# Conan the Barbarian



## Krug (Aug 17, 2011)

Saw it at a preview and enjoyed it, though it's definitely a good but not a GREAT movie. Pretty much does what it says on the tin, except that Conan doesn't do any swearing to Crom, which did kind of bug me.

Otherwise Momoa is a worthy successor to Arnie, and it's a bunch of fighting scenes put together end to end stringed together with a bare revenge plot. The action's passable though the editing can be quite confusing and the pacing is fairly uneven. 

Don't expect too much, and don't pay for 3D (unless you still enjoy having things hurled at you).


----------



## Kzach (Aug 17, 2011)

Krug said:


> Pretty much does what it says on the tin, except that Conan doesn't do any swearing to Crom, which did kind of bug me.




It wasn't the swearing TO Crom that made that line so good; it was the swearing AT Crom


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 19, 2011)

My own review is up on my website.  Major spoilers are there but I will say that as forgiving as I am of most genre movies, I cannot recommend this one.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 19, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> . . . as forgiving as I am of most genre movies, I cannot recommend this one.



Ouch. I am easily among the easiest to please movie watcher. I was planning on this one just from the trailer. I want to be a supporter badly. But I may just have to hold off for a rental.

For instance, I was impressed by the trailer for _Sucker Punch_, saw horrible reviews and went to see it and I loved it. Yet I was impressed by the trailer for _Priest_, saw horrible reviews so I held off and rented it instead and I'm glad I didn't watch it in the theater though it was worth a rental.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 19, 2011)

Eric Anondson said:


> Ouch. I am easily among the easiest to please movie watcher. I was planning on this one just from the trailer. I want to be a supporter badly. But I may just have to hold off for a rental.
> 
> For instance, I was impressed by the trailer for _Sucker Punch_, saw horrible reviews and went to see it and I loved it. Yet I was impressed by the trailer for _Priest_, saw horrible reviews so I held off and rented it instead and I'm glad I didn't watch it in the theater though it was worth a rental.





SP really needed the big screen treatment but Priest could go either way.  I liked Priest for its well done though formulaic plot that felt like it could easily be ported to a tabletop RPG.  SP was visually stunning.  Conan just never fired on even half its cylinders for me.


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 20, 2011)

Krug said:


> Saw it at a preview and enjoyed it, though it's definitely a good but not a GREAT movie. Pretty much does what it says on the tin, except that Conan doesn't do any swearing to Crom, which did kind of bug me.
> 
> Otherwise Momoa is a worthy successor to Arnie, and it's a bunch of fighting scenes put together end to end stringed together with a bare revenge plot. The action's passable though the editing can be quite confusing and the pacing is fairly uneven.
> 
> Don't expect too much, and don't pay for 3D (unless you still enjoy having things hurled at you).




I pretty much agree with you spot on.  I enjoyed the movie tonight and thought it was good and a lot of fun.  But it was lacking a few important things that kept it from being a great CONAN movie, and we deserved a great one!

There was little sense of urgency, I never got the sense Conan was ever really in any danger.  He was certainly put in dangerous situations, but he was such a badass I was never worried for him.  There wasn't a lot of good characterization across the board, the young Conan felt more real to me than Momoa's adult Conan, despite Momoa having the physicality for the role.  The romantic lead was pretty blah, the "pureblood".

The movie also lacked, well, pretentiousness!  Perhaps the original Conan movie spoiled me, but both Momoa and his leading lady were too contemporary in their delivery.  Momoa had the brooding looks down, but then he'd start talking . . . .

The villians, however, were tons of fun.  Zym and his daughter were chewing the scenery in a delicious way!  Best part of the movie for me.  The background scenery was pretty incredible too, you really got a sense of a world that existed in the embers of a greater, fallen age.

Lots of great stuff in this film, glad I went to see it tonight, but won't be buying the DVD.  I blame it on the director, as all the elements were there, they just weren't brought together into the amazing package they should have.


----------



## SparqMan (Aug 20, 2011)

I saw it tonight. Some decent material for D&D encounters, particularly Dark Sun.


----------



## Water Bob (Aug 20, 2011)

*EATING A LITTLE CROW* 





I predicted that this film would suck and suck in a major way. I went into the film (I had to see it--I'm a Conan fan) thinking it would be a waste of money. I thought I'd roll my eyes and secretly cry that "they" are screwing up the presentation of my favorite barbarian. At best, I thought this film would be a *PRINCE OF PERSIA* or a *CLASH OF THE TITANS*--a forgettable film that, although I enjoyed seeing, I would forget as soon as I got to my car outside the theater. But, my fear was that the film would be *The Scorpion King* or *The Mummmy*--a CGI action fest that bored me to tears (cliched line for cliched movies). 

