199 replies to this topic

[amster]

Welcome to the forum, RedDog!

[RedDogDarren]

Welcome to the forum, RedDog!

Thank you sir. I'm looking forward to some friendly banter regarding our favourite barbarian.

[Ironhand]

I wish someone would make a Conan movie as true to the letter and spirit of REH as John Carter was to ERB. Maybe get Stanton to direct the next Conan movie.

[Philzilla]

I wish someone would make a Conan movie as true to the letter and spirit of REH as John Carter was to ERB.  Maybe get Stanton to direct the next Conan movie.

And maybe it will be as sucessful as John Carter

[Ironhand]

I wish someone would make a Conan movie as true to the letter and spirit of REH as John Carter was to ERB. Maybe get Stanton to direct the next Conan movie.

And maybe it will be as sucessful as John Carter

That would certainly be an improvement.

[Roargathor]

I am still baffled at how John Carter "flopped" and why the execs are hell bent at telling everyone how much of a failure it was. If Conan did as "bad" as JC, that would indeed be an improvment, Conan only cost 90 million compared to around 300 million for JC (including marketing costs). JC made more than Conans budget the first weekend if you foriegn ticket sales. At least then we could be hopeful a sequel would be made.

[Dave the Rage]

It will be interesting to see how the DVD sales pan out when JCM is released? Then we'll see how much is lost in the long run and compare with Conan etc.

[Taran]

I'm still utterly baffled where that $80 million budget went. I watched Red Cliff, the other day, which cost about the same, but ran 280 minutes (compared to Conan's 100 minutes), had thousands of extras, great set design, really impressive set pieces, and all in all looked a great deal more spectacular. Yeah, yeah, production costs in China are much cheaper, but Conan was filmed on pre-existing sets in Bulgaria which cost, well, nothing to build. Most of the cities were matte paintings and then we ended up in interior sets on a sound stage. Most of the caverns sequence was filmed on a sound stage with a green screen (and if it wasn't, it sure felt like it was). The Hornet was an adapted replica of the Santa Maria which already existed (the extras from Red Cliff shows people building very large ships from scratch), and the battle with Khalar Zym's ships was never filmed because it was "too expensive" (introducing a major plot hole, but whatever). I mean, what did they spend the budget on? The sword designs/build quality was pretty poor, the set design was middling to bad, the costumes seemed cobbled together from pre-existing production, the CGI wasn't much better than Solomon Kane's...was it on actors? Because Ron Perlman and Stephen Lang were the only "name" actors there unless you count Morgan Freeman's voice-over.

Maybe Conan wasn't even a flop. Because that budget looks extremely inflated.

[norse_sage]

Even if they inflated the budget by 20 to 30 mill, the movie was still a specturlar flop, bad enough to kill the franchise beyond all rescue.

[monk]

I wish someone would make a Conan movie as true to the letter and spirit of REH as John Carter was to ERB. Maybe get Stanton to direct the next Conan movie.

if anything, they need the guy who did Valhalla Rising, and just not call the character's name.

[amster]

I wish someone would make a Conan movie as true to the letter and spirit of REH as John Carter was to ERB. Maybe get Stanton to direct the next Conan movie.

if anything, they need the guy who did Valhalla Rising, and just not call the character's name.

Yeah, because that film was sooooo entertaining and successful as well. I'd rather get a root canal than watch that POS again.

[Dave the Rage]

I'm still utterly baffled where that $80 million budget went. I watched Red Cliff, the other day, which cost about the same, but ran 280 minutes (compared to Conan's 100 minutes), had thousands of extras, great set design, really impressive set pieces, and all in all looked a great deal more spectacular. Yeah, yeah, production costs in China are much cheaper, but Conan was filmed on pre-existing sets in Bulgaria which cost, well, nothing to build. Most of the cities were matte paintings and then we ended up in interior sets on a sound stage. Most of the caverns sequence was filmed on a sound stage with a green screen (and if it wasn't, it sure felt like it was). The Hornet was an adapted replica of the Santa Maria which already existed (the extras from Red Cliff shows people building very large ships from scratch), and the battle with Khalar Zym's ships was never filmed because it was "too expensive" (introducing a major plot hole, but whatever). I mean, what did they spend the budget on? The sword designs/build quality was pretty poor, the set design was middling to bad, the costumes seemed cobbled together from pre-existing production, the CGI wasn't much better than Solomon Kane's...was it on actors? Because Ron Perlman and Stephen Lang were the only "name" actors there unless you count Morgan Freeman's voice-over.

