CONAN THE BARBARIAN post-release discussion

This is going to be a great movie, i'd go just to watch Jason Mamoa

Great first post.

So, Nick. Is this officially the worst movie so far in 2011?

I'm surprised to read such a harsh review.

It's no masterpiece, but I kinda liked it and I had fun. It did evoke to me some of the atmospheres that my memory relates to Howard's original novels.

And the sets/scenography were not bad at all - I've seen FAR worse in movies with triple the budget.

Momoa is a good Conan, ruthless, strong, agile and stubborn. 

The characters are weak, granted, and the movie focuses too much on action (which isn't very clear to begin with).

As always, it depends on expectations, I guess. 

I love Milius' movie, and certainly the two cannot even be compared. 

But it's a fun fantasy flick, and quite a creative one in some aspects. Some things can be salvaged, and I for one would welcome a sequel.

That's my take at least (too sleepy to further elaborate :) ).

Thanks for the review.  Skipping this shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

Thanks for the review.  Skipping this shit.

Same here.  Seriously, people, the remake to see is coming out next weekend.

This was a horrible movie but you can enjoy it on a certain ironic level.   There were no less than 3 "Nooooooooooooo!" moments and the editing was all fucked up.   For instance, Conan and his crew fend off some bad guys and immediately everyone is celebrating and popping champagne.  I don't mind the scene itself but it's so poorly placed with no room to breathe that it's like, "Okay, well they won.   Awesome."

I will say though that Momoa, like Routh in Superman Returns, deserves another shot at a better written, better directed Conan movie.   I'm not damning with faint praise when I say Momoa is the best thing in the film followed by Ron Pearlman and young Conan.   The rest is just so bad it's good trash and wasted potential.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunwukong 

Given how much of a shitkicking Nick just gave it, dare I ask: how does the score compare to Pouledouris'?

What score?   It was basic Sci-Fi channel generic music.   Nothing special at all.

Yeah the score was entirely forgettable. I was forced into a 3D screening at my local theater, only 2D showing was at 1:30pm for some unknown reason, and the 3D is totally worthless. Also worthless? Everything in the movie after the Kid Conan section that isn't Mamoa sticking his finger in that dude's nosehole.

Conan The Barbarian is...Awe-Inspiring and All Kinds Of Awesome!  Jason Momoa is worthy of being the...New Conan, for the 21st Century!  I definitely recommend it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynamotv 

I will say though that Momoa, like Routh in Superman Returns, deserves another shot at a better written, better directed Conan movie.   I'm not damning with faint praise when I say Momoa is the best thing in the film followed by Ron Pearlman and young Conan.   

Good call.

I agree, Momoa is surprisingly good for the role. The kid is also very good AND a nice fit for the looks, something I approve of as it shows attention to detail (I hate when they miscast the "young versions" of movie characters).

Again, the film was not so good but there are things to be salvaged, AND the hate around here is definitely exaggerated. They make it sound like an Uwe Boll film. 

People, some perspective, please: it's not that bad, you can watch it and have legitimate fun.

Was there something in the original Howard stories about some bad guy killing Conan's father and taking his father's sword leading Conan to exact vengeance and reclaim his father's sword, all the while a beautiful kidnapped princess of some kind is involved?  Because it seemed a little weird just how much of the 1982 film's structure this version seemed to crib from.

I actually enjoyed this. Don't get me wrong, Rose McGovern looks ridiculous and some of the CGI/Matte effects (e.g Baby Conan) look a bit off, but there's plenty of action. Most of the people in my audience seemed satisfied by the end result. Ron Perlman and Stephen Lang were fine as well.

Momoa's Conan may not be as memorable as Arnold. But he's really not bad here and the Conan here (personality wise) is more faithful to the Original Howard version.

I still don't know why the fuck Conan needs an origin or a personal connection with the villain in the first place. Why can't Conan just be a kinda morally ambiguous barbarian who wanders into some situation and sorts it out? It seems that'd be a lot more appealing than this mix we actually got.