Well, it's time to eat a little crow. 

I liked it, guys and gals. I really did. 

Is it the answer to all of my Conan hopes and prayers? Definitely not. It's not to Conan fans what *Lord of the Rings* is to LotR fans. It's not the Holy Grail of Sword & Sorcery films, and not, by a long shot, the mother of all Conan films, of which I have been praying, for over a decade. 

But, it is a good film. It is a watchable film. The movie reminds me of a fun pastiche Conan novel--something that John Maddox Roberts or Lin Carter would write. And, that, right there, made it so much better than what I had expected. 

I hope the film does well. I see the critics are kicking the hell out of it. I am encouraged by the Batman franchise. *Batman Begins* is a so-so film, I think. I like the sober take on the caped crusader, but the film does not rock my world. Then, *The Dark Knight* hit screens. OH...MY...GOD...what a movie! 

I hoping that *Conan The Barbarian* will be to its sequel what *Batman Begins* was to *The Dark Knight*--that we go from "OK. Pretty Good. Better Than I Thought" to "BEST FREAKIN' CONAN MOVIE EVER MADE". 

But, that's hopes for the future. Let's look a little closer at *CONAN THE BARBARIAN* as I highlight what I liked and disliked about it. 





*SPOILERS BE HERE!* 
I probably shouldn't have to spoiler tag in a thread about reviews, but I will, anyway, just to be on the safe-side. I'd say I've got light spoilers below. 







*~ ACTING ~* 

Everybody in the film, from the non-speaking roles on up, are very good*. At the top of the heap, the most memorable performances are turned in by Rose McGowan and Leo Howard. Rose plays Marique, the bad guy's sorcery steeped daughter, and she hams up the role to perfection. I wouldn't give her an Oscar, but I have no doubt in my mind that she was the right person for the role. 

Surprisingly, Leo Howard, playing the young Conan, is actually better onscreen than Momoa is playing the adult Conan. Leo turns in a performance that, for me, is spot on, selling me on him growing up to be the grim, savage barbarian that Howard gave us. I think the Nispel needs to have his casting direction ring up George Lucas that next time George needs to portray Darth Vader as a kid. Leo Howard's young Conan chews up and spits out Jake Lloyd's young Anakin Skywalker. Don't think Jake in *The Phantom Menace*--think about the performance Haley Joel Osment gave us in The Sixth Sense. Leo Howard is just flat-out "good" in this movie. 

On the next tier, I'd put Stephen Lang Ron Perlman. Lang chews up the screen as the film's bad guy, Khalar Zim. I bought him completely as a power-hungry zealot. The mark of a good performance is that he left me thinking that there is a lot more to his story than what we saw on the screen in the film. I bet an entire prequel could be made (Maybe in book form one day? I'd buy it! Hell, maybe Dark Horse will take a swing at this?) that would fill in the gaps. He's a good bad-guy, worthy of taking his place next to Thulsa Doom from the original Conan movie. 

Perlman isn't on the screen long, and he doesn't have many lines. But, I think Perlman's shows his his best work since playing *Hell Boy* (C'mon. He was good in that role even if you didn't like the films!) Perlman, playing Conan's father in this film, shows us (and those not so learned in the ways of Conan) what it means to be a "Cimmerian". Perlman took the part and made it more than it was (is my guess). 





*Two Exceptions...* 

*I had to throw up an asterix on that first line of this section because I'm not being entirely truthful to you. Remember, this is all my opinion. So, a more truthful, revised statement would read: Everybody in the film, from the non-speaking roles on up, are very good, with two exceptions. 

It's a drag that the two exceptions I'm about to name are the male and female leads in the film. 

Momoa is acceptible as Conan. Physically, he looks the part. I never thought of Conan as a Schwarzenegger body builder, as the character is always depicted, from the excellent works of Frazetta to the character's appearances in comics. The curly, rather than straight, hair doesn't bother me. And, I kept looking to see if the filmmakers colored Momoa's eyes blue. I couldn't tell. In the end, brown or blue, it doesn't bother me that much. 

I'm not trying to say that Jason Momoa is a "bad" Conan. He's not. Far from it. I was just hoping for a "perfect" Conan, the way Daniel Craig is "perfect" to play Bond (not physically, but Craig really captures the "essence" of Bond if you've read Fleming's books). Momoa doesn't seem to quite "get" the character, the way Howard wrote him. Momoa seems an amalgam of Conan characters by different writers, from the dark and brooding Conan that Howard originated, to Robert Jordan's more light hearted hero, with a touch of the Conan that we've seen in the comics. Hopefully, in a sequel, Momoa will better understand and express the character he is playing. 

