[Conan] The Barbarian (2011)

[Spectator]

Ok I finally saw it.
I was somewhat impressed and somewhat disappointed.
Right off top: The Way Khalar Zimm dies at the end...
WTF????
Conan has a sword, Zimm is in reach, so Conan attacks the planks on the bridge that Zim's standing on, and Zim just lets him? Would that not be like 5-6 AoOs for attacking the dudes ground instead of him?
The Conan the slave-liberator, events? Yeah, right.
The elephants toting the land-yacht???
Ron Perlman? The dude is a big Jew and looks nothing like a cimmerian. Jason Momua I have to admit did a great job, I like his acting, and I like the athletic Conan instead of the Bobybuilder conan. Been nice if they could have CGI'ed some blue eyes.
The octupus mask? Acheronians and octopi? Hmmmm

Well I am a total Rose McGowan prior to this movie (since I saw her in Scream in 1997) and I have to say she knocked it out of the ballpark.
My inner freak now wants goth chicks with receding hairlines, crazy makeup and metal nails!!!

Overall I am giving it a thumbs down.

 

[Supplement Four]

I gave it 3 out of 5 stars. I thought it was "fun" rather than "good", "watchable" and definitely not the Conan movie I was hoping for. If they made a sequel, I'd watch it.

Here's my review, posted just after the movie hit the screens. It's basically a longer version of what you've just said.

http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=48247&p=685800&hilit=conan+movie#p685800

 

[Nyarlathotep5150]

I rewatched it on Wednesday and my opinion of it actually went down.
The first time I watched it I thought it was a pretty good movie, but had some atrocious dialogue.
Upon rewatching it at home, without the 3D, I have to say. The action was awesome (especially in that first scene). the story was okay (but yes the Staro mask was a little silly). But the ACTING was just universally terrible. Like, not one person in that movie gave a good performance.
Then there were some real petpeeves like
1) As Supplement Four pointed out, Conan has access to a crew of pirates, but chooses to go it alone (when in Howards work, did Conan ever have access to an army and choose not to use it? I cant think of a time.)
2) Lifting something to the sky and screaming is a good iconic image... to use once. Four times is too much. Like every 15 minutes, someone is screaming at the sky.
3) The movie fell into the same problem as Gladiator, where the opening scene was by far better than anything that came after.
4) Even though the Young Conan scenes where the best in the movie, I hate the fact that they feel the need to chronicle his entire life, rather than just having the story at hand, and learning about his past over time.

Ultimately, I think it could have been much better, but I'd probably watch a sequel in the hopes that, since they got all of that "Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die" crap out of the way, they can move onto REAL Conan.
Maybe a Black Colossus movie, or Queen of the Black Coast.

 

[Jeraa]

Ultimately, I think it could have been much better, but I'd probably watch a sequel in the hopes that, since they got all of that "Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die" crap out of the way, they can move onto REAL Conan.
Maybe a Black Colossus movie, or Queen of the Black Coast.

I wouldn't hope for a sequel. I read this earlier:

CONAN THE BARBARIAN The reboot of this shirtless sword-fighting epic starring "Game of Thrones'" Jason Momoa in the role originated by Arnold Schwarzenegger nearly three decades ago didn't perform nearly as well as hoped.

The $90 million 3D film grossed just $48.8 million worldwide, and it was listed as a key piece of dead weight by executives for studio Lionsgate when they reported a $19 million quarterly operating loss earlier this month. Critical disdain also ran high for the reboot, with Rotten Tomatoes scoring it at only 23 percent.

Seeing how bad the film did both financially and in reviews, I wouldn't expect a sequel anytime soon. If the film can't even make enough to cover its costs, no one will want to pay for a second one.

 

[Boneguard]

Still I bought it, it'd good for a few RPG premise.

Now I seriously should return to my Kull Sourcebook.

 

[Supplement Four]

Still I bought it, it'd good for a few RPG premise.

Heck, the D&D movie got a sequel. Maybe Conan will do well on DVD.

Now I seriously should return to my Kull Sourcebook.

The one you're writing?

 

[Boneguard]

Now I seriously should return to my Kull Sourcebook.

The one you're writing?

Yes. Now I almost have all of the written material on Kull in hand (all of Howards novel, the DeCamp version too) and almost all of the Marvel comics (those I do not have have been preordered from Dark Horse Comic).

Now I just need to sit down and get cracking at it.

