Conan (2011)

tmnt

tmnt

King of Australia
!!!!!! SPOILERS. !!!!
Bit disappointed with this one. Really looked like it was on a smallish budget. Nothing at all was on a grand scale. Set pieces such as that of the water monster felt to me like afterthoughts (the whole scene I mean).

The lead was ok but was given nothing at all to act with. Was in the same gear the entire movie. The bad guy did a decent job.

Really this movie was let down by the screenplay if say. One big, big problem I felt was we see Conan as a boy go through horrible things... Cut to Conan as a man and he's on his journey. I think we needed to see the grown up Conan down and out to begin with. Who doesn't recall Arnie in the original working as a slave pushing that wheel? Excellent stuff.

The chemistry between Conan and the love interest wasn't there and when they kiss it was kind of like... Ah, right... I don't expect Conan to be smooth like James Bond (who I'm fine with getting the girl quick) but come on.

The sand men scene wasn't bad.

Pretty sure this was shot digitally too or do I have to eat my words.

Oh and when Ron Perlman saves his wife from being slain, I chuckled to myself as the bad guy held his sword posed waiting for his cue. Not good considering one ofthe first few shots!

Why do director go for ridiculous over the top amounts of blood, gets boring and is unrealistic.

I guess to some it up I just felt like this movie didn't work, really felt I was watching actors in costumes and didn't get 'lost' in the movie at any stage

2/5 skulls

EDIT: my review probably came across a bit harsh so just wanted to say the movie isn't entirely terrible, just not quiet good enough to recommend even for a bit of boyish fun.
 
Last edited:
I saw it last night and I'm right there with you on that review.

SPOILERS below!!!!

I noticed that pose with the sword at the beginning as well. Pretty bad way to start out. It's a simple vengeance story, but Conan really didn't have any qualities to like about him. We cut from him as a child seeing his father killed, to suddenly encountering the man who killed his father 15 years later--a man who just happens to be taking over the world. What was Conan doing the past 15 years? He seemed to be doing all right for himself. Looked like he'd made a successful career from raping and pillaging.

The fight scenes were pretty poor. The sand zombie thing was stupid. Why did they just suddenly stop coming? The Conan vs. Big guy fights weren't the least bit exciting. I kept wondering how much longer they were going to be dragged out. The water monster scene was obviously there only for 3D. It was a poorly placed fight scene in the movie, and Conan basically just stood in the middle while everyone around him was ripped up. The big bad guy just stood on the side pullimg chains and slinging cages of slaves at the monster. Is that all that guy does on a daily basis? Conan's little sidekick there didn't do anything either, plus his fake accent kept leaving when his voice got louder. The fight with the two girls was poorly choreographed and boring. the biggest fight was definitely the worst one though. It wasn't exiting at all, and way too confined (like all of the fight scenes). Big sword battles need to be on mountaintops, not inside caves that are collapsing for no apparent reason. The fights, more and more, reminded me of Pirates of the Caribbean. No good for an R rated film.

Why dd he save the girl at the end? Conan should have just let her fall. That would have certainly fit his character better. He certainly didn't gain anything from saving her. I also saw the bad guy's demise coming from a mile away--even though the bridge they were on seemed to change from wooden to stone.

The plot points were all way too obvious. You know exactly when there will e a fight, when someone will step in to save the day, and when someone is about to be kidnapped or killed.

Overall, it was pretty terrible.
 
Ha ha yeah the sand scene was silly but about the only scene I had a bit of fun in.How about when Conan and sidekick swim thrrough the sea monsters lair then next scene eater monster everywhere where they'd just come from! Also speaking of budget cuts, they found the door to the lair they swim to in about a 5 second cut. No getting a key from X bad guy and traversing the underground of the castle and having some adventure. Adventure is what this movie should be all about and that's what it lacks completely.

::: Sent from my $hitty iPhone that doesn't like to format.
 
Last edited:
And where was the bad guy's army at the end? This was his lair or whatever, and they kind of just walked in the place with only about ten guys in tunics standing around.
 
I was going to watch this today, but, luckily, the bulb for the projector had burned out, and the show was cancelled until later. So we ordered up a pizza, and watched The Terminator fight Darth Vader.
 
Saw this Friday night because my friend wanted to see it. I've gotta say, I really loved the movie (aside from the sword pause at the start) up until the kid grew up. After that, it was just boring as hell and you guys are right, there was absolutely no chemistry there - but then, I don't think the horse dude they got to play Conan would have much chemistry with anything that wasn't a rock.

Also, the sand fight was semi-interesting but GOD it WOULDN'T END.

And finally, I think that was honestly one of the worst sex scenes I've ever witnessed...
 