Maybe Conan wasn't even a flop. Because that budget looks extremely inflated.

Into their pockets me thinks!

[monk]

I wish someone would make a Conan movie as true to the letter and spirit of REH as John Carter was to ERB. Maybe get Stanton to direct the next Conan movie.

if anything, they need the guy who did Valhalla Rising, and just not call the character's name.

Yeah, because that film was sooooo entertaining and successful as well. I'd rather get a root canal than watch that POS again.

well there's no accounting for taste is there, some say thats what makes the world go round. But in the end, I think it's pretty clear that the movie you are championing here pretty much sucked as far as most people are concerned- not that arguments of popularity really make or break anything- and of course, we all speak for ourselves. But Game of Thrones is considered awesome, LotR went bananas, Clash of the Godawful Titans is ongoing, and Conan flopped. So much for "general audiences" not being able to connect with sword and sorcery or fantasy, Momoa can't be liked enough to save the flick.

To me and probably a lot of others, VH is the Conan movie we should have gotten, stylistically and quality wise, and depth of story. There's no cockamamie BS origin story of One-Eye, this movie doesn't try and pander to anyone, it's bold and told with an artistic vision CtB wishes it had. Even it's detractors would probably be forced to cough up that it is Art. if a review of the critical responses are to be judged as anything valuable, many references called it a "masterpiece", referred to it as "apocalypse now" meets I forget what but whatever so while some didn't care for it like you, I sincerely doubt at any point will we ever read any filmmaker or critic call this claptrap of a flick you love a "masterpiece" or refer to Nispel as much more than a cut rate hack. I don't think we'll be hailing him as 'visionary' any time soon.

also considering the star, the guy who played opposite Craig in Casino Royale, and basically fought exactly like how Conan would have fought, I can't believe for the life of me you have anything negative to say about it. Several people drew the comparison to Conan in some of the reviews I've read, and to me it's obvious and plain to see it.

considering it was shot for a cool 3.5 mil if memory serves me, the movie should have served as a major reference point for CtB's reboot.

I mean the opening scenes may as well have been shot to a recital of Howard's Cimmeria. Surely that at least doesn't escape you.

[amster]

I wish someone would make a Conan movie as true to the letter and spirit of REH as John Carter was to ERB. Maybe get Stanton to direct the next Conan movie.

if anything, they need the guy who did Valhalla Rising, and just not call the character's name.

Yeah, because that film was sooooo entertaining and successful as well. I'd rather get a root canal than watch that POS again.

well there's no accounting for taste is there, some say thats what makes the world go round. But in the end, I think it's pretty clear that the movie you are championing here pretty much sucked as far as most people are concerned- not that arguments of popularity really make or break anything- and of course, we all speak for ourselves. But Game of Thrones is considered awesome, LotR went bananas, Clash of the Godawful Titans is ongoing, and Conan flopped. So much for "general audiences" not being able to connect with sword and sorcery or fantasy, Momoa can't be liked enough to save the flick.

To me and probably a lot of others, VH is the Conan movie we should have gotten, stylistically and quality wise, and depth of story. There's no cockamamie BS origin story of One-Eye, this movie doesn't try and pander to anyone, it's bold and told with an artistic vision CtB wishes it had. Even it's detractors would probably be forced to cough up that it is Art. if a review of the critical responses are to be judged as anything valuable, many references called it a "masterpiece", referred to it as "apocalypse now" meets I forget what but whatever so while some didn't care for it like you, I sincerely doubt at any point will we ever read any filmmaker or critic call this claptrap of a flick you love a "masterpiece" or refer to Nispel as much more than a cut rate hack. I don't think we'll be hailing him as 'visionary' any time soon.

also considering the star, the guy who played opposite Craig in Casino Royale, and basically fought exactly like how Conan would have fought, I can't believe for the life of me you have anything negative to say about it. Several people drew the comparison to Conan in some of the reviews I've read, and to me it's obvious and plain to see it.

considering it was shot for a cool 3.5 mil if memory serves me, the movie should have served as a major reference point for CtB's reboot.