I dunno though, after watching the movie and being completely numb to it, I'm just going to go and watch Centurion again and pretend that's the Conan movie we got.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega 

I still don't know why the fuck Conan needs an origin or a personal connection with the villain in the first place. Why can't Conan just be a kinda morally ambiguous barbarian who wanders into some situation and sorts it out? It seems that'd be a lot more appealing than this mix we actually got.

hmm, true, I frankly could have done without it as well, but it happens with "movie versions". 

Nolan did it too for Batman, and it was generally accepted. It works for the less-invested audiences I'd say, since you relate to the character more quickly.

danko, Leo Howard was also great as...Young Snake Eyes in G.I. Joe Rise Of Cobra! I thought Conan was an excellent film.  It is too bad that It will get...Slain, by lesser films, in a box office bloodbath, for Robert E. Howard's Barbarian Hero!  I would...Love to see further adventures of Conan!

I was kind of with the film for the first third or so; it balanced the cheese and action well enough.  It kind of rapidly goes off the cliff in the second half, though, with a slew of terribly-directed action scenes and nonsensical plot devices, i.e. Rose MacGowan's erratic use of magic.  

The most egregious sin, though, is the blatant use of a body double during Rachel Nichols nude scene.  That's just barbaric.  

'Cept Batman actually had an origin-story that actually hadn't been told before in movies. Conan at least with Howard kind of strolls out fully-formed and ready to kick-ass, without bullshit about seeking vengeance for his family.

If modern audiences couldn't accept that with a character? I fear for them. I mean what's next? "Let's see how The Man with no Name really learned to be a gunfighter?"

Nolan didn't do it for Batman though.  Not really.

R'as Al Ghul is only indirectly responsible for Bruce's parents deaths, by setting up the economic turmoil in Gotham, and Joe Chill is hardly the main villain.  Batman's character also is much more tied to being borne from personal tragedy than Conan's is.

Maybe we needed to see exactly how Jake Sully ended up in that wheelchair in AVATAR?

Does it belong on the shelve beside the Arnold classic? Hell no.

Does it belong on the shelf next to the Albert Pyun classic The Sword and the Scorcrer? Hell yes.

Two biggies: The only thing worse than Rachel's nude body double, was Rachel's stunt double during the carriage scene. Also, how does a boat sneek up behind another in open water? In the daytime?

I think being a "Conan" movie really brought alot of expectations it didn't deliver on. If it was just a generic S&S flick starring Momoa, people would have been more forgiving. Anyway, it not the total shitfest it's being made out to be.

Name the last movie where a woman got on her knees and sucked her father's finger, while wearing freddy kruger claws.

I didn't even get to see Nichols nude body double. The censors cut out most of the sex scene here.

There's not much of one. A little side boob, a little underboob. Hell, you get to see Momoa's ass longer than any boobage.

Speaking of which. Rose' face might have been botched by plastic surgery, but her bod is still pretty rockin'.

I forgot to add Rachel's disappearing, re-appearing make-up. Also, Momoa's disappearing, re-appearing muscle mass. Probably due to re-shoots.

Yeah, i remember she had a cut to the face in one scene that dissapeared a few scenes later.

That was an odd Conan baby in the beginning. Looked a bit off.

Yeah, poor Ron Perlman.  He goes from the fantastic Hellboy props, to a silly looking rubber baby.

That tentacled sea-monster sequence is one of the worst-directed action sequences I've seen in a long time.  Just a mass of swirling CGI and people ducking in close up.  

Oh god... the dull incompetence of that entire sea-monster sequence represents most of what was wrong with the movie's 2nd half.  The first third or so was OK.  I was kinda enjoying it.  Then it just got really boring.

Comparing this to Clash of the Titans sounds right.  Clash of the Titans wasn't worse than this, but it was dull the whole way through.  

I did like Momoa as Conan though.  Rachel Nichols looked completely disinterested in everything going at the end of the movie.  

"Soon, your body will be serve as a vessel for my mother!"

"Yeah, whatevs."

"Now you will be tied to this circular sacrificing contraption!!"

"I'ma take a nap."

Ron Perlman looks like a bigfoot in this.

I didn't think it was as awful as Nick did, but goddamn, why waste a breath defending it?