To be fair, although I think Christian Bale deserved the Oscar he got for his role in *The Fighter*, I'm not that excited about his portrayal of Batman. And, *The Dark Knight* is still a damn good film. I can forsee a "great" Conan film even with Momoa continuing in the role. 

But, folks, there is one bad actor in this film. Rachel Nichols is just "NOT GOOD" in her role. She looks (and acts) like she just stepped off of Sex And The City to do this role. She's totally mis-cast. Everytime she was on screen, she pulled me out of my suspension of disbelief. I kept thinking, "She's too 'modern'. She looks like a last minute quick-cast for a TV show. 

I didn't like her in the role at all. 





_*One more thing....*_ 

Oh...and one more thing.... Isn't that Morgan Freeman doing the honors as narrator? Uncredited? 





*~ WRITING & DIRECTING ~* 

I'm very surprised to report that the story "ain't half bad". As I said above, the movie does play out like one of those TOR pastiche novels by one of the better authors. And, parts of the plot are also a homage to the original film: Conan's dad makes a sword for him--the sword is taken when entire village is whiped out by the bad guy--Conan escapes and vows revenge--Conan meets up with bad guy years later after Conan is a bad ass. 

One thing that the screenwriters did, though, that I think was very smart (and unexpected), is that they crafted the story around Howard's Conan tales. Howard never wrote a story set during Conan's youth. The screenwriters started there and skipped the majority of Howard's stories. Although we see Conan's youth in the beginning of the film, the movie isn't a standard origin tale. We see Conan being born on a battlefield. We see Conan when he begins his warrior training among his clan. Then, we skip several years of Conan's life after many, many adventures that Howard has told us. Conan is in his prime when he catch back up with him again, and the subtext and voice over tells us that he's already been that new-to-civilization thief in Zamora and a pirate on the Great Western Ocean. Jason Momoa is in his early 30's, which is about in sync with Howard's story, taking the character to somewhere around the tales of *Iron Shadows in the Moon* or *The Devil in Iron*. 

If CPI wanted to, the powers-that-be could make the tale told in the movie "official" and never step on any of Howard's toes with any of the Conan tales. 

I think that was a brilliant move. 





_*Cheesy lines....*_ 

With three writers on the film, though, I would hope that all the cheesy lines and situations were sandblasted from the final script. But, alas, a few eye-rollers did get through. For example, when Conan finds the man who killed his father, Khalar Zim, Conan's comrades--a whole ship full of 'em--pledge their allegiance to him and offer to go after Zim in force. Conan lowers his eyes so that he's peeking just under his Cro-Magnon brow and says, in a low, gravely voice, "I go alone on this one." 

Oh God. Are you kidding me? Really? You've got an entire ship full of people to help you go against one of the biggest warlords known in this part of the world, and you decide to go it alone? You're that much a hero, huh? Gimme a break. 





_*Scratching my head...*_ 

Another thing that got me to scratching my head was this big ship that Khalar Zim carries along with him wherever he goes. It's carried by elephants, surrounded by Zim's army. He uses it for his moble bedchamber. When I saw this in the trailer, I rolled my eyes and thought it was stupid. In the film, it actually came across as "cool". But, I kept waiting for Zim to throw the thing in the water. Why carry a ship--not a boat, but a ship--around with you if you're not going to cross some water with it? Zim uses the ship as a battering ram in one scene, and the rest of the time, it's his casa-on-the-trail, but not once does it even rain on the ship, much less have its keel sink into an ocean or a sea. 





_*A prayer for excellence....*_ 

One final comment and a question pertaining to the writing of the film: What I really wanted to see was not another Conan-loses-his-village-tale. Why does Conan's village have to burned to the ground? I would love to see a well written, dramatic, well acted set-up where Conan's grandfather is feeding young Conan tales of traveling out of Cimmeria into the civilized lands and seeing Conan hang on his grandfather's every word and then struck with wanderlust once Conan grew to an adult. Sure, you can throw in an action scene, if you need to while still pulling this off. I mean, Conan doesn't have to be enslaved and/or have everyone he knows killed in front of his eyes. Hell, Khalar Zim could have been an underling that was in a Pict/Vanir/Hyrkanian/Other-Cimmerian-Clan raid upon Conan's village who killed his young love interest--but the raid was driven off by the Cimmerians. They don't all have to die to give us an engaging Conan tale. I'd like to see Conan return to his village in a later Conan movie and maybe see his grandfather or father die or old age, or a deer antler puncture, or even by the hand of the bad guy in that later film. 

