I love sword and sandal mythology films--in theory. But only Harryhausen's films left me feeling mostly satisfied.
I re-watched the 82 Conan the other day and was as underwhelmed as in previous viewings.
A star-making role for Arnuld sure, but he comes across as a boring Conan.
And James Earl Jones was a dull bad guy.
I think it was a missed opportunity given the budget and resources. It wasnt REH's Conan. Or Marvel's Conan. If it was trying to be like a spaghetti western meets peplum I think it failed miserably. Conan didnt show the kind of intelligence or direction of the story that an Eastwood gunfighter had.I think it needed a better script, a little more Harryhausen fantasy spectacle-and that includes the casting of the women roles. Both Conan and Clash of the Titans (I mean the 81 version not the cinematic travesty vomited forth in 2010) had a princess chained to a pillar but one really outshines the other. Milius and DeLaurentis had an unusual definition of pretty I guess.
It left me with gigantic melancholies and tiny mirths.
The opening sequences where we see the forging of the sword and where young Conan is being told by father of the Giants stole the secret of Steel from the Gods it sets the tone of the film quite nicely. The film in some ways does catch he the feel of Conan and his world. for Conan enslavement, trials and tribulation and his quest for vengeance against Thulsa Doom could fit in with the mythos of Conan. The film had some really great sword fight and battle sequences The raid on Thulsa doom's stronghold Conan and companions quite exciting and the trap that Conan set for Thulsa doom and his henchmen The film did well enough a the box office to pave the way for a sequel. As for James Earl Jones , He turned in a very good performance as Thula Doom . And Arnold did a decent job or portraying Conan.
Edited by Rockamobile, 14 January 2012 - 09:21 PM.