Jump to content


Photo

Conan The Barbarian (2011) - Reviews & Comments & *spoilers*


  • Please log in to reply
1316 replies to this topic

Poll: Conan The Barbarian (2011) - Reviews & Comments & *spoilers* (233 member(s) have cast votes)

How would you rate Conan the Barbarian (2011)?

  1. Excellent (24 votes [10.30%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.30%

  2. Good (71 votes [30.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.47%

  3. It's Just OK (46 votes [19.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.74%

  4. Voted Poor (32 votes [13.73%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.73%

  5. Bad (50 votes [21.46%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.46%

  6. Won't be seeing it (10 votes [4.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.29%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 monk

monk

    Sword of Crom

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:nymfc/negril

Posted 14 August 2011 - 07:40 PM

To clarify my earlier statements.

The comparison to the original 82 films is precisely why I won't trust reviews. IMO, if people say that Mamoa is a "horrible replacement for Arnie," then IMO, we have a good shot at saying "Whether or not the movie is good/bad, Mamoa IS Conan," because Arnie was nowhere close to being Conan. Forgetting the origin story that makes most purists cringe and wanna hit something, we could very well have our most accurate Conan yet when it comes to looks/voice/attitude.



voice? really?

if there's anything so far - to me anyway - to dislike about momoa's casting it's his fake voice he's using for conan.

i think they fail to nail down his character too- i have a very difficult time imagining conan letting the slaughter of his family and village go unavenged and just go off wandering around until one day he just happens to pick up the trail. as i understand the story so far, that's how it was dissembled when complaints of it being a revenge story you killed my father reboot. if you are going to introduce a crappy origin/revenge plot you cant *****foot about with it and try and make it more appealing to the cromrades by then saying, well...it's not really a revenge movie because conan is not motivated by any higher purpose (which I would vehemently argue against such position out of ToE/Black Collosus/Phoenix at least).

the pill is already bitter, don't double botch the job.
"I live, I BURN WITH LIFE, I love, I slay, and am content."
"Here's to brother Painbrush, we drink to his Shade..."
"All Art Is Martial"- RZA

"Our basic purist premise:
ROBERT E. HOWARD, ENTIRELY ALONE, WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM ANY OTHER PERSON, CREATED THE CHARACTER CONAN OF CIMMERIA. NO OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS SHOULD BE INTRUDING THEIR WORK INTO THE VOLUMES OF HOWARD'S CONAN STORIES.
In essence, we believe that the work of any creative artist -- writer, painter, illustrator, musician, what-have-you -- is a unique expression of an artistic point of view. It should not be appropriated or altered by others without the artist's consent. No other writer has Robert E. Howard's unique point of view, and no other writer knows what Howard would have done with his character had he lived. Upon his death, his canon, the expression of his artistic vision, became fixed. Tampering with it now is desecration."

#22 elcimmerio

elcimmerio

    Spear Carrier

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 33 posts

Posted 14 August 2011 - 08:30 PM

SPOILERS TO COME

Just having a strong lager in the bar at the O2 after the European premiere of Conan. For what it is worth, here are my initial thoughts

Spoiler


It is a very un-modern film, which in a way isn't a bad thing. No effort is made to explore or subvert the sexual politics of traditional medieval-style fantasy settings - with Tamara, Conan is comically un-PC - even stuffing some cloth in her mouth to shut her up - and he never shows her any vulnerability or indeed any affection at all at any point.

I had determinedly low expectations going to this film, while I was also excited and was hoping for the occasional glimpse of the Conan of REH - a gesture, a moment, a landscape. I would say I came out largely with those expectations met, but also with the occasional glimpse I had hoped for - there are some gorgeous shots of the world of Conan, the early Cimmeria scenes have some great moments, Conan walking into the tavern full of thieves gave me a thrill, there were a few more.. 

Ultimately, I think the power of REH is in the writing - the figure of Conan can probably never be captured on film, especially as he is both the strongest and the fastest man alive, and is also a highly intelligent linguist who develops into a liberal statesman -  no actor could ever be found who could convincingly portray all those attributes.

I'm going to go and see it again in 2D and maybe I will like it more. I hope all fans go and see it at least once and make their own minds up - REH deserves that at least.

By the way the 3D is a total waste of time and ruins a lot of the film - seek it out on 2D if you can

#23 amster

amster

    Maladjusted to the point of pychosis

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Outside the ordered universe, where the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity.