But, there's nothing to do about it now. It was just a hope of mine. 

And, good God, I wish no character had ever uttered the word "Hyboria" in the movie. Thankfully, it doesn't happen that often. 



*My question:* In the film, Conan returns to The City of Thieves. Now, I know that Howard never officially named the City of Thieves or indicated that it had a name other than that. I think it was de Camp & Co. that named the city as Arenjun. Is there some sort of licensing issue to where the screenwriters couldn't refer to the City of Thieves as "Arenjun"? Because, in the film, the place is named something else--I don't remember the exact spelling. But, it's close to "Arenjun", starting with an "A", though it is a different word. 

If there is no reason why Arenjun wasn't used, then my question is: Why wasn't it? 

If there is some legal reason why the name of the city was changed, then my question is: Why didn't the screenwriters just refer to the place (using the on-screen location titles, as was done in the film) as "The City of Thieves" and leave it at that? Why rename the place? Especially since legal reasons and licensing issues can change in the future? 





_*Directing....*_ 

Nispel's directing is quite capable. I think the dark, brooding, tense atmosphere of *Pathfinder* would have been better served on this film. Much of Nispel's earlier film reminds me of a well told Conan tale. 

On the other hand, *Pathfinder* didn't hold up as a "good" film, in my opinion, and *Conan* is a much better flick. 

If you took the best aspects of *Pathfinder* and combined those with the best aspects of this *Conan* movie, you'd have a Conan tale that is much closer to "Great" than the movie that we have. I'm actually surprised that parts of *Pathfinder* make me think of what a *Conan* movie should be but nothing in the *Conan* film would transfer well to the *Pathfinder* film, in my opinion. 

The opening of this film, set in Cimmeria, is done quite well. When the lights went out, I expected to start seeing that crappy, campy film I thought I was going to get. Instead, I was glued to my seat until Conan became a man. Good stuff. 

I was worried that seeing young 12-year-old Conan fight would make me cringe, my suspension of disbelief destroyed by the young kid kicking adult seasoned warrior butt. But...it was done quite well. I would have preferred that Conan fight a single Pict adult warrior--not a squad of them. One kid besting a adult. Yes. That would have been better--much more believeable. But, I'll be darned, Conan fighting three still made me smile, and when young Conan dropped those three heads at his father's feet...well, I'm giving away too much. Yeah. It was cool. 

I think the highlight of the directing in the film is the action scenes. I was afraid that Nispel was going to go all Matrix on us and have Conan jumping and zipping around as the trailer would have us believe. To my complete surprise, this isn't the case. Conan fights like a caged animal who has learned a few tricks, and since this film is set later in Conan's life, after several experiences described in Howard's tales, I can believe that Conan has, indeed, picked up a few tricks and polished his form a bit, displayed as it is in the film. 

I like, too, that the film shows lots of hero-realistic blood. That type of thing definitely fits dark and gritty "Conan". 

I also smiled at an early scene, an homage to one of my favorite Dark Horse Conan comics. This scene... 











Is directly copied at the end of the pre-credit teaser opening as Conan is literally born on the battlefield. 

I cheered at that one. 



*Comment:* It's interesting the pronounciations used in the film. Acheron is not "Awk-er-on", as I've always said it and heard it. It's "Ah-sure-on", with the "ch" taking on the "sh" sound. And "Hyrkania", which I've always thought of as "Her-conn-ee-ah" sprouts another syllable and becomes "High-er-Cain-ee-ah". 







*~ Production Values ~* 

The sights and sounds in this film are...fantastic. I worried that the film would look "too CGI". It doesn't. And, I hate period pieces (or pseudo-period pieces, such as this one) where the costumes look like they were not hand made but just fell off the costume designer's modern day sewing machine. The *Lord of the Rings* films use fantasic, believeable, costumes. *King Arthur* is one of those films where the costumes don't sell the time period. Yes, folks, the wardrobe and props in *Conan* look damn good. 

I was worried about the gadget sword that Khalar Zim uses. If he uses it one handed, he fights with a fork-like dual bladed weapon. He can zip it open and use it like a long two-sided sword. Or, he can snape the two sword blades apart and fight with one sword in each hand. 

This is, again, another area where I was pleasantly surprised. The weapon wasn't over used, never focussed upon, and came across as "cool" when it was used in the film. 

All the sets, all the armor, all the weapons...just downright looked good and "fit" the Hyborian Age. Enough "fantasy" is mixed in with the history-esque stuff that it provides for an imaginative, alien-if-familair, world. 