I mean the opening scenes may as well have been shot to a recital of Howard's Cimmeria. Surely that at least doesn't escape you.

I hated it, but then, I'd rather sit through a Motley Crue concert than The Marriage of Figaro, though I'm sure a lot of Classical fans would admoish me for not appreciating the inherent "superiority" of the latter, but from my point of view, one is actually fun to sit through, while the other is a chore that I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy. VH breaks the number 1 cardinal rule of art. It must, first and foremost, be entertaining. If it doesn't have that, the rest of it is irrelevant. But I appreciate the fact that you're making both the elitist and the populist argument simultaneously, even though in the case of the former, you're pretending not to (if the populist point is irrelevent, then why bring it into the conversation in the first place?). I think that's a bold move on your part.

You may have some points about VH. I'll never know, because I would watch the entire Twilight Saga back to back before I would watch it again.

VH has a 45 audience score on Rotten Tomatoes and roughly as many negative reviews as positive on Amazon, so it's not as if every one who bothered to see the film was enamored with it. If the budget numbers are correct, it only grossed 27K, making it proportionally a bigger flop than Conan2011. It didn't exactly set the indie world on fire. There's simply no empirical evidence that a Conan film more like VH would have been more successful. VH was only seen by those, like you and I, who have a taste for period sword films. No one else even bothered to watch it. And even among this "elite" class of movie watchers, the reaction was at best mixed.

[amster]

I sincerely doubt at any point will we ever read any filmmaker or critic call this claptrap of a flick you love a "masterpiece" or refer to Nispel as much more than a cut rate hack. I don't think we'll be hailing him as 'visionary' any time soon.

Did you know who Frank Coffman is?

http://reheapablog.w...-the-barbarian/

[monk]

so...you can't imagine a voice over of Cimmeria during some of the panoramic settings in VH?

I invoke the populist bit pretty much only to show that it's not the subject matter of conan that was the problem with conan, not that popular opinion is necessarily valid because it holds a majority. to eat my cake too, sometimes popular opinion DOES converge...

trust me, I hate popular beers and don't consider them as anything that would cross my lips, and my favorites probably not many people would like.

i see VH with a 71% with 55 reviews on rottentomatoes, with 39 fresh and 16 rottens. critically speaking.

as far as regular grunts thats where the 45% of 14,301 liked it.

CtB 2011, is at 23% of 133 reviews, 30 fresh and 103 rotten.

I've seen it three times, and what I like about it is it leaves enough ambiguity that you can make a bit of the story your own. To me One Eye is Odin collecting souls.

Right now anyway.

What's more interesting to me actually has been reading some of the reviews and comparing the CtB reviews to those of VH.

Here's some for VH:

For an ugly, brutish, überviolent Viking epic, Valhalla Rising is gorgeous, each frame a haunting work of art. Refn's style, though, is unsustainable at feature length.

July 24, 2010


Pete Hammond
Back Stage



In the mood for a slower-than-molasses viking movie inspired by spaghetti westerns and samurai swordplay epics. Have we got the flick for YOU!

July 23, 2010


Jordan Farley
SFX Magazine



Bonus points for taking a wide berth around all familiar Viking stereotypes, but since the rest of the film is so alienating, dull and generally unpleasant, it's not just the characters suffering through a hellish experience.

March 18, 2010


Mike Hale
New York Times
Top Critic



Mr. Refn, who can pull off stylish brutality (in the Pusher films and Bronson), shows no knack for the kind of visionary, hallucinatory image making that would render Valhalla Rising memorable.

July 16, 2010


Robert Levin
Critic's Notebook



An absurdly caffeinated, hyperkinetic swirl of brutal violence, overwrought imagery and leaden acting.

July 20, 2010


Sean Axmaker
Seanax.com



Directed in moody and portentous strokes by Nicolas Winding Refn, this is the most abstract Viking movie you'll ever see...