Posted 14 August 2011 - 09:35 PM

Moderators, I think it would to prudent to put a spoiler tag on this entire topic, since individual reviewers obviously can't be relied on to do so.
Posted Image
Money and muscle, that's what I want; to be able to do any damned thing I want and get away with it. Money won't do that altogether, because if a man is a weakling, all the money in the world won't enable him to soak an enemy himself; on the other hand, unless he has money he may not be able to get away with it.
--Robert E. Howard to Harold Preece, ca. June 1928--

#24 Tex

Tex

    BARKING Nuanced Thinker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 740 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pascagoula, MS

Posted 14 August 2011 - 10:33 PM

Anyone on this forum who doesn't know what passes for the plot of Momo the Barbarian by now has had too much Haga.

Tex
(you just thought it was black lotus)

#25 korak

korak

    Sword of Crom

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,713 posts

Posted 14 August 2011 - 11:11 PM

SPOILERS TO COME

Just having a strong lager in the bar at the O2 after the European premiere of Conan. For what it is worth, here are my initial thoughts

Anyone who cares about Conan will read all the mainstream reviews so i won't bother you with sort of thing professional reviewers will say - Though I fear they will say that it is wildly uneven, the plot is total hokum and the dialogue sometimes appalling, that Momoa delivers a one-note performance but is physically eye catching and barnstorming in the action scenes, that Rachel Nichols is an utterly bland heroine, Lang and McGowan camp it up enjoyably if ridiculously and I think they might say the first two thirds are of the "guilty pleasure" variety - full-on violence, a mentally undemanding high velocity but often derivative rollercoaster ride, as if Michael Bay was doing pulp fantasy, while the posher ones might deride it as low brow teenage boy fantasy. I think the consensus will be that the last third is unconvincing and none of it really ties together but quite a few critics of the less cerebral kind will praise some of the genuinely impactful action scenes. There will be a lot of comparisons - the forest chase is from Return of the Jedi, Conan mercilessly torturing and killing - sometimes in cold blood - the villains is straight from Death Wish, the pirate scenes were from any Errol Flynn film, there was something Dances with Wolves about the Cimmeria scenes etc etc.

Whether it does well enough in the box office to lead to a sequel is up in the air but I think doubtful - it will certainly never be seen as a classic and definitely will not form an introduction for millions of people to the strange, philosophically challenging and often disturbing original REH conception - but that was never going to happen, obviously.

From an REH fan perspective, I think the most important thing is how the film portrays Conan. The good news for me was that I thought Leo Howard was unequivocally great as young Conan - a force of nature and the overly cut 3 minute taster scene pre-released is played out much better on screen and allowed to breathe.

As for Momoa, the big problem for me was the continual "growl" he affected for the whole film. He has a naturally deep baritone in his interviews and had he stuck to that, he would have convinced more in the dialogue scenes. As it is, I found the strange way he was talking difficult to get past - it did not seem a natural way for him to talk and I never found myself relaxing and believing him as Conan. I think that is Nispel's fault, who can direct action but doesn't have a clue with dialogue/ interaction/ giving his characters any believability or developing any chemistry - the scenes between Conan and Tamara are mostly deeply unremarkable and there are a few moments which are clearly meant to be of the "witty exchange" variety which fall embarrassingly flat.

From a glass half full perspective, Momoa does embody the stealth, lithesomeness and sudden total violence which REH conveys - there were times especially early on where I really was enjoying his uber-violence - though I never felt that he was allowed to convey the absolute strength and dominance of the written character. There is a perfect moment for that to be made manifest, in a scene where he grapples with Bob Ukafa and it was all set up to stage a fine scene in which he out-strangles him like with Baal- pteor. It is not to be, and in fact early on he even has to resort to trickery to beat Artus in an arm wrestle - maybe we should pretend he was just being charitable.

Physically, Momoa is big and fast, which improves on the slow bodybuilder type of Arnold - he can unleash a whirlwind of violence and he is indeed, as early reports indicated, a bad ass. He is portrayed as utterly ruthless and scary in the early scenes, which given the "Death Wish/ Payback" plot they chose seems justified to me. He is also never portrayed as wandering around in just a thong-style loincloth, unlike in the often embarrassing comics, which is also a relief. .

More good things - Conan is never enslaved, he never loses confidence or cries, he mostly just smacks the crap out of people instead of using martial arts-style whirly swordplay (except in the final scenes where Nispel is clearly desperate to try to raise the flagging finale) - he is only bested when poisoned by Marique, he is never portrayed as stupid like the 82 Conan, and mention is made of Venarium and the events of the Tower of the Elephant, though you never see it, and him becoming king is foreshadowed. I liked that he is shown in his pirate days - though there is none of the frightening plunderers and red handed criminals of the REH version, they are pure 1940s/50s pirates, complete with big Blackadder-style "harr harr" laughs.