The story takes us to several places during the Hyborian Age. We see Cimmeria, Zingara, The City of Thieves, and even an ancient Acheronian monastery. I smiled when this large, port-side metropolis came onscreen with the title "Messantia" written across the bottom. The original Conan film did its share of traveling, too, but I think this film did a much better job of making us feel like we were really witnessing the action in different places. This is due to the outstanding visuals. 





_*A note on CGI....*_ 

I expected the film to look, well, too "CGI". And, although I think almost every scene in the film might have a touch of CGI in it, I'll go on record here and say that this is some of the best CGI work I've seen simply because the film doesn't look like a collection of obviously CGI enhanced footage. The producers must be using a new technique. 

95% of the film looks fantastic. I was amazed. There is a fight scene, though, with some half-seen tentacled beast where the tentacles are obviously the old, stick-out-like-a-sore-thumb CGI effects. Remember the octo-beastie outsides the gates of Moria in *The Fellowship of the Ring*? Well, these tentacles look just as obviously "CGI". 

Also, even with the neat-o CGI background, there are a couple of close-up shots where it looks like back-projection was used. You remember back-projection, right? It's when a screen is thrown up behind actors displaying a background while the actors act in front of the scene on a stage. This technique was used in the 40's and 60's, especially in scenes where the camera was on two actors sitting in the back of a cab while the city flew by outside the cab's back window. There's something a little "fake" about it, and I got that same "fake" feeling a few times seeing Conan in closeup with a CGI background in the back. 





*~ THUMBS UP, OR THUMBS DOWN? ~* 

If you want a solid rating, I'd give this film 3.5 stars out of 5. Not bad, when I was expecting to give it a "1". I'd give it a C+, on the standard grade-school ABCDF grading system. The film is a bit over a passing grade but not quite up there with the "A" and "B" best-films-I've-ever-seen movies. I reserve movies like Falling Down, Forrest Gump, Glengary Glen Ross, and Blow for those ratings. 

Yes, it's a good film. Go see it. 

Yes, I think Conan fans will like it more than non-Conan fans because, as a Conan fan, I "understood" the things that were not spelled out in the film. 

And, yes, I hope there is a sequel, and I hope that sequel simple rock my world and drives me to write a single word review of that in-the-future movie by saying "GREAT" and just leaving it at that.


----------



## GreyLord (Aug 20, 2011)

[MENTION=50460]Water[/MENTION]bob

We have the exact opposite tastes in movies.  Everyone raved about Dark Knight, but I felt it was too long and drawn out, the only reason it did so well and people praised it was due to it almost being a eulogy to Heath Ledger.  Without that, I think it actually would have been panned on many levels (though Ledger's acting was spectacular, the movie itself was pretty bleh).  Batman Begins on the otherhand I found outstanding.

I enjoyed The Mummy movies overall, though the last one was a bit over the top, and did not enjoy the Scorpian King.  I suppose the Scorpian King is about all we agree on being bad.

I should say I'm a big Robert Howard fan as well, one may be able to guess my reactions to the movie.

However, I'd also say I like Edgar Rice Burroughs, and they have yet to really make an outstanding Tarzan movie either...sooooo...


----------



## Water Bob (Aug 20, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> We have the exact opposite tastes in movies.




Probably so.  





> Everyone raved about Dark Knight, but I felt it was too long and drawn out, the only reason it did so well and people praised it was due to it almost being a eulogy to Heath Ledger. Without that, I think it actually would have been panned on many levels (though Ledger's acting was spectacular, the movie itself was pretty bleh).




Actually, I would agree that without Ledger's incredible job as the Joker, the movie would not have been as good.





> Batman Begins on the otherhand I found outstanding.




Really.  Wow.  We do have different tastes.





> I enjoyed The Mummy movies overall, though the last one was a bit over the top, and did not enjoy the Scorpian King. I suppose the Scorpian King is about all we agree on being bad.




I think I fell asleep in all three of them.  If I saw them again today (given that I didn't fall asleep again), it would be like watching new movies because I can't remember what happened in them.

I just didn't like either Mummy or Scorion King at all.





> I should say I'm a big Robert Howard fan as well, one may be able to guess my reactions to the movie.




I find that most hardcore Howard fans like nothing but the less-than-twenty Conan stories that he wrote.  I am a huge Howard fan.  I love his writing.  But, I also find things that I like when other people write Conan.

