1290 replies to this topic

[Buxom Sorceress]

Conan The Barbarian [ Momoa Film ]
REVIEWS & comments of the Complete Movie

Please post your Reviews and comments about the completed film at the cinema, in here.

We want all the Reviews in here so they are easy to find, and read, together in this Topic.

The other existing topic was for speculations about the coming film project.
> This topic is for THE COMPLETED CINEMA FILM : the real finished product.
--
Get out your trumpets or your knives... the flood-gates are now open...

[Maxmagnus]

..another bad review:

by vdblazquez 1 day ago (Wed Aug 10 2011 09:42:39)
_____________________________________
I´ve seen it in a press screening. This movie is an insult to Robert E. Howard and an insult to the audience. Momoa is not a bad Conan, but the movie is awful. The script has no sense, the action scenes are shaky-cam bull$it and the characters are Batman&Robin-stupid

The action scenes have good choreography and funny violence -a lot of Itchy & Scratchy gags- but there´s a lot of shaky-cam and quick shots, so you can´t enjoy them. The final fight between Conan and that evil Colonel Quaritch -over a pit, with the hot girl hanging below them- is a mess, you can feel no emotion nor thrill watching it. It´s video-game stuff with no real sense of danger.

The fight with the mud guys is almost good -those things move like parkour guys-, but, again, the camera work is pretty poor.

Well, maybe i´m just too old for this MTV souless style. I hope you like the movie, because is always better to enjoy than to suffer.

[Beirla]

Well...
Somethings about the movie :
Jason Momoa is a good barbarian...but I think he's not Conan.
Tamara is boring (but beautifull).She's something like a shaolin monk but she's not good in fighting and she scream again and again and again.
the story is stupid. and it's a story of vengeance. The first words of Conan adult are : "He's not The guy [aka Kalhar Zim]".
The movie is full of clichés (the little thief for exemple).
The movie's cut is a great mess (sometimes Conan has his sword in the left hand, the second after, the sword is in his right hand, or worse, the sword is still in the sheath) ; Conan lost his leather armor during few seconds).
The cut is too speed and the camera is too close : most of the fights are confusing.
The final battle is boring. And what happened to the labyrintic set like Dante's inferno ?
the movie is more close than a bad Indiana Jones than a good Fantasy Movie.
the music : You have heard it a hundred times.
The love scene with Tamara and Conan : something like a 80's movie ! When we have sexe in TV series like Spartacus, Camelot or Game of thrones !

But :
Lot of the sets are amazing.
Jason Momoa is a good barbarian. ;->
Leo Howard is a great young Conan.
Ron Perlman is really good.
The first scenes are good.


I Hope that the film will make enough money for a Sequel. And maybe we can have, at last, a good Conan movie as Mr Malmberg and all the fans want.

Sorry for my english, but I think the bad early review posts on ConanMovieBlog was almost right.

Edited by Beirla, 12 August 2011 - 03:01 PM.

[Interceptor]

Well, I'd just like to say that I posted early on that I thought this movie looked like crap (based on the previews), and I took some flak for saying this. Now that the movie is out, I'd just like to say my initial opinion has been vindicated. Give me Arnold's Conan and Poledoris' score any day.

[stonecold-mike]

A positive review: http://www.mymosaik....view&Itemid=152

"Rarely is a remake better than the original, but in the case of Conan the Barbarian which premiered yesterday evening at Utopolis, the remake is streets ahead of the original Arnold Schwarzenegger 1982 effort."

A mixed one: http://uk.babelfish....TrUrl=Translate

"Conan 3D is not the MTV Zack Snyder version of the Cimmerian as foreshadowed in the trailers, very reassuring, and made between a mixture of shows like Rome, Spartacus: Blood and Sand and The Iron Throne (which also starred Jason Momoa) with the pure B movie exploitation (combat violence, gore, sex …). Marcus Nispel new offer of cinema popcorn is well done, excessively generous, but also a bit disembodied (still missing a little something in his films). It is frankly fun, at least if we take the film for what it is and not for what it could have been, and what was once the movie Conan. Conan is 3D carnage, rather fun and very diverting, but too hollow to qualify as a successor to the Conan of John Milius and Schwarzenegger (which remains the best incarnation of the character)."

[Almuric]

but too hollow to qualify as a successor to the Conan of John Milius and Schwarzenegger (which remains the best incarnation of the character)."[/b]

Grrrrrr . . .

[Ahearn]

I don't trust reviews.

First, you've got fan reviews, and everyone has their tastes. There are many movies people call "shit" that I love, and many movies people love I call "shit."

Then you've got critic reviews who won't give A+ ratings unless its a non-genre piece.

I know I'll like it even if its for just little things Plenty of movies that are generally "bad movies" but I love because there's so many little things I do love.

[Buxom Sorceress]

I don't trust reviews...

Then do not post in here.

We do not want such 'OFF-TOPIC silly comments' in here.

> Post a review of the Film... or get off the pot !