These nods to the Conan canon are clearly from Sean Hood, but in the end the film as a whole is stymied by a reverse-engineered plot - the studio obviously wanted Conan to be wronged and vengeance-seeking to justify his cold-blooded violence and wanted some kind of plot arc to include both a reason why Conan's village is destroyed and why he has to save a damsel a decade later - so they came up with a baffling plot about a dual quest by the villain involving a mask hidden in Cimmeria and a Da Vinci Code Grail thing about a pure blood descendant of Acheron who happens to be a fit nun, and she and the mask had to be brought together to ...oh I lost track. The end is undeniably ridiculous. Conan just walks into the skull mountain of Khalar Zym, who we are told is a "king" and a "dark lord" (Voldemort?), and has a massive army which seeks to enslave yhe world, totally by himself, is helped inmeasurably by a fortuitous earthquake, then spends quite a lot of time playing hide and seek with Zym while Zym's entire army seems to have just evaporated.

It is a very un-modern film, which in a way isn't a bad thing. No effort is made to explore or subvert the sexual politics of traditional medieval-style fantasy settings - with Tamara, Conan is comically un-PC - even stuffing some cloth in her mouth to shut her up - and he never shows her any vulnerability or indeed any affection at all at any point.

I had determinedly low expectations going to this film, while I was also excited and of the Conan of REH - a gesture, a moment, a landscape. I would say I came out largely with those expectations met, but also with the occasional glimpse I had hoped for - there are some gorgeous shots of the world of Conan, the early Cimmeria scenes have some great moments, Conan walking into the tavern full of thieves gave me a thrill, there were a few more..

Ultimately, I think the power of REH is in the writing - the figure of Conan can probably never be captured on film, especially as he is both the strongest and the fastest man alive, and is also a highly intelligent linguist who develops into a liberal statesman - no actor could ever be found who could convincingly portray all those attributes.

I'm going to go and see it again in 2D and maybe I will like it more. I hope all fans go and see it at least once and make their own minds up - REH deserves that at least.

By the way the 3D is a total waste of time and ruins a lot of the film - seek it out on 2D if you can

Thanks for the interesting review! I plan to see it in 2-D hopefully, unless I go with someone who insists on the #-D.

#26 elcimmerio

elcimmerio

    Spear Carrier

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 33 posts

Posted 14 August 2011 - 11:39 PM

SPOILERS

Spoiler


#27 MisfitPanda

MisfitPanda

    Spear Carrier

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 75 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 14 August 2011 - 11:39 PM

Here is the secrets to enjoying the new Conan movie.

#1 Dont go into the movie expecting it to be great, as a matter of fact dont expect anything, just go for entertainment!

#2 Dont expect it to be any kind of serious basis of anything Robert E Howard wrote or imagined.

#3 Dont read any reviews either positive or negative!

#4 Go to a matinee, if you save 2 bucks, and have a nice big cup of Pop and Box' O Popcorn with butta, it just makes it that much more appetizing!

#5 If you have a lady friend take her with you...with the 1 required romance scene in every Conan movie, and with all the man flesh in this movie, you know your lady might get alittle frisky!

#6 When all is said and done, dont be whiney like alot of REH people who whine about how Non Howard something is or isnt...Just use the word's of Maximus from Gladiator and say to yourself.... Are you not ENTERTAINED?
...makes nightmares out of pretty dreams!

#28 monk

monk

    Sword of Crom

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:nymfc/negril

Posted 15 August 2011 - 12:06 AM

SPOILERS

MONK - "i have a very difficult time imagining conan letting the slaughter of his family and village go unavenged and just go off wandering around until one day he just happens to pick up the trail"

In the final edit, it's not how they portray Conan. The novelisation has Conan and his pirate buddies attack the Zingaran slave colony as part of their heedless plundering - it is written as a Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid-style comedy scene where they keep targeting the hapless slave master in order to regularly rob him. Freeing slaves or a revenge quest is incidental. In the cut we were shown today, the pirates are attacking the slavers because Conan has initially thought it might be Zhalar Zim - when he is told "this is not the man you seek", he still wants to attack them, because "no man should live in chains".