For example, many Howard fans will tell you that the Age of Conan trilogy about the Cimmerian Kern is a load of fan-fiction crap.  I think the books are some of the best Hyborian Age ficition written.  And, although not Howard, I do like the works of many of the pastiche writers like John Maddox Roberts, Robert Jordan, L. Sprague de Campe, Lin Carter, and a few others (not all of them--Conan by authors like Roland Green and Steve Perry do turn out pure crap!).

So, I dug the film.  Not great, but not a bad film, either.

Your milage will vary with your tastes.







> However, I'd also say I like Edgar Rice Burroughs, and they have yet to really make an outstanding Tarzan movie either...sooooo...




John Carter of Mars is coming up in a few months.  We'll see how they do.


----------



## Dykstrav (Aug 20, 2011)

Glad I saw it in the theatre, although I still think the 1982 version was better.

I really liked the production design--it looked like and felt like the Hyborian age. I got the sense that civilization exists in pockets and that wilderness (and the "rule of nature, red in tooth and claw") rules most of the world. You can look at the people and immediately say, "That's a Pict, that's a Zingaran," and so forth. Spot-on visuals for portraying the world and its inhabitants. Speaking from a tabletop RPG perspective, I'd gladly point players at the film to get an idea of how sword-and-sorcery settings should look and feel.

That being said, I feel that the weakest element is the story itself. It's a basic action/adventure revenge-fantasy plot that never tries to go beyond justifying the violence of the protagonist. It's basically an excuse for action or fight scenes and makes no pretense of being anything more substantial. You could take the meat of the story and transport it into any other genre and have it work with minimal changes, so I'd properly classify it as an action movie with Hyborian window dressing. That was pretty disappointing.

Of course, I saw it with people that I gamed with and we went out for coffee after the movie. One thing we were semi-amused at was how closely we could map the plot and events of the movie to 4E. We could all pick out where action points, second winds, encounter and daily powers were used and when short rests were taken and so forth. That can be sort of amusing if you're a gamer nerd, I suppose.

Overall, I give the movie two stars. It's just another action movie at heart, but it's watchable the first time through. I'm not particularly interested in seeing it again though. If you really dig the Hyborian Age stuff and enjoy sword-and-sorcery scenery like I do, I'd go so far as to give it three stars on the strength of its production design, wardrobe, and the like. Even so, three stars feels generous. I'm not disappointed that I went to see it, but there is certainly a lot of room for improvement.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Aug 20, 2011)

Dire Bare said:


> I pretty much agree with you spot on. I enjoyed the movie tonight and thought it was good and a lot of fun. But it was lacking a few important things that kept it from being a great CONAN movie, and we deserved a great one!
> 
> There was little sense of urgency, I never got the sense Conan was ever really in any danger. He was certainly put in dangerous situations, but he was such a badass I was never worried for him. There wasn't a lot of good characterization across the board, the young Conan felt more real to me than Momoa's adult Conan, despite Momoa having the physicality for the role. The romantic lead was pretty blah, the "pureblood".
> 
> ...




Yes in Both RE HOWARD, and ROY THOMAS comics, CONAN was never in a sure shot of success.  This Conan was an EPIC fighter fighting mooks.  The Spirit of Conan, was maybe a 15th level fighter fighting lvl 6 to 8 fighters.  NEver a sure shot, but you knew he would PROBABLY pull through.

Even the Oliver Stones John Milius Conan, had Conan get his arse handed to him once or twice.

I do not beleive that Conan falls on the Epic scale of characters.  I hated the part with poisoning because it said "CONAN CAN NOT BE BEAT... unless you dull his senses".  No.  I was hoping to have conan get his arse kicked there, and just get madder later.

I agree.  This movie was bad due to the director.  I do not beleive he honestly knew conan.  A director that honestly knew conan would have had conan get beat.

I thought the beginning part with the picts was ridiculous and far too sensationalist.

I did LIKE the movie, because of individual INCIDENTS.  But as a whole I thought it could have been much better.


----------



## Water Bob (Aug 21, 2011)

There is one interesting game-related moment in the film. In the Cimmeria sourcebook for Mongoose's d20 Conan Roleplaying Game, it is mentioned that when Cimmerians see hooded crows that they believe the crow signals the site of a battlefield. It's one of the few Cimmerian superstitiions mentioned in that game aid.

Well, there is a very short shot of a hooded crow (a hooded crow is a dark colored crow with a white apron around its neck) pecking on a body at the end of the scene where Conan's village is decimated.

Now, where Lawrence Whitaker, the writer of the Cimmeria game supplement, got that idea, I don't know. Maybe he made it up. But, I suspect that it might be a true Celtic superstition as I've seen several Celtic-isms make it into the book (like the Beltain festival) as Cimmerian-isms.