Better than Cowboys and Aliens though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by duke fleed 

Conan The Barbarian is...Awe-Inspiring and All Kinds Of Awesome!  Jason Momoa is worthy of being the...New Conan, for the 21st Century!  I definitely recommend it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by duke fleed 

danko, Leo Howard was also great as...Young Snake Eyes in G.I. Joe Rise Of Cobra! I thought Conan was an excellent film.  It is too bad that It will get...Slain, by lesser films, in a box office bloodbath, for Robert E. Howard's Barbarian Hero!  I would...Love to see further adventures of Conan!

Wait. This is a thread for a genre film, and the best pun we get is "slain"?

Alright, who broke the Duke and failed to tell anyone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd 

Ron Perlman looks like a bigfoot in this.

My friend laughed and asked, "Is that Sasquatch!?"

Double post...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

My friend laughed and asked, "Is that Sasquatch!?"

 

I can't remember where I saw it, but somewhere on the net there is a photo comparing Ron Perlman in this to Harry from Harry and the Hendersons.   It was ALL I could see during the movie.  

D.T., I am not broken.  I just had only that one pun!

I'm getting dragged into seeing this tonight, and my stupid friends are insisting we watch it in 3d.  WTFman.

Conan isn't the worst thing you'll see in the theater.   There's some fun to be had with it.   Yeah it's a horrible film but there's some MST3K material in here to keep you from going crazy.

Jesus Christ, this, yes. This has always been a habit of filmmaking it seems, but they've taken it up to the next level in recent years. Nowadays, not only does the protagonist have a personal grudge against the bad guy, but such a thing happened DURING HIS CHILDHOOD. I don't want to see twenty minutes of young Conan killing dudes (though it is probably the best action scene of the entire shaky cam, shittily edited affair). Just like I don't want to see young Captain Kirk stealing his step dad's car, or Charles Xavier strike up a friendship with La Blue Girl. I paid to see Jason Momoa whupping ass and dammit, I want that. Why do we have to go back to childhood (in some cases, seeing them born!) to have a connection to them? I don't have any childhood animosity towards my boss. Why can't we just have people wind up in some shit? I'm getting sick of lifelong personal revenge stories.

I would have preferred if we opened on Conan and his whatever friend (like he mattered) raining down all sorts of unholy hell upon the slavers, give us a few flashbacks, make us FEAR HIM and be in awe of his don'tfuckwithme-ness.

"Ah, my nose!"

Good thing that line was written, and spoken, and left in, because his hand going to his face and the nose hitting the floor didn't quite make what happened clear enough. That line cracked me up, but not in the laugh-with kind of way. Just one example. The whole script was piled up with either useless redundancies like that above (how many times did someone say out loud what we just saw happen?), arcane "world-building" exposition that raises no stakes anyone cares about, or tired lines from the Handy Action Movie Phrasebook For Heroes and Villains(tm).

The opening narration (Morgan Freeman? Seriously, Morgan? Why?) (yeah, yeah, I know why) does everything in its power to bore you right out of your seat. Such a front-loading of who-gives-a-shit that seems to go on forever. I did perk up, however, when the fall of whatever ancient empire was signified by a dimly lit model being chroma-keyed over a Bic lighter on high, or at least that's what it looked like. Oh ho, I thought, so that's what we're dealing with here. But the "effects" never got as dopey bad as that again; just the regular current-day mediocre.

Every place seemed to be reachable with a day's ride/sail/hike or less -- and so many location changes, so many ignorable title cards -- to the point where my friend and I dubbed it The Hyborean Suburbs. I did like how there was an action scene on a boat purely for the purpose of having an action scene on a boat (pirates are still in!). If only Nispel knew how to direct action. It seems the only way he knows how to ratchet up tension is through PEOPLE YELLING.

I'll join the chorus on Momoa; he deserved better than this, and I hope he gets another crack at the character. Lang's a trouper; Nichols was as bored as I was; and McGowan looked like she was LARPing on shrooms.

It's biggest problem, though, was I made the mistake of finally listening to the Milius/Arnie commentary over the original (which I hadn't watched in years) a few nights prior. If you want to give this new flick any kind of a chance, I do not recommend doing that. If this new one had aimed as high, and missed, I would have been fine with it, or even aimed lower and had fun. But no aim at all is no way to do this stuff. Conan shouldn't be cable filler.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trav McGee 

"Ah, my nose!"