I think this change makes Conan more understandable and more sympathetic on a basic level to a general audience, as someone who all his life has been movivated by a search for vengeance and a noble horror of slavery. Unfortunately, to an REH audience, it is totally wrong. Conan in his first four decades of life is portrayed as the sort of terrifying barbarian who with great relish would, unless he had secured himself a decent sinecure in a respectable army somewhere, led the kind of rioting and plundering we saw in London this week. He had a strong personal moral code, but otherwise led a life of a "thief, a reaver, a slayer". The film's characterisation backs down from a full-on portrayal of this challenging amorality in the face of civilised hypocrisy, and instead exhibits a sort of queasy compromise between the REH Conan, sometimes moral and self-sacrificing, sometimes violent and selfish, and the Milius Conan - a "noble" if stupid barbarian whose life is defined by a revenge quest.



interesting. no doubt they have a lot of internal problems to try and manhandle into place, especially the further they go from original. personally, the whole character summation offered by mr. hood seemed off, but especially when he got into the slavery bit. a host of examples abound, but one which jumps to mind is the Argus, when informed of the ship's potential cargo Conan is indifferent and helps them out. If not for the Tigress's interruption he seemed to have been hired on for all intents and purposes and offered no objection to the fact the ship was out to trade for various wares including slaves. and the tent scene in Hour. i'm not saying he was for it, really, or wouldn't free slaves if it got right down to it, but to make a big thing of it as a point on which to make your case for understanding the character and what makes him tick...? As King he had a personal brothel for god's sake. I can't think of a time when a hatred for slavery or however it was phrased was exhibited in the stories- correct me if I am wrong.

anyway.

out of curiosity, how do they make the slaughter of a cimmerian village by outsiders, and their ability to move around cimmeria make sense? I'm asking because I am honestly on the fence as to going to see this. I may be able to line up a free pass and if so I'll definitely go. But that's iffy.

to appease some fellow dogbrother's sensibilities, there is a spoiler set up under "other styles" which you can find at the top left of the formatting bar. it's a pretty cool feature, although your large type warning at the head of your posts is sufficient for me...
"I live, I BURN WITH LIFE, I love, I slay, and am content."
"Here's to brother Painbrush, we drink to his Shade..."
"All Art Is Martial"- RZA

"Our basic purist premise:
ROBERT E. HOWARD, ENTIRELY ALONE, WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM ANY OTHER PERSON, CREATED THE CHARACTER CONAN OF CIMMERIA. NO OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS SHOULD BE INTRUDING THEIR WORK INTO THE VOLUMES OF HOWARD'S CONAN STORIES.
In essence, we believe that the work of any creative artist -- writer, painter, illustrator, musician, what-have-you -- is a unique expression of an artistic point of view. It should not be appropriated or altered by others without the artist's consent. No other writer has Robert E. Howard's unique point of view, and no other writer knows what Howard would have done with his character had he lived. Upon his death, his canon, the expression of his artistic vision, became fixed. Tampering with it now is desecration."

#29 Odoakris

Odoakris

    Adventurer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 15 August 2011 - 12:30 AM

Just returned from seeing the movie. I noticed elements from CTB, CTD, Red Sonja, Kull and even the TV series ( the soundtrack also sounds a little like the TV series soundtrack at times )...

I liked the beginning the most ( the Leo Howard scenes ). Lots of action in the movie, but a bit too silly at times ( sometimes getting a little too close to Xena and Hercules territory ).

I didn't understand why Conan had to put his sword up in the air so often, but then I remembered the pose from the 1982 Conan poster art by R.Casaro :)

The 3D effects are odd at times, and sometimes non-existant. I think it's better watchable in 2D.

Overall, I enjoyed it. But thinking about it now, there were many plot holes. Or perhaps everything went by so fast that I missed some stuff... :huh:

#30 elcimmerio

elcimmerio

    Spear Carrier

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 33 posts

Posted 15 August 2011 - 12:40 AM


SPOILERS

MONK - "i have a very difficult time imagining conan letting the slaughter of his family and village go unavenged and just go off wandering around until one day he just happens to pick up the trail"

In the final edit, it's not how they portray Conan. The novelisation has Conan and his pirate buddies attack the Zingaran slave colony as part of their heedless plundering - it is written as a Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid-style comedy scene where they keep targeting the hapless slave master in order to regularly rob him. Freeing slaves or a revenge quest is incidental. In the cut we were shown today, the pirates are attacking the slavers because Conan has initially thought it might be Zhalar Zim - when he is told "this is not the man you seek", he still wants to attack them, because "no man should live in chains".