So, I doubt that the hooded crow makes an appearance because of the d20 Conan RPG, but it is kinda neat that it's in there.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 21, 2011)

Mamoa was quite good as Conan. Some dialog choices were not so great, but that's the director's responsibility.

The opening was awesome and the early parts are very good. 

Climax 



Spoiler



on the bridge


 was very weak.

Thankfully the "no man should live in chains" line was not Conan's only motive for slave freeing;



Spoiler



the assault on the slavers was to loot the slavers treasure


& the other time 



Spoiler



he had a hand in freeing slaves, it was to bring painful vengeance on an old foe


.


----------



## Krug (Aug 22, 2011)

Pretty painful box office numbers. Conan only earned estimated US$10 million this weekend, behind The Help, Rise of Planet of the Apes and.. Spy Kids 4.

Weekend Box Office Results for August 19-21, 2011 - Box Office Mojo


----------



## Water Bob (Aug 22, 2011)

Krug said:


> Pretty painful box office numbers. Conan only earned estimated US$10 million this weekend, behind The Help, Rise of Planet of the Apes and.. Spy Kids 4.
> 
> Weekend Box Office Results for August 19-21, 2011 - Box Office Mojo




Yep. I think its the movie's trailer. That's why I thought the movie would suck so bad. The trailer looks like crap.

My buddy asked his 18 yo son if he wanted to see the movie, and the reply was, "No dad! That movie looks awful!"

As I said in my review, the movie isn't a GREAT movie, but it sure is better than crap. It's worth seeing, if you're a sword & sorcery fan. It's better than The Ghost Rider, which is getting a sequel, and recent genre films like the Clash of the Titans remake, The Eagle, Centurion, and Season of the Witch, plus a whole host of other recent films out there. At least, I think so.

It deserves a bigger shot than what its getting.

I bet the distributor has already given up on it, but they'd be smart to re-cut a trailer. I bet it will do much better as a DVD rental.


----------



## Dykstrav (Aug 22, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I bet the distributor has already given up on it, but they'd be smart to re-cut a trailer. I bet it will do much better as a DVD rental.




This is exactly what I was discussing with one of my players after our Pathfinder Greyhawk game this evening. We both think that there are tons of people who are waiting for this thing to come out on DVD/Bluray/Netflix that won't go see it in the theatre--DVD sales are how that godawful D&D movie broke even, I believe. Speaking of which...

If _Dungeons & Dragons_ got a sequel with a third installment on the way... Then by Crom, I think _Conan: the Barbarian_ can get a sequel too (even if it's direct-to-video). It'll just take a bit longer than if it did gangbusters this weekend.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 22, 2011)

I enjoyed it and give it a weak 8 / strong 7.  Visually beautiful movie, with great combat scenes.  I would love to see another one.  

I like Jason better than Arnie as Conan.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 22, 2011)

Let's see if word of mouth can solve the Riddle of Steel. Conan only premieres here on September, so there may be some legs to the barbarian.


----------



## Water Bob (Aug 22, 2011)

This shouldn't come as a surprise to Conan fans (in fact, most Conan fans embrace it), but I should have mentioned in my revidew that there is plenty of blood and grit in the new Conan film--probably more than I've seen in most other movies. Think "Spartacus", the new series, with a little more reality to it, and you'll have it about right.

There's a scene where the bad guy slams a monks head on the ground, braining him in an Al Capone kind of way. Big circle of blood on the marble steps. Lots of limbs flying and blood in the combat scenes, and there's an action scene about every 10 minutes.

That type of thing is "Conan" and fits Howard's universe well, but that type of graphic violence isn't for everyone.


----------



## Super Pony (Aug 22, 2011)

It wasn't good all the way through, but I had _fun_ watching this movie.  However I have also been known to collect cheesy action movies and hold Raw Deal in high regard so...weigh my claims of 'fun' accordingly.

I couldn't help but feel that the theatrical version has been cut differently from what was intended because it was _so_ choppy in parts.  That makes me look forward to alternat cuts of the film that could be in a blu-ray or dvd offering.

The scenery shots were really killer though, and I thought the costuming/wardrobes were quite spot on.  Plus there was enough bloody bits and exposed epidermis to create a spectacle worth sitting through.  

Failing interest in any of the above, you can always see this at a beer-theater (or your own home) and drink every time Conan somehow has a new horse, or looks through his bangs at the camera.


----------



## Jack7 (Aug 26, 2011)

I went to see Conan today and can say I really liked the preview they showed for John Carter (of Mars).