 

[Jeraa]

Heck, the D&D movie got a sequel. Maybe Conan will do well on DVD.

Technically, yes. It was a sequel. But I don't count made-for-tv movies. A movie is only generally made for TV when they don't expect it to do well in theaters. And the sequel was still bad (though not as bad as the first), even for a made-for-TV movie.

But apparently good enough to make another sequal - Book of Vile Darkness

 

[Spectator]

The only savior for this genre would be if they did the Red Sonja reboot well, very well.
Other than that, I'm not sure we'll see another swords and sorcery film for a long time.

 

[Nyarlathotep5150]

The only savior for this genre would be if they did the Red Sonja reboot well, very well.
Other than that, I'm not sure we'll see another swords and sorcery film for a long time.

I'm not convinced we'll ever get Red Sonja, considering how much its been pushed off. I just wish they'd release Solomon Kane in the states. I really enjoyed that movie.

As far as Conan sequels, You're right, they wont even make straight to DVD sequels of a movie that only earned half its operating cost. Which brings me back to the question that I've been asking myself since I was 15.
Is it possible to make a good Conan movie?
I used to think the answer was no, because you can't find an actor with the look for the part that could also act. Now I know that is untrue. Mamoa was actually pretty good as Khal Drogo in Game of Thrones (and actually more Conan size there than in Conan).
But I think the problem is, when I read the stories, they're so filled with what are now corny cliches and cheesy plot and dialogue... And I love it, because thats what they ARE. When I see those same types of Hammy, demon worshiping sorcerers, or beefy barbarians in a modern, movie, my mind goes, wtf is this crap.
I think its nearly impossible to make a good Sword and Sorcery movie for the same reason its so hard to make a good Lovecraft movie. When we read the stories, we judge them by their own merit, based on the time they where written and the meme they were going for. When we watch a major, modern, hollywood movie, we judge it based on modern standards, and expectations. I think the mixing of the two breaks the subconscious compartmentalization we've put up, and there's no good way to handle it.

 

[Cheomesh]

I was always of the opinion that it should be done Mini-series style, a-la Shogun.

M.

 

[Boneguard]

I think its nearly impossible to make a good Sword and Sorcery movie for the same reason its so hard to make a good Lovecraft movie. When we read the stories, we judge them by their own merit, based on the time they where written and the meme they were going for. When we watch a major, modern, hollywood movie, we judge it based on modern standards, and expectations. I think the mixing of the two breaks the subconscious compartmentalization we've put up, and there's no good way to handle it.

I agree with you on this to a certain point. It is true that Conan and any Cthulhu Mythos are a product off a society that does not exist anymore with a lot of element that were acceptable/tolerated then but not anymore that leeched into the stories and it makes for a great reading, but on the big screen...

But I found a great Call of Cthulhu movie from these guys: http://www.cthulhulives.org/toc.html

What made it great for me, was the black & white silent movie feel to it, thus bringing me back in the '20s, '30s feel and it made it so much more enjoyable.

 

[Supplement Four]

The only savior for this genre would be if they did the Red Sonja reboot well, very well.

I understand that they were going to do Sonja the same way 300, The Spirit, and Sin City were made. I'm not sure that would be exactly what we're looking for.

 

[Spectator]

As far as Conan sequels, You're right, they wont even make straight to DVD sequels of a movie that only earned half its operating cost. Which brings me back to the question that I've been asking myself since I was 15.
Is it possible to make a good Conan movie?

I think everyone one on this forum will agree that it is possible.
Conan 1982 was superb.
Sure Arnie was the pastiche muscle bound doofus, but what carried the movie was not the FX, the babes in fur bikinis, or the swordplay, but rather the STORY.

Sure its Fantasy, but we want some reality and credibility.
We don't want Landyachts toted by a herd of elephants, silly endings (Conan attacking the boards around Zims feet), or implausible leaps of faith (Conan to the pirates: "stay cool I'll attack Zims castle on my own!").

We do want villains: Marique the witch, Khalar Zim, Taramis, Thulsa Doom, etc...
We do want simple plot devices: revenge for my burnt village, revenge for my lost comrades, etc...
We do want the supernatural: love the sand elementals, love the witches, love the giant snakes, I like the giant octopus, but shouldn't they have been worshipping it and tossing it the last Acheronian instead of trucking up to Skull Cave?

