer as well) they were still fun! This one was just too...Twilighty. And Harry, a turd is still a turd even if its small.
-
Seriously - has anyone? Have they missed that completely? I am genuinely curious...the movie is a hit and word of mouth on Rise of the Apes has been good...but its unusual for AICN not to review something...or have I missed it?
-
I haven't seen the movie yet but I've been a Momoa fan for a while. I had a feeling he would be a good Conan but with the mixed reviews, I guess I'll see. If you haven't seen Stargate Atlantis...you should.
-
You mean the CITIZEN KANE of barbarian movies. Unless you want the movie to be associated with a classic with unfortunate racist connotations.
-
Which is pretty lame.
-
Rightfull fury put into words. I applaude you, sir.
-
You will never see me crticising the Connery's Bond movies scores, that's for sure. And yes, many times the dialogues were pearls of witticism. So, we have common ground in them. And yes, it wasn't just the Connery movies that were chauvinistic, unfortunatly. Personally, i loved the way Timothy Dalton and Daniel Craig played Bond. I can believe those two guys as killers on a government pay who can pose as sophisticated playboys. Connery and Moore played playboys who seem to play at spies as an hobby sponsored by the goverment as a big rich daddy. And call me a fool but i have a soft spot for , in my view, the terribly underrated George Lazemby and his Bond movie.
-
Yes, it's the majority opinion. As so was when at a time most people accused Blade Runner as being a bad movie because it failed at the box office. Do majority opinion counts for me? Not that much. How often i have seen people speaking of Connery's Bond movies as being he best just because they have Connery in it? Too often to count. If i have a buck for each of those dogmatic souls, i would be rich beyond my wildest dreams.
-
Just got back from seeing Conan. While I will never say it was the greatest movie of all time (the ending was very troubled), it was 10,000 times better than the Arnold/Milius SNOREfest from '82. Conan fought (ALOT), showed a HUGE degree of intelligence (in comparison to Arnold's.....whatever the fuck Arnold was SUPPOSED to be...sure as hell wasn't Conan), whored, and fought some more. ANNNND......didn't become pussywhipped over the woman at the end. All told, ALOT closer to actual CONAN than Milius/Stone ever dreamed. Momoa *IS* Conan. While it's unlikely he'll ever get a chance to play the role again (thanks to the turds that grew up watching Arnold's Viking drama), I'll at least have this one movie that got closer to Conan than any other movie or television show ever has.
-
Arnold was WAY to big. There is NO WAY in hell I would EVER believe that Arnold could move swiftly and with any sense of balance with his muscles balooned out with steroids. Subotai would have danced rings around Arnold's CONAN (that's if Arnold could have gotten those arm-ring life preservers moving at all). Really annoyed at ANYONE who says that barbarians should be steroid-kings. They are fighters. I've never seen ANY boxer, martial-artist, true wrestler, or any other practitioner of combat look like they would win the Mr. Universe.
-
and I fear that the same will happen with John Carter. that actor seems to have the tendency to make this kind of noise.
-
Except the execution in direction. The cast is game, the art direction and production design actually inspired and everything looks and sounds like it's supposed to. It's also not toothless in that modern movie way and that is to its credit. The editing is terrible. The fighting is cool but you don't get to see much of it. I've re-listened to bits of the score since seeing it and it sure sounds appropriate but it was left no imprint on me while watching the movie. I think that's because the movie never gives it any room to bond with the visuals. There are some great fantasy vistas and I agree Momoa is good (and Lang and McGowan are too) though I wish he'd have been given more character scenes. The script (or what survives of it to the screen) doesn't give him enough character to bond with. The movie is getting disproportionately slammed. If you like this sort of thing it's not a complete affront but you will be frustrated by alll the good bits apparently not working together to make something great.
-
kind of sucked. The numbers prove this fact.
-
Aug. 25, 2011, 5:59 p.m. CST
The original Conan movie was garbage. Geeks are the bitter and horrible arbiters of taste.
by Grant
-
Conan 1982: 77% Conan 2011: 22% The critics AND geeks have spoken.
-
I thought the "Goodbye Horses" scene was disturbing enough in The Silence of the Lambs. I never needed to see Harry's fat, disgusting, animated ass parading around with a tucked dong at the top of his site. I'm going to go stab my eyeballs out with a pencil now.
-
But it is in a deleted scene tbat takes place right before the mass combat scene at the stone ruins near the end. You should you tube it. Its pretty good. I have the extended edition dvd and it intergrates all the deleted scenes back in. The convo between conan and subotai is pretty good.
-
The critics and geeks have absolutely no fucking clue who Conan is. Because it sure as hell wasn't Arnold Schwarzengger.