And the last few minutes of the Rise of the Planet of the Apes when I went to get my wife from her film.


----------



## Water Bob (Aug 26, 2011)

Jack7 said:


> I went to see Conan today and can say I really liked the preview they showed for John Carter (of Mars).




I was getting a bit geeked for JCoM _until_ I saw the preview.  Now?  Not so much.



> And the last few minutes of the Rise of the Planet of the Apes when I went to get my wife from her film.




Apes is a good film.  They did a really good job on that one.  Nice reimagination.  Hope the series continues.


----------



## Argyle King (Aug 29, 2011)

I highly enjoyed Conan; I'm baffled by the poor reviews.  There were a few Hollywood cliches which snuck in, but, overall, I was pleasantly pleased.  The movie got many of the small details right; I was able to tell that the leading lady was Hyrkanian before the movie stated such, and I was also able to pick out that the henchman using the maul was a Pict.  Another small detail they got right was Conan's attitude and demeanor.

Was the movie perfect?  No.  However, I highly enjoyed the movie both as somebody who is an avid fan of the original Howard stories and as someone who loves tabletop rpgs (a lot of great encounter ideas to use.)  In my opinion, the movie felt like a motion picture version of something I would read in Weird Tales.  I enjoyed it.


----------



## rgard (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I highly enjoyed Conan; I'm baffled by the poor reviews.




I'm with you Johnny3D3D.  I enjoyed this version immensely.    

Some thoughts:

With all the background shots this one really felt more like Hyboria than the originals.  

I wasn't certain about Mamoa when I heard he would play Conan, but I feel he nailed it, blue eyes or not.

Lang was brilliant as Zym.  Great bad guy.  Too bad the character dies.  Would have been fun for Conan to duke it out with him again in a later installment.  

I was not in any way annoyed by the job Rachel Nichols did.  That said, any Conan heroine will forever pale in comparison to Sandahl Bergman.  

Ron Perlman is fantastic as Conan's dad.  I really like this guy's work over the years and he didn't let us down in this one.

Like others I didn't get the ship as the villian's bedroom suite, other than the bad guy drags his ship around, because 'he can'.  I'm hoping that will get cleared up in the director's cut.

The only thing that I felt slightly let down by is the cliche 'bad guy kills protagonist's dad so protagonist's motivation in life is to kill the bad guy'.  Yea, homage to the Arnold version maybe, but not needed.  I figure they worked that in for the whole Cimmerian steel thing from earlier version.  Howard's Conan didn't need that motivation.

We sat in the seats that shake and move with the action on the screen.  Kinda fun, but would have been fine watching this in normal seats and 2D.  

I hope this version does make money for them eventually.  I'd hate to wait another 27 years for another Conan film.  Maybe an HBO series?  I'd be happy with that.



Johnny3D3D said:


> Was the movie perfect?  No..




Agreed, but perfect is difficult to achieve.  Only two movies ever achieved perfection in my opinion: Raiders of the Lost Ark and Casablanca.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Sep 4, 2011)

rgard said:


> We sat in the seats that shake and move with the action on the screen.  Kinda fun, but would have been fine watching this in normal seats and 2D.




I think that the 3d was utterly wasted on this (just like most other movies), and I really wish I could've caught it in 2d.  But alas, all the theaters showing it in 2d were on the other side of the District, and inconvenient to get to.  At least I went to a matinee.

I did enjoy it, though it wasn't terribly good.  I'd like another one, too, though.

Really, though, if you've stripped the Mask of Eldritch Power off of the Big Bad and broken it into 8 pieces, who says you have to keep them in one piece?  How about, I dunno, grind it into powder?  Break it into more pieces?  And why keep your piece in your smithy-temple?  Put it at the bottom of a pond instead!

Brad


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Sep 5, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> _*One more thing....*_
> 
> Oh...and one more thing.... Isn't that Morgan Freeman doing the honors as narrator? Uncredited?




Hrm...I was just listening to the end of Scary Movie 4 on Comedy Central.

I kinda think they should've gotten James Earl Jones to do the narration for Conan.

Brad


----------



## Orius (Dec 20, 2011)

I finally got around to seeing this.

It wasn't a bad film, I think it was truer to Howard's Conan than Arnie's films. Momoa did fairly well in the roll, and Perlman and Lang had good character moments too. But the film felt too long, somewhere after the halfway point I started getting bored with it, and honestly, nothing about Conan should be boring at all. There were some points I liked: young Conan was great, the cities felt like they fit the setting, and the tentacle monster thing in the dungeon below the temple or whatever it was were all good.


----------