In any case the plot in the last film was actually worse than the Conan the Destroyer and Kull (1997).


I do agree that the cast was superb, the acting pretty convincing, but when you have a shitty story no amount of muscles, FX, and acting will overcome it.

IN THE END: It is possible to make a a good conan movie, have a good plot. 5/6 the home-made Conan adventures have a better plot than this movie.
This guy has awesome stuff: http://hyboria.xoth.net/adventures/index.htm

 

[Nyarlathotep5150]

But I found a great Call of Cthulhu movie from these guys: http://www.cthulhulives.org/toc.html

What made it great for me, was the black & white silent movie feel to it, thus bringing me back in the '20s, '30s feel and it made it so much more enjoyable.

I've seen that one. It was pretty good. But still, they had to make it in the style of the movies of that time period. I'm not sure it would have flown, if they'd made it a big budget, hollywood blockbuster (and if they did, they'd have to fill it with sex and violence to cater to a modern horror audience).
As far as Conan movies, I'd still like to see them just take one of the stories and put it on the big screen. I'd like to see a Conan Trilogy actually.
1) Conan:the Barbarian= Black Colossus (maybe with tower of the elephant worked in too)
2) Conan:the Pirate (or Warlord if they go for his time as a Cossack)= Queen of the black coast, People of the black circle, or some other story from the midpoint of his career (this is the hardest one for me to pin down, cause there are too many good choices).
3) King Conan=Hour of the Dragon

If they did that and I still disliked the movies, then I'd have to conclude a good one can't be done. Until then, I just wonder.

 

[The King]

The film was delayed for 9 years during which the script was corrected and rewritten. I could have wrotten that piece of sh*t in a fortnight.

I saw this crap of a movie and can't understand why they'd rather write a pitiful scenario than use the short stories created by Howard. So they wanted a pastiche and used people who don't care and don't know about the background.

IIRC the Acheronian empire is 7-8000 years old and they still can find a single (?) pure blood. And then WTF is she doing in Turan? Moreover Acheron was destroyed by the tribes of Bori which later gave the name of Hyborian kingdoms (Aquilonia among others). So how could Cimmerian tribes (which "worship" Crom) have parts of the mask as they didn't take part in the fall of Acheron. Just this is enough to say this has nothing to do with Howard.

It's just like the script writters as well as the licencers (Conan Properties Inc.) wouldn't have known and read the Hyborian Age of Howard (which is only 10 pages long). Despite all what was said in interviews (about the respect of the works of Howard), this is just a mere Robert E. Howard swindle.

Hell! an Howard story is about 30-50 pages long. Is it so hard to adapt several (or even just once) as a scenario?

If I wanted to sell toilet paper with the name Conan on it, I guess CPI would be just as happy as if I had proposed them to make an adaptation of the Hour of the dragon. I believe the licence should be in the hands of people who cares about the legacy. In the end I'm truly happy the movie did generate losses.

 

[Nyarlathotep5150]

I agree with most of your sentiments and your candor, but I think some of the minutia might be flawed.
As to the interviews of people saying they wanted to "respect Howards vision", I'm pretty sure those where mostly interviews with Mamoa. He's just an actor and has little control over the script/direction. He can TRY to respect Howards vision all he wants, but in the end, the final product is out of his hands...
Though there are exceptions to that. Brandon Lee is the major reason why the Crow was so true to the feel of the Graphic Novel (they where actually planning to butcher it), but thats a minority example.

As far as CPI being Rabid capitalists who don't care about the legacy and are just in it to make a buck? I'm not sure I agree there. Just because they sold an option for a movie, and said movie was crap (as where the 3 before it), doesn't mean the company was only after the money (if it did, then we'd have to tear into Frank Herbert for the fact that every adaptation of Dune has been terrible). The company usually doesn't have that much control over the movie (even George R.R. Martin, had to executive produce Game of Thrones to PARTIALLY avoid this issue).
So, I think the blame for Conan 3D lays with the writers and director (and Rachel Nichols for being a horrible actress).

 

[RangerDan]

I found Jason Momoa actually quite good as Conan. He looked the part and could pull off the ferocious/dangerous but also charming when he wants to be Conan. Whatever problems I had with his performance have more to with the script than with his delivery. I think it's sad that it's likely we'll never see him tackle Conan again.

Rose McGowan and Stephen Lang were also fine as villains, happily chewing up the scenery and being eeeeevil. There was even some creepy incestuous undertones to the whole thing. Overall no complaints.