Well looks like this tanked so that's the end of Conan for now...I think there are myriad reasons why this didn't do well but primarily, this brand of He-Man action hero hasn't really been popular since the 80's, when Stallone and Schwarzenegger were dominating the screen. Modern audiences want more relatable, vulnerable heroes. You look at Lord of the Rings, the hero of that is a diminutive Hobbit. Harry Potter is a slight young boy. The most popular superhero films are about geeks endowed with extraordinary gifts (Spider-Man), or ordinary men without any superpowers at all (Dark Knight). Avatar featured a paraplegic marine as its protagonist. In this light is it any wonder why Ryan Reynolds bombed as Green Lantern. The square jawed He-Man is out. The emo, conflicted young man is in. Even with Thor, which might seem to be an exception, they took away his powers for most of the film to make him more vulnerable. They also played up the romance in the story and the advertising to make the film more appealing to women. He-Man tales are popular with little boys and little men, but they don't have the broader appeal a movie needs when it's playing in these budget ranges. Of course, having a fay, emo hero is no guarantee of box office success either, as Scott Pilgrim made clear.
 
Last edited:
I dont know, i dont agree, watch undisputed 2 , it will change the way you look at big guys.
But the 80's movie like commando would flop today im sure.
 
bwwd said:
I dont know, i dont agree, watch undisputed 2 , it will change the way you look at big guys.
But the 80's movie like commando would flop today im sure.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying this is my personal opinion, just an explanation and examination of the types of heroes audiences seem to prefer these days. A hero that isn't vulnerable isn't interesting to modern audiences. Big, beefy action heroes can be vulnerable too (I mentioned Thor as an example), but I think Conan because of the marketing was perceived as an indestructible, two dimensional character.
 
I have to partially disagree with you here, Battuta. I think that its not a matter of Beefy indestructible hero's, but how everything is written around it. A film like "Machete" can be considered a success with the Budget vs total gross, and it has a completely indestructible hero in it. Or the Expendables, for the matter. While I thought the later was terrible, I think these films have an audience if they approach it for what they are- brainless entertainment. I think they have to be " in" on the joke. Today's movie going audience has a much bigger knowledge and, lets say, is much more cynic towards what they see in the Big Screen than back in the 80'ies. Everyone nowadays "knows" that a police assault team or commando is thought to hold his gun down when going in an assault. A "one man army" like Commando walking in with a machine gun or a bazooka can only be seen as a joke. I think in the age of internet, of Global news, of watching real wars happening live, people are much more knowledgeable of the reality of war and warfare than before, may it be historical or current. So when action is approached seriously, the audience is much less willing to accept absurd or non common sense action. It destroys the suspension of disbelief. Now when you accept your audience is knowledgeable and approach a "One Man Army" kind of film, you need to write with this in mind.

I think a film like Expendables 2, if well written and "in" on the joke, (like "Machete", or, lets say, "Thor" was) could continue to be a successful "big muscle" franchise. The last one was a box office success because people were expecting that. It didn't deliver. If the new writer and director understands this, than we're in for a big successful franchise...

Inglorious Basterds is, for me, a masterpiece of a film, because it really knows what it is and what the war film cliches and "language" is. Yes, I bring this film out of nowhere to this discussion, but I think it somehow reflects this topic...

EDIT- all this to also say...I didn't watch Conan. It didn't come out over here yet :)
 
Last edited:
SPZ said:
I have to partially disagree with you here, Battuta. I think that its not a matter of Beefy indestructible hero's, but how everything is written around it. A film like "Machete" can be considered a success with the Budget vs total gross, and it has a completely indestructible hero in it. Or the Expendables, for the matter. While I thought the later was terrible, I think these films have an audience if they approach it for what they are- brainless entertainment.
Click to expand...

I didn't deny that these types of movies can have an audience, but this movie needed to gross 300 million plus to be considered a success and these types of films rarely pull in that type of money these days. Machete made 44 million. Expendables did better, 270 million, although most of its gross was from overseas where its ridiculous amount of movie stars means something...The bottom line is that people didn't even come out to see this movie opening week. People thought because of the name recognition it would do better. Yes, from all sources the movie seems to be pretty lousy, which bodes poorly for its continued prospects. I was just trying to figure out why this film didn't even entice people in the first place. I think part of it is that this kind of hero doesn't have the broadest appeal, certainly not with women. A lack of movie stars didn't help. And a marketing campaign that emphasized action over story didn't help either. When you're making 100 million dollar movies like Lionsgate did with this, you are swinging for the fences, and old school He-Man action films just never make it that far. Just a quick glimpse at the top 10 worldwide box office hits tells a story--

1. Avatar, the hero is a paraplegic Marine.
2. Titanic, a young woman
3. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Pt 2, a slight young boy
4. Lord of the Rings: ROTK, a hobbit
5. Transformers 3, a dweeby young man
6. Pirates of the Carribbean 2, a young man, young woman, and a kind of gay seeming Pirate.
7. Toy Story 3, toys
8. Pirates 4, see above
9. Alice in Wonderland, a young lady
10. The Dark Knight, a physically average rich man without any superpowers

I have to go all the way to 61; Fast Five, to find anything even close to the genre that was a big success. After that its Terminator 2 at 81, which when you really look at it had a young boy as its hero. Again, not saying these movies can't have relative success. Machete was a success even at a 44 million dollar gross because its budget was 10 million. But when you're playing with blockbuster sized budgets, you need a blockbuster sized gross.
 