-
I know, no-one mentions this turd of a sequel, but hey, 2 things spring to mind : There's one bit of awesomeness in that movie ( and I'm not talking about the part where the evil queen's robe reveals that she's not wearing underwear ) , I'm talking about the part where Arnie swings his sword in those fancy circles, then swings it behind his back and into his hands again. EPIC !!!! Does Mamoa do any cool sword slinging in this rehash ?
-
Not really, because he's too busy using the sword to actually KILL people (like Conan is SUPPOSED to). He DOES pose with it....once.
-
...a crap film with a hack director just because he get the 'little' details right. I know Howard's stories backward and forward. Sure, I can pat myself on the back because I know all of those little details...but in the end it means shit if the movie just paints by numbers.<p> Momoa may be the best thing about the film. That leaves about 90% of the elements still needed to make a good film.
-
It stands on it's own even today.
-
I'm interested in reading some of the books. Where should I start? There must be some kind of order, right?
-
I still have the paperback versions I bought as a kid. Frank Frazzetta art work on the covers... the first one simply titled Conan and the following being Conan Of Cimmeria, Conan The Freebooter etc. <p> Each is a collection of four or five stories that originally appeared in old pulp magazines of the day. You can jump around chronologically...there's no real story line running through them all...just separate, individual adventures that stand alone. Pure pulp. Make sure they're by Robert E. Howard though because I believe other authors continued with the property. Cheers!
-
There were three recently released tradepaperbacks of the Robert E. Howard Conan stories. Look for these books as they are the UNTOUCHED Robert E. Howard stories and feature Conan as he was originally seen. They are; THE COMING OF CONAN THE CIMMERIAN; THE BLOODY CROWN OF CONAN: and THE CONQUERING SWORD OF CONAN.
-
Most Conan stories are in the public domain in USA so you can save a few bucks by reading the ebooks here: http://www.feedbooks.com/books/search?query=howard
-
I added all the books mentioned to my amazon 'wishlist' so I don't forget them. I'll start off with the free ones mentioned though, as I'm a cheapskate. Thanks again for the help, it's much appreciated!
-
Yep, still rules. And my love for the score deepens every time. Especially the quieter moments.
-
The current incarnation is not a movie, it's LARPing
-
Not for this or any other reboot crap because the idiots in Hollywood REFUSE to pay writers for anything original. F U Michael Bay BTW.
-
Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!
-
Sept. 14, 2011, 7:03 p.m. CST
It should be out on video any day now. Orcus wanted to see it in the theater but he was sick that day
by orcus
-
Nov. 15, 2011, 12:27 a.m. CST
Easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen
by WINONA_RYDERS_PUSSY_JUICE
The dialogue is fucking god-awful. The acting isn't too bad, Momoa is a decent enough Conan. The story/pacing/script is ubelievably horrible. For 1/2 the movie I was trying to give it a chance but it just gets worse and worse, then when you don't think it can possibly get any worse there's the end, which is the worst end to an action movie ever in the history of cinema. Complete and total shit film. But it's one of those "so bad it's good" movies in some ways, so it has that going for it.
-
<*)))>< leviciousfishus ><(((*>
-
><(((*>
-
Rented the blu-ray.. Gave up just short of an hour in. Disjointed, charmless, and the lead actor annoys the living shit out of me with his eyebrow based acting style.
Top Talkbacks
- Christopher Nolan maybe, could be, might be, directing the next BOND film!?!?! -- 356 total posts 356 posts
- Spike Lee to strike GOLD!! -- 153 total posts 118 posts
- Harry gets seriously geeky on the very geeky cool STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS! Can't wait for the next one! & See this again! -- 1292 total posts 105 posts
- New PACIFIC RIM Trailer Takes A Battleship Upside The Head Of Every Other Summer Movie Trailer! -- 243 total posts 61 posts
- Monty Cristo Says STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Took the Bold Path -- 382 total posts 56 posts
- Last minute red-band trailer for THE HANGOVER PART III released! -- 115 total posts 54 posts
- Who wants to see some footage from the set of GODZILLA!?! -- 52 total posts 52 posts
- Michelle Yeoh to return for CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON 2: THE GREEN DESTINY!! Set to begin filming soon! -- 131 total posts 50 posts
- LAST THURSDAY OF SWEEPS!! The Last OFFICE Ever!! New HANNIBAL, WIPEOUT & ANGER!! Finales For ELEMENTARY, BANG, IDOL, GREY’S, SCANDAL, VAMPIRE & BEAST!! Kirk On KIMMEL!! Spock On CONAN!! Herc’s Thursday TV Talkback!! -- 125 total posts 49 posts
- Capone reviews STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS and considers the art of messing with canon and why it doesn't bother him!!! -- 40 total posts 40 posts