 

Good thing that line was written, and spoken, and left in, because his hand going to his face and the nose hitting the floor didn't quite make what happened clear enough. That line cracked me up, but not in the laugh-with kind of way. 

 

I did perk up, however, when the fall of whatever ancient empire was signified by a dimly lit model being chroma-keyed over a Bic lighter on high, or at least that's what it looked like. Oh ho, I thought, so that's what we're dealing with here. But the "effects" never got as dopey bad as that again; just the regular current-day mediocre.

Hahahahah.  I laughed at those two instances of goofy/dumb too. 

"Did they just stick some cheap procedural explosion on that tower!?"

POOF.  End of Empire.

I loathe narration info-dumps like the one in this movie.  In one ear and out the other.

It's structured like a video game RPG.  Oh, I have a quest where I need to break into a castle.  I just let my thief companion go, so I'm going to Fast Travel back to the City of Thieves to pick him up, and then Fast Travel back to the castle.  Oh, and he could only find the guy at his base from 11PM to 2AM, so Conan actually had to rest for a few hours when he go there.

And since you can only have one companion, you'll have to let the pirate companion (who gives me +10% damage against slavers) go.

Also, honestly I felt that McGowan was trying.  It may not have been perfect, but it was a better performance than being bland.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trav McGee 

 

Every place seemed to be reachable with a day's ride/sail/hike or less -- and so many location changes, so many ignorable title cards -- to the point where my friend and I dubbed it The Hyborean Suburbs. I did like how there was an action scene on a boat purely for the purpose of having an action scene on a boat (pirates are still in!). If only Nispel knew how to direct action. It seems the only way he knows how to ratchet up tension is through PEOPLE YELLING.

 

I'll join the chorus on Momoa; he deserved better than this, and I hope he gets another crack at the character. Lang's a trouper; Nichols was as bored as I was; and McGowan looked like she was LARPing on shrooms.

I finally saw it this afternoon.  McGowan has always seemed to me like an alien trying to study human interaction by adopting the shape of a technically pretty girl.  Here, I thought she had found the perfect role as the second generation necromancer.  The role provided a perfect context for her clumsy unsensuality and grating voice.  If they manage to remake the Dune movies while she's still young enough, she'd be perfect as the Baron-possessed Alia.

I admired the decision to bombard the first half of the movie with stage blood and tits as well.  It became immediately obvious why this didn't get a direct-to-SciFi Channel release.  The sand monsters were crap, regretably; by having an endless stream of them pop up as needed instead of having them all appear at once, the scene looked like they just kept adding more until they had enough footage to get the film to the proper length.  The fight on the pirate ship looked smaller on the screen than it probably did during shooting, and the subplot about the girl earning Conan's respect as a warrior was completely undone by the extant of her helplessness in the damsel-in-distress rescue at the end.

It was worth the price of admission, all in all, but I don't see myself going out of my way to see it a second time in any format.

Now there's even a lawsuit. I guess I'm saddened by the fact that this all means "no more Conan movies", at least for a LONG time.

And I'm a little sorry because, as said, Momoa was a decent fit, all in all. But of course, if another Conan is ever to be remade, the character will be cast again (if anything, Momoa should be too OLD for the role, by then....)

The sand monsters were where the movie veered from agreeably silly to irritating and ugly.

Irritating and ugly is how I would like to describe my 3D experience, and the sand monsters reminded me of something left over from the Mummy movies.  I don't care if I have to be an antisocial asshole to my friends, this is the one and only time I'm not following my first inclination of refusing to see stuff like this in 3D.  The sea monster sequence and the following final battle sequences which were all dimly lit were almost unwatchable with those stupid glasses, same with most of all the fight sequences which were shot very close.  I would have much preferred to see this in normal 2D and had a much better waste of an evening.  This would have been a lot better with the original Conan score too.

"What's it like to flop at the Box Office?"

One of the screenwriters weighs in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trav McGee 

"Ah, my nose!"