I think this change makes Conan more understandable and more sympathetic on a basic level to a general audience, as someone who all his life has been movivated by a search for vengeance and a noble horror of slavery. Unfortunately, to an REH audience, it is totally wrong. Conan in his first four decades of life is portrayed as the sort of terrifying barbarian who with great relish would, unless he had secured himself a decent sinecure in a respectable army somewhere, led the kind of rioting and plundering we saw in London this week. He had a strong personal moral code, but otherwise led a life of a "thief, a reaver, a slayer". The film's characterisation backs down from a full-on portrayal of this challenging amorality in the face of civilised hypocrisy, and instead exhibits a sort of queasy compromise between the REH Conan, sometimes moral and self-sacrificing, sometimes violent and selfish, and the Milius Conan - a "noble" if stupid barbarian whose life is defined by a revenge quest.



interesting. no doubt they have a lot of internal problems to try and manhandle into place, especially the further they go from original. personally, the whole character summation offered by mr. hood seemed off, but especially when he got into the slavery bit. a host of examples abound, but one which jumps to mind is the Argus, when informed of the ship's potential cargo Conan is indifferent and helps them out. If not for the Tigress's interruption he seemed to have been hired on for all intents and purposes and offered no objection to the fact the ship was out to trade for various wares including slaves. and the tent scene in Hour. i'm not saying he was for it, really, or wouldn't free slaves if it got right down to it, but to make a big thing of it as a point on which to make your case for understanding the character and what makes him tick...? As King he had a personal brothel for god's sake. I can't think of a time when a hatred for slavery or however it was phrased was exhibited in the stories- correct me if I am wrong.

anyway.

out of curiosity, how do they make the slaughter of a cimmerian village by outsiders, and their ability to move around cimmeria make sense? I'm asking because I am honestly on the fence as to going to see this. I may be able to line up a free pass and if so I'll definitely go. But that's iffy.

to appease some fellow dogbrother's sensibilities, there is a spoiler set up under "other styles" which you can find at the top left of the formatting bar. it's a pretty cool feature, although your large type warning at the head of your posts is sufficient for me...


SPOILERS - SPOILERS

I'M SORRY, I CAN'T SEEM TO USE THE SPOILER FUNCTION BUT DON'T READ THIS IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW!!

Monk - The truth is that how Khalar is apparently able to move unimpeded across, eg, Nemedia, Aquilonia, and the whole of southern Cimmeria, just isn't addressed at all. Young Conan is off whacking trees in the forest when he hears the army approach and then it just turns up. I suppose the Cimmerians are overwhelmed by sheer numbers - the scene is actually one of the better directed, I found it exciting though ruined for me by the cheesy 3D FX which is easily avoided by finding a 2D screening. Conan's father - SPOILER -
Spoiler

SPOILER AGAIN -
Spoiler


#31 korak

korak

    Sword of Crom

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,713 posts

Posted 15 August 2011 - 02:05 AM

One improvement about the bad guy plunging into Cimmeria, better than the Milius Thulsa Doom version, is that in this story he has a specific reason-- he is not just raiding for slaves or whatever. He is looking for a special amulet that is hidden in Conan's village (shades of Tolkien influence, I guess.) At least, that is the reason in the Stackpole novel-- I won't see this for another week. But my question is, is there any reason that he travels overland in a boat?? :blink:

#32 PaulMc

PaulMc

    Sword of Crom

  • Moderators
  • 2,070 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vinland

Posted 15 August 2011 - 02:09 AM

Moderators, I think it would to prudent to put a spoiler tag on this entire topic, since individual reviewers obviously can't be relied on to do so.

Done. Thanks.

-- Paul McNamee

My Blog


#33 monk

monk

    Sword of Crom

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:nymfc/negril

Posted 15 August 2011 - 02:50 AM

From an REH fan perspective, I think the most important thing is how the film portrays Conan. The good news for me was that I thought  Leo Howard was unequivocally great as young Conan - a force of nature and the overly cut 3 minute taster scene pre-released is played out much better on screen and allowed to breathe....



I've watched this clip a few times now.

I think, it's the kind of thing when you see once, you think wow...pretty cool. It reminds me of Tony Jaa's opener for Ong Bak, where they're climbing the tree...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXniszN2SWQ

but on rewatch, well....a couple...I frankly find it to be a bit much to even say it's mildly credible and is the kind of stuff that really starts to irritate me once you start thinking about it. first we have the already often mentioned criticisms of the cimmerians and such. so we kick off with a smudgy Corin and the rah rah speech. okay fine, moving on...

at 1:12, we see a young cimmerian literally run right into a fallen log.

okaaaaaaaaay....moving on...

the youths run on and see a gang of picts- they don't know how many there actually are, one wouldn't think that only four Picts would venture into Cimmeria, but even so I think within the context of Conan the Cimmerians would naturally assume this is a raiding party. one of them says, we go back- one must assume to alert the village. well all that certainly follows...but conan runs on...? to complete the run? to...attack? this makes no sense. the scene sort of shifts a bit and it seems as though he's running away from the Picts and then he's taken down by a bolas, and we hear the Picts vocalize like I dunno, some kind of animal. This weapon of entanglement doesn't seem to entangle much because before the Picts can get to him he's free of it. Fine, fine, let's just grant all that.