Last edited:
SPZ said:
I agree, Battuta, but, quality aside, how does it explain Clash of the Titans ?
Click to expand...

Sam Worthington isn't really a beefcake hero in my eyes. He's not a wimp, but he's not a muscle head like Schwarzenegger or Stallone either, and the story made him pretty vulnerable, an ordinary man battling against Titans. Actually if any movie pokes a hole in my 'theory' it would probably be 300.
 
What do you say about taken or bourne, there is audience for these movies, heroes are invincible and if they get hurt then mostly during fight but they are still far superior than other characters in the movie in terms of skills, they are untouchable in many scenes and i like that VERY MUCH.I hated new punisher, he was just regular guy without any skills and i was completely bored.
Expendables was just wasted potential of big action icons, nothing more.Jet li in regular clothes of mr nobody... give me a break, im amazed that it made money but it could of been soooooo much better if each character would have his own 5 minutes to explain his background and skills.
BEsides i dont like that you count success by amount of $ it made.
Night in museum did great $$$ but this movie is something i would never watch again, its family movie and made to send all kids from schools to see it, so it had a big hook for cash, kids were happyto have day off and go to see the movie and producers were even happier.
BTW old school movie masters of universe was terrible back then and is even more terrible now and i was he-man fan when i was a kid.
80's were very different from now, audience knows more and we - the ones who loved arnold or stallone , we are older now, we are nit kids anymore and watching commando i cant stand its stupidity, there are some funny scenes in it but that movie is terrible, when i was *kid i was excited because it was arnold.Today i prefere heroes like bourne and i just dont see arnold playing that type of hero but also i dont see matt damon playing terminator, everyyhing has its place and time.There is millions of people loving football but i just dont care and never watch it, what it proves? You cant satisfy everyone.
I also never seen harry potter cause i dont care, i dont like fake magic, prefere real illusionists in movies, i always was like that and i appreciated scenes with magic where real tricks were performed, not some specialFX.
 
bwwd said:
What do you say about taken or bourne, there is audience for these movies, heroes are invincible and if they get hurt then mostly during fight but they are still far superior than other characters in the movie in terms of skills, they are untouchable in many scenes and i like that VERY MUCH.
Click to expand...

Bourne and Taken feature actors who aren't typical action movie stars. Also, while they are highly skilled characters, they are up against massive odds which makes them pretty vulnerable. There is suspense in the scenario because of those odds. That is something that can also be said of 300. It's 300 soldiers up against an army of thousands...I'm not counting success by dollars made. I'm counting box office success by dollars made. Audiences didn't even give Conan a chance, and I was curious why. When a movie with as well known of a property as Conan doesn't entice people into the theater, even on its opening weekend before word of mouth is factored in, there has to be something about the basic concept people didn't respond to. My guess was that people didn't relate to the character or the story being advertised. I'm not factoring the quality of the movie because a) I haven't seen it, b) that is more relevant in subsequent weeks and c) many movies I think are terrible, and that looked terrible in the previews, have made lots of money. My theorizing was simply an attempt to examine why the film tanked its opening weekend.
 
Last edited:
I think bad marketing has a very big share on it flopping. If it was marketed properly and inundated airwaves like a movie like Paranormal Activity did, it would surely be a bigger success. It came out also on a very busy time. 300 came out, for example, in March (or was it April?), a time of the year were there is not much of a competition for moviegoers tickets.

There was not much marketing around the "Conan" actor, either. To sell these type of films you need to show that man as the next best thing in action, like they did for "The Rock", for example.

I'm here talking about a movie I haven't even seen! Just trying to somehow make a guess with the avaliable data...

A film like "Priest", for example, or "Battle for LA" were constantly advertising in Asian TV stations and were everywhere. While it didn't save the movies, it most have had an impact in the box office...
 
Batutta said:
this movie needed to gross 300 million plus to be considered a success and these types of films rarely pull in that type of money these days.
Click to expand...
Well... with a production budget of 90 million, it would only need to gross 180m, right?

Not that it matters though since it's on 16.5m at the moment, which is a disaster any way you look at it.

I haven't seen it and never intended to. Milius' Conan is together with Excalibur one of the absolute best sword & sorcery movies ever and this always came off more as a movie version of that Hercules / Xena TV show.

I don't think the producers to this understand the property they bought. I get the same vibe from the people wanting to make that live action Akira movie, or the guys trying to remake The Crow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top