[Ironhand]

A mixed one: http://uk.babelfish....TrUrl=Translate

"Conan 3D is not the MTV Zack Snyder version of the Cimmerian as foreshadowed in the trailers, very reassuring, and made between a mixture of shows like Rome, Spartacus: Blood and Sand and The Iron Throne (which also starred Jason Momoa) with the pure B movie exploitation (combat violence, gore, sex …). Marcus Nispel new offer of cinema popcorn is well done, excessively generous, but also a bit disembodied (still missing a little something in his films). It is frankly fun, at least if we take the film for what it is and not for what it could have been, and what was once the movie Conan. Conan is 3D carnage, rather fun and very diverting, but too hollow to qualify as a successor to the Conan of John Milius and Schwarzenegger (which remains the best incarnation of the character)."

Comments like this reveal that the reviewer has never read a REH Conan story.

Edited by Ironhand, 13 August 2011 - 11:21 AM.

[terryallenuk]

Sadly I think most reviews we'll see will be comparing the old and new films I'll be more interested in what you guys/gals here and on the other REH related sites think.

Terry

Edited by terryallenuk, 13 August 2011 - 03:22 PM.

[stonecold-mike]

A mixed one: http://uk.babelfish....TrUrl=Translate

"Conan 3D is not the MTV Zack Snyder version of the Cimmerian as foreshadowed in the trailers, very reassuring, and made between a mixture of shows like Rome, Spartacus: Blood and Sand and The Iron Throne (which also starred Jason Momoa) with the pure B movie exploitation (combat violence, gore, sex …). Marcus Nispel new offer of cinema popcorn is well done, excessively generous, but also a bit disembodied (still missing a little something in his films). It is frankly fun, at least if we take the film for what it is and not for what it could have been, and what was once the movie Conan. Conan is 3D carnage, rather fun and very diverting, but too hollow to qualify as a successor to the Conan of John Milius and Schwarzenegger (which remains the best incarnation of the character)."

Comments like this reveal that the reviewer has never read a REH Conan story.

Obviously.

[KG Thunder]

but too hollow to qualify as a successor to the Conan of John Milius and Schwarzenegger (which remains the best incarnation of the character)."

Wow. I just facepalmed so hard that I knocked myself unconscious.

[JainkhulTamhair]

The reviewer who gave a very short and extremely positive review said that Nispel's version was a "remake" of the "original" film of 1982 and it doesn't seem to bother anyone, what's going on here?

The half and half negative reviewer (is he really that negative apart from his mediocre impression of Momoa and the OST composer?) said that Momoa fails as a "successor" of the barbarian* played by Arnold : let's not act funny and let's accept the fact that not all fans are REH purists and that the general public who is aware of the first movies is in some way waiting to see if Arnold "can" or "cannot" be replaced by Momoa.

Enough being the devil's advocate: even if I have extremely low and maybe nil expectancies for the 2011 movie, the so-so negative reviewer wrote a tiredly long and inconsistant review to say the truth, it contradicts itself in many places, not to talk about the "positive" review which sounds like plain old publicity and whose author omits on purpose any precision whatsoever in his argumentation.



*personal edit: supposed and said to be Conan according to Milius

Edited by JainkhulTamhair, 14 August 2011 - 12:55 AM.

[Axerules]

I don't trust reviews...

Then do not post in here.

We do not want such 'OFF-TOPIC silly comments' in here.

> Post a review of the Film... or get off the pot !

The 'silly' word was unnecessary, Bux. Take it easy.

If you have a problem with a post, please report it to the mods. PM us if you need a clarification.

[John Maddox Roberts]

Are there any reviews yet from actual, professional film reviewers who write for reputable publications? Have we heard yet from Ebert or Maltin or any of the other biggies? The opinions of bloggers are pretty dim compared to the views of those who have made discussing the filmmaker's craft their life's work.

[ThuleanWarrior]

I tend to disagree. It may be unfounded but I think the big guys are on the take. I'll take the small guys word for it over theirs any day.

Maybe I am just jaded from video game reviews though where we know that to be the case.

[KG Thunder]

I tend to disagree. It may be unfounded but I think the big guys are on the take. I'll take the small guys word for it over theirs any day.

Maybe I am just jaded from video game reviews though where we know that to be the case.

Agreed. Roger Ebert gave Zookeeper 3 stars...

[stonecold-mike]

I tend to disagree. It may be unfounded but I think the big guys are on the take. I'll take the small guys word for it over theirs any day.

Maybe I am just jaded from video game reviews though where we know that to be the case.

Agreed. Roger Ebert gave Zookeeper 3 stars...

....not to mention he liked "Conan The Destroyer" better than Milius' "Conan The Barbarian".

Edited by stonecold-mike, 14 August 2011 - 05:32 AM.

[ThuleanWarrior]

I tend to disagree. It may be unfounded but I think the big guys are on the take. I'll take the small guys word for it over theirs any day.

Maybe I am just jaded from video game reviews though where we know that to be the case.

Agreed. Roger Ebert gave Zookeeper 3 stars...

....not to mention he liked "Conan The Destroyer" better than Milius' "Conan The Barbarian".

That is just insane.

[Ahearn]

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.