I did not like Rachel Nichols as Tamara/The Girl at all. Her accent, bearing, lines - basically everything transported me out of "An Age Undreamed Of" and into "I'm like, totally playing in a Conan movie!"
On this topic, Conan stories only really have two kinds of female characters: badass warrior-women (Belit, Valeria) or whimpering whenches to be rescued (everyone else). I realise that helpless damsels is not really Politically Correct anymore, but they work in this genre. This girl was neither one nor the other and it just didn't work for me.

Still, the main problem with the movie is with the script, both story and tone. Others have covered above that many things make no sense. Other nitpicks:
* Why doesn't Marique use her witch-powers against Tamara as she did during the Conan/Khalar Zym fight? Because the script calls for a catfight.
* The whole subplot with the thief and breaking into Khalar Zym's fortress felt completely unnecessary. They break in, fight their way to the top, find out they're too late and... walk out the main gate? In comparison, Conan 1982 shows both a break-in AND an escape.

I also could get no sense of scale in the movie. There's travelling on horse, on a boat, elephants in the jungle... where are they? Where are they going? Is it far? The movie is not so much a world in which the characters live, but rather one set-piece followed by another set-piece followed by another set-piece.
Overall, the movies fails because the script fails to create a sense of scope, of scale and above all, of danger.

This post is getting too long. I think the reason I was upset about this movie is that it could have been good. If they had only worried about making a good movie rather than making a pretty movie, US$ 90 million actually goes pretty far. What a waste.

 

[The King]

The interview I was talking about concerned the script writers Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer at the begining, then Sean Hood and Andrew Lobel who are Conan "admirers".

If CPI had cared for the licence they would have had a look at the script and at the movie before its release (or in this case its non release). Thus, they are totally co-responsible for this.

As to Conan, the actor isn't bad but Conan is too cruel (the finger in the cut nose and the key in the stomach to free the slaves for example). The scene with the eggs at the beginning is also crap as it implies most of the Cimerians aren't skilled fighters. They also didn't fight back the invaders and fleed.
Conan's father seems to be the village chief but he was a mere blacksmith. Howard never mentioned that Conan was the son of a chief.

etc. ad infinitum.

 

[Nyarlathotep5150]

If CPI had care for the licence they would have had a look at the script and at the movie before its release (or in this case its non release). Thus, they are totally co-responsible for this.

I think you're severely overestimating the level of power they have over the finished product. How it works is, the owner of the intellectual property sells the studio the right to make a movie. After that, the original owner has no say in what happens. The only ways to get around this are 1) to produce the movie yourself, or 2) to be as Huge as Rowling or Stephen King, where people HAVE to listen to you.

As to Conan, the actor isn't bad but Conan is too cruel (the finger in the cut nose and the key in the stomach to free the slaves for example). The scene with the eggs at the beginning is also crap as it implies most of the Cimerians aren't skilled fighters. They also didn't fight back the invaders and fled.
Conan's father seems to be the village chief but he was a mere blacksmith. Howard never mentioned that Conan was the son of a chief.
etc. ad infinitum.

See, I disagree here. I thought the young Conan scenes and the jailbreak scene were the best part of the movie. I don't think Conan would be opposed to torturing someone for information when that person helped torture and murder his father.
And I don't feel that the pict scene implied that Cimmerians weren't skilled fighters. It implied that unarmed, untrained, teenage Cimmerians would be smart enough to rally the village against an armed invading force, but that Conan was just THAT MUCH MORE badass that he could handle it alone.
And the village did fight the invaders. There was a big battle scene before the Cimmerians lost and Conans father was captured.
I also have no problem with Conans father being the chief and a "mere" blacksmith. 1) Barbarian cultures don't have much in the way of a stable economy. They would have to know how to do everything themselves. Everyone would need some blacksmithing skill.
Add to that the fact that 1) a barbarian chief is simply the best warrior, and head of the tribes defenders (not an executive ruler like a feudal king) and 2) that the movie implied that Cimmerian warriors were required to forge their own swords (which makes sense, since you could hardly just go to the weapon shop and buy one, in a society where everyone has to spend all their time struggling just to survive), and, to me, the opening scenes become the best/most logical in the movie.

P.S. another thing to add to my list of gripes. Zyms' weird, teched out double scimitar. Why?