December 3, 2010


Dennis Schwartz
Ozus' World Movie Reviews



Filled with brutality.

December 26, 2010


Ty Burr
Boston Globe
Top Critic



If only the pieces added up to an experience that sticks and that didn't finally succumb to a shrug of entropy.

[monk]

on the populist note for CtB, only 32% of the 41,475 users liked it.




and here's some for CtB:

The film lacks any magic, and indeed any of the spirit that grabbed a cult audience for the original: the direction lacks any kind of showmanship, and the script is a dilluted version of what it undoubtedly could have been.
Full Review | Comment | Original Score: 1/5
January 2, 2012


Burl Burlingame
Honolulu Star-Advertiser



Absolutely spastic in the way it pretends to tell a story, the work of someone who doesn't understand choreography, coherent storytelling and basic structural editing.

September 7, 2011
Grae Drake

Movies.com



Usually when a movie includes so many interesting parts, it amounts to a pretty good time. However, the result here never gels.

August 19, 2011
James Wright

Little White Lies



A missed chance. There's a good foundation to build on, but the immediate film is let down by a lacklustre story and god-awful script.

August 26, 2011
Joshua Starnes

ComingSoon.net



It's pretty much like getting a straight shot of testosterone, whether you want it or not. In fact, just standing near one of the posters for Marcus Nispel's Conan the Barbarian will put hair on your chest regardless of age or gender.

August 21, 2011
Ben Sachs

Chicago Reader
Top Critic



At its best the movie suggests a funhouse at a state-of-the-art county fair; at its worst it's a fairly dumb celebration of brute violence.

August 18, 2011
Jason Zingale

Bullz-Eye.com



Exceptionally dumb and loud for a summer movie, Conan the Barbarian is a muddled mess of a film bogged down by poor acting, cheesy dialogue and an incoherent plot.




Josh Bell
Las Vegas Weekly



Thanks to its punishing, empty intensity, the only impression this new movie is likely to leave you with is a headache.

August 18, 2011
Jonathan W. Hickman

Paste Magazine



Fourteen-year-old boys will wriggle with glee as Conan cuts down his opponents with his Cimmerian steel blade and manhandles bare-breasted women by the gaggle.

August 26, 2011


Roger Moore
Orlando Sentinel
Top Critic



Take away much of the myth, most of the sorcery and all of the humor of the 1982 John Milius-Arnold Schwarzenegger version of the sword and sorcery epic "Conan the Barbarian" and you've got an idea what the new "Conan" is like.

August 17, 2011
Corey Hall

Metro Times (Detroit, MI)



The whole affair buries the needle on the stupid-meter, with a droning score and the most ear-shattering sound effects in recent memory, plus pointless 3-D and a visual style about as subtle as the side of one of those old air-brushed conversion vans.

[monk]

I sincerely doubt at any point will we ever read any filmmaker or critic call this claptrap of a flick you love a "masterpiece" or refer to Nispel as much more than a cut rate hack. I don't think we'll be hailing him as 'visionary' any time soon.

Did you know who Frank Coffman is?

http://reheapablog.w...-the-barbarian/

yes, I've read it, and I give him props for Lord Raglan's list and Campbell's monomyth but I think he purposefully- it must be purposeful- glosses over many of the valid criticisms lodged against the movie, such as the many glaring plot holes and contrivances. He mentions revenge as the first of his points, and the fact remains that there was absolutely no reason, as the story went, why Corin had to die the way he did. The whole scene was ridiculous and rather improbable.

So yes, a movie may be shot according to eisenstien's uncertainty principal of arbitrary shots mixed in with consciously decided quick cuts, which he says causes the fighting to be more furious, but now we must consider how effective it was. I say it failed to deliver because like transformers, the action is just annoying after a while. explaining what nispel used to make the movie, that in and of itself is not a defense nor give the result validity.

Giotto used red paint mixed with blue, so do my 3rd graders.

[amster]

so...you can't imagine a voice over of Cimmeria during some of the panoramic settings in VH?

No.

[monk]

interesting...

http://moviereviewin...barbarian_2011/