I don't know how old he's supposed to be here, but FOUR Picts? In Beyond the Black River, Balthus took out SEVEN. With help from what I always imagined to be a huge Great Dane kind of dog. Even granting their very unPictlike way of attacking Leo Howard one at a time...I just don't buy the fight at 1:45...much less than a little kid is going to knock out a grown man like that. Sorry. I know it's "Conan," and all that, but please. And that kick. Seriously? Does he have horseshoes in his Uggs? Why does he drop the Pict's weapon? He gets whacked in the back by the only Pict who only brought his spikeless club to Cimmeria? So much for their copper skills. LOL. Okay. It gets even more ricockulous after this. At 2 min we see young Conan flailing about like a girl to no avail and he is able to slam a Pict's head into the ground, then he picks up the guy and runs the Pict into a log, braining him.

We can't be serious.

With all four down, i guess young Conan makes a real job of somehow hacking off their heads, and he returns to his village where we see the other young Cimmerians who all saw the Picts and as far as we know ran back to the village to sound the alarm, but they're all hanging around, they may as well be talking about the weather, in a calm cluster, Corin parts a small crowd....and nobody seems to be doing anything whatsoever about the fact that at least four Pict raiders were spotted in their woods. Except Corin has thrown off his fur.

It boggles the mind.

Monk - The truth is that how Khalar is apparently able to move unimpeded across, eg, Nemedia, Aquilonia, and the whole of southern Cimmeria, just isn't addressed at all. Young Conan is off whacking trees in the forest when he hears the army approach and then it just turns up. I suppose the Cimmerians are overwhelmed by sheer numbers - the scene is actually one of the better directed, I found it exciting though ruined for me by the cheesy 3D FX which is easily avoided by finding a 2D screening. Conan's father - SPOILER - is hit by an arrow then it seemed to me that the scene quickly just cut inside to the forge, where the scene plays out with Zym, all his henchmen and Conan's father, despite the fact that the battle still seems to be raging outside and you never really see how it finishes. Why Zym didn't first finish the battle is beyond me, but I still thought it was a pretty good scene inside the forge.


Okay, well...I guess that's one way around it lol. Why do the Cimmerians have this artifact anyway? Xaltotun explains that in the past he fought with Cimmerians, and they remained and were unconquerable, so one can assume Acheron tried to subdue them....is this something they somehow left behind during that attempt? How does Khalar know about its powers and why seek it out as opposed to the Heart, which seems to me the easier target...not to mention the time span...what was it...3,000 years since Python fell...so for 3,000 years Cimmerians hid this mask?

Edited by monk, 15 August 2011 - 02:53 AM.

"I live, I BURN WITH LIFE, I love, I slay, and am content."
"Here's to brother Painbrush, we drink to his Shade..."
"All Art Is Martial"- RZA

"Our basic purist premise:
ROBERT E. HOWARD, ENTIRELY ALONE, WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM ANY OTHER PERSON, CREATED THE CHARACTER CONAN OF CIMMERIA. NO OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS SHOULD BE INTRUDING THEIR WORK INTO THE VOLUMES OF HOWARD'S CONAN STORIES.
In essence, we believe that the work of any creative artist -- writer, painter, illustrator, musician, what-have-you -- is a unique expression of an artistic point of view. It should not be appropriated or altered by others without the artist's consent. No other writer has Robert E. Howard's unique point of view, and no other writer knows what Howard would have done with his character had he lived. Upon his death, his canon, the expression of his artistic vision, became fixed. Tampering with it now is desecration."

#34 KG Thunder

KG Thunder

    Swamped in gore.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sunnyvale, California

Posted 15 August 2011 - 04:07 AM

at 1:12, we see a young cimmerian literally run right into a fallen log.

It looked to me like Conan pushed him! :D
Posted Image

Edited by KG Thunder, 15 August 2011 - 04:08 AM.