 

Good thing that line was written, and spoken, and left in, because his hand going to his face and the nose hitting the floor didn't quite make what happened clear enough.

Your entire post is dead on, but especially this bit. I started giggling here and didn't really stop until the movie ended. The most jaw-droppingly hilarious line, though, was the bad guy's climactic "I DON'T LIKE YOU ANYMORE!"

And yeah, that opening narration pretty much summed up what was wrong with the movie: they start with Howard's memorable (if purple) prose and then devolve into a bunch of irrelevant exposition. That should have been the classic passage, ending with "...to tread the jeweled thrones of Earth beneath his sandaled feet", and then SHUT UP, MORGAN. And then we could have skipped right to Adult Conan, even though that would have been skipping the best part of the movie, with the Racist Chewbacca Picts.

I did have fun, though. It's not like I go to a barbarian fantasy movie expecting it to NOT be ludicrous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratty 

I was kind of with the film for the first third or so; it balanced the cheese and action well enough.  It kind of rapidly goes off the cliff in the second half, though, with a slew of terribly-directed action scenes and nonsensical plot devices, i.e. Rose MacGowan's erratic use of magic.  

 

The most egregious sin, though, is the blatant use of a body double during Rachel Nichols nude scene.  That's just barbaric.  

I had a lot of fun with the first half of the film.  It wasn't fantastic, but it was entertaining and well done for the most part.  Once the "sand demon" crap started up though, it was all downhill from there.  Rose McGowan gave one of the worst performances I have seen in a theatrical film in a long time and the actor who played Conan's newfound thief friend was pretty awful as well.  Also, I've liked Rachel Nichols in other films..........but she was pretty bad here and seemed disinterested.

That said, Ron Perlman was great as always and Bob Sapp was likeable as Conan's best friend.  Stephen Lang was great in the first half, but seemed to realize the film had gone to shit in the second and acted accordingly.

As literally almost everyone else has said, Jason Momoa is the clear standout here.  He makes a great Conan and deserved a FAR better film to play the character in than this.  It's a shame that it tanked simply for the fact that I really would like to know where he was wanting to take the character in the proposed sequel script that he apparently wrote.  I guarantee it is better than what we got here.  At least he managed to snag the villain role in Walter Hill's Bullet To The Head (2012) with Sylvester Stallone before this puppy bombed.  I hope he can manage to have a better career than poor Brandon Routh has so far.  I'd love to see him become an action star.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

I did have fun, though. It's not like I go to a barbarian fantasy movie expecting it to NOT be ludicrous.

Exactly.  I went with two of my best friends and we were the only ones in the theater, so we had a lot of fun watching it.  I'm really not sorry that I paid to see it.

I was actually surprised. Momoa is good (loved his stances), sets, locations and most of the villains are well done (this includes Rose McGowan, excludes the The Mummy left-overs, excludes the asshole mask, Lang is a blast) and I was glad they didn't turn the love story into Prince of Persia Chapter II.

Bummer: Nichols (compare her to her presence in GI Joe - she's not looking hot in this one) is a bore, Nichols body double, the fact that it's completely not involving. Did it took time until grown-up Conan appeared. I thought the opening bit with the kid killing all the guys was done quite well, but using birth and youth to create character depth is just so wrong. Couldn't we have started with grown-up Conan? It also would have benefited from only being 90 minutes.

Pity this bombed. I want a sequel by another director.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Myers 

Pity this bombed. I want a sequel by another director.

This.  If you kept Momoa and snagged a solid director (and writer), a really good sequel could be made to this.  As it stands, I'll just have to hope Momoa finds success elsewhere in a similar role.

Also, to clarify, are you saying you actually LIKED Rose McGowan's performance?  Coming from someone who has liked her in other films, I thought her performance was absolutely awful in this.  Gratingly awful, in fact.  I literally cringed every time she opened her mouth.

Yeah, I actually liked her performance. Taken out of context, I might wanna shoot her for it, but as a medieval, murderous daddy's girl that is into torture, killing, witchery, self-mutilation and incest, I felt she behaved quite fittingly. I may be biased though, as I've met her once and let's say got along with her.