#35 monk

monk

    Sword of Crom

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:nymfc/negril

Posted 15 August 2011 - 04:39 AM



at 1:12, we see a young cimmerian literally run right into a fallen log.

It looked to me like Conan pushed him! :D
Posted Image



i'll grant you the push lmao.
"I live, I BURN WITH LIFE, I love, I slay, and am content."
"Here's to brother Painbrush, we drink to his Shade..."
"All Art Is Martial"- RZA

"Our basic purist premise:
ROBERT E. HOWARD, ENTIRELY ALONE, WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM ANY OTHER PERSON, CREATED THE CHARACTER CONAN OF CIMMERIA. NO OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS SHOULD BE INTRUDING THEIR WORK INTO THE VOLUMES OF HOWARD'S CONAN STORIES.
In essence, we believe that the work of any creative artist -- writer, painter, illustrator, musician, what-have-you -- is a unique expression of an artistic point of view. It should not be appropriated or altered by others without the artist's consent. No other writer has Robert E. Howard's unique point of view, and no other writer knows what Howard would have done with his character had he lived. Upon his death, his canon, the expression of his artistic vision, became fixed. Tampering with it now is desecration."

#36 Axerules

Axerules

    In Memoriam: 2007-2014. Old stones aficionado

  • Moderators
  • 2,248 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The walled city of Vyones

Posted 15 August 2011 - 05:26 AM

SPOILERS - SPOILERS

I'M SORRY, I CAN'T SEEM TO USE THE SPOILER FUNCTION BUT DON'T READ THIS IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW!!



Click on "Other Styles" in the upper left above the option icons along the top of your dialog box, then on "Spoiler."
A window where you can type the text to be hidden will appear.

I have used this function to edit your previous posts in this thread. Hope that helps.
Take arrows in your forehead, but never in your back

Samurai maxim

#37 Tex

Tex

    BARKING Nuanced Thinker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 740 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pascagoula, MS

Posted 15 August 2011 - 05:31 AM

Meanwhile, at the Stayontopic Ranch...

By Gael Fashingbauer Cooper
TODAY.com
updated 8/14/2011 1:15:53 PM ET

Movies
You may think of "Conan the Barbarian" as forever Arnold Schwarzenegger's role, but fans of HBO's "Game of Thrones" knows that Jason Momoa plays a darn fine shirtless, muscled, fearless fighter too. The hunk behind "Thrones' " Khal Drogo now takes on the legendary muscleman's role. The preview isn't shy about revealing what it offers — swords, sandals, sex and pecs. Hope the multiplex sells protein shakes! (Opens Aug. 19.)

http://today.msnbc.m...-entertainment/


Tex
(review of "review"--meh)

#38 korak

korak

    Sword of Crom

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,713 posts

Posted 15 August 2011 - 05:34 AM

Okay, well...I guess that's one way around it lol. Why do the Cimmerians have this artifact anyway? Xaltotun explains that in the past he fought with Cimmerians, and they remained and were unconquerable, so one can assume Acheron tried to subdue them....is this something they somehow left behind during that attempt? How does Khalar know about its powers and why seek it out as opposed to the Heart, which seems to me the easier target...not to mention the time span...what was it...3,000 years since Python fell...so for 3,000 years Cimmerians hid this mask?

Stackpole's novel goes into great detail about it, the comic adaptation to a lesser extent. The mask is broken into pieces, with each piece hidden by a different keeper. Much like the different Rings in LOTR. The Cimmerian piece is the last one he lacks to complete the mask. This adds a certain gravitus to Conan's quest for vengeance, making it much more than just that.

#39 Tex

Tex

    BARKING Nuanced Thinker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 740 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pascagoula, MS

Posted 15 August 2011 - 05:40 AM

And now for something with a bit more content...

Empire Big Screen ‘11 Review: By Crom, ‘Conan The Barbarian’ Is Unbelievably Awful

For a good quarter of a century, since Arnie hung up his loincloth in 1984’s “Conan The Destroyer,” people have been trying to bring Robert E. Howard‘s pulp sword-and-sorcery hero back to the big screen, most notably in John Milius’ unmade “King Conan,” while The Wachowskis, Robert Rodriguez and Brett Ratner also made various attempts at the material. Finally, he’s returned for some rapin’ and pillagin’, thanks to Lionsgate and “Friday the 13th” director Marcus Nispel, with “Game of Thrones” star Jason Momoa as the Cimmerian. We caught the film’s European premiere at Empire Big Screen tonight: was it worth the wait?

Emphatically, no. But we’ll get to that in a moment. The film opens, after some scene-setting by the voice of Morgan Freeman, with l’il Conan being born in the heat of battle, removed via caesarean from his dying mother by his father (Ron Perlman, looking remarkably like an extra from “Battlefield Earth”). Soon he’s left fatherless too, thanks to the efforts of bandit Zim (Stephen Lang), who’s seeking to reunite the pieces of an evil mask, or something, in order to bring back his dead wife, a sorceress. A decade or so later, Conan has grown to Momoa-size, and is hunting Zim, now a feared warlord, who in turn is hunting a young monk (Rachel Nichols) who he believes holds the secret to his wife’s resurrection.


Almost all of the stuff that works about Nispel’s film is contained in that paragraph. Starting off your film with a shot of a womb being pierced by a sword from the inside is, at least, arresting. The villain is, at least, motivated by something other than wanting to rule the world (although he wants that too). And otherwise, Nonso Anozie (”Atonement”) emerges the best out of the cast as the barbarian’s best mate—indeed, he would have made a far better Conan than Momoa, had anyone had the balls to cast him. So that’s it. The small victories of “Conan the Barbarian,” the 2011 edition. Because everything else is truly, truly awful.

Let’s start with Momoa. We’d had some hope after his turn on “Game of Thrones” that the actor might at least stand out in the film, forgetting that he only spoke half-a-dozen words of English across ten episodes. He’s fine at the sword-slinging, but delivery of dialogue? Not so much. And the rest of the cast aren’t much better: Lang is on sneering villainous autopilot, reprising his “Avatar” turn with an unplaceable accent, while Rachel Nichols fails to give any personality to what is, in fairness, a role that’s not so much underwritten as never-written. Worst of all is Rose McGowan, made up to look like a cross between Christina Ricci and an IMAX screen, and horrendously overplaying her part as Lang’s sorceress daughter.

But it’s not like you go to a Conan movie for the acting: you go to watch some heads being cleaved. Even there it falls short, however. It’s not like there’s a lack of action—indeed, the film has little else, moving from battle to sword fight to battle to fight to battle to stagecoach chase to another sodding battle almost continuously, with little room to breathe in between, with the end result being that you never care, because the stakes are never particularly high, and the wall to wall violence means that the pace feels glacial. Even the gore is disappointing, although it may be that we missed some of it thanks to the single worst, most impenetrably murky 3D conversion we’ve seen to date, resulting in much of the film’s third act looking more like a display of shadow puppets than an actual movie.

Some of the blame has to go to the writers: the world is thin, the stakes are never clear (the characters don’t change much from beginning to end), and what little dialogue there is (most of the film’s noises are grunts and roars) includes gems like the Pythonesque exchange “I have a claim to you.”/ “What?”/“Death!”. But really, it’s director Marcus Nispel who’s got to take the hit here, something that shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who knows his previous work. We could have forgiven the cheapness of the whole endeavor: the TV-level production values, the terrible CGI, the fact that virtually every scene seems to have been shot in the same Bulgarian wood. But what’s really offensive is how anonymous it feels, and how entirely absent it is of anything approaching imagination or wit.

The director doesn’t bring any of his music video chops here: it’s thoroughly workmanlike stuff, and could have been made by anyone—at least the original came from the barking mad John Milius, making it feel like something close to a passion project, rather than the paycheck gig this so obviously is for Nispel. The worst of it is how much he steals from other movies, and not even classics, but blockbusters from the last decade. The prologue, filling in back story, about a magical object being broken into many pieces and scattered around the world? “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy (films that Nispel presumably loves, as he lifts from them multiple times). A mentor/mentee training fight on an icy lake? “Batman Begins.” Fighting formless sand creatures? “Spider-Man 3.” Yes, this is a film that rips off “Spider-Man 3.” The fact that Nispel chose Morgan Freeman, of all people, to narrate is a good demonstration of the lack of imagination on hand.

There are been plenty of bad movies this year, but at least you feel that people were trying with, say, “Battle: Los Angeles” or “Sucker Punch”—they didn’t actually set out to make a bad movie. “Conan The Barbarian” just comes across as half-assed; a quick, cheap, cash-grab with nothing but contempt for its audience, something that would look shoddy even if it were the direct-to-DVD movie it so often resembles. And you should stay away from it like it was a horde of bandits coming to burn down your village. [F]

Oliver Lyttelton
My link


Tex
(anyone gonna keep score on the "yays" vs the "nays"?)

#40 Roargathor

Roargathor

    Warrior

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 172 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas

Posted 15 August 2011 - 07:38 AM

Damn... are they all this brutal?