So, critics appear to be panning it and Moviebob believes it's not worth more than ten seconds of attention. It seems there's no hope for the new Conan, and this is a shame. Here's why.
2011!Conan sets out to do one thing: to tell a violent and spectacular fantasy story. There's none of the metaphorical speculation of Inception, none of the ham-fisted morals of Avatar. It is, at its heart, pure adventure. And really, what should we be expecting here? Conan was a character created to kill monsters, thwart power-mad sorcerers, explore ancient ruins, have sex with busty women, and find hidden treasure. With that in mind, does this movie pull it off? Absolutely. We get sweeping vistas of ancient castles, a pitched battle aboard a pirate ship and a duel above a volcanic chasm, a horse and wagon chase, the requisite tentacle monster, and plenty of sorcery and berserking. Accompanying this is a soundtrack by Tyler Bates that comes pretty close to Poledouris' score for the original in scale and impressiveness. In terms of spectacle, the movie delivers without any doubt.
Granted, it's not without flaws. There's nary a break in the action longer than ten minutes, and we don't get to see much at all of Howard's frequently stealthy and charismatic Conan. It's definitely darker than 1982!Conan, and perhaps does take itself a little too seriously. However, at the end of the day, it is at least as good as the original film. Jason Momoa plays a more driven and believable (if not all that well developed) Conan, as opposed to Schwarzenegger's clumsy, inarticulate character who kind of just seemed to be along for the ride for much of the time in the '82 version.
So why are the critics giving it such a hard time? Well, I think it all boils down to that great enemy of progress and rationality, nostalgia. A lot of people, especially some older fans who haven't seen the movie in over 20 years, are remembering the original as far better than it actually was. 1982's Conan was a wonderfully cheesy film that was great fun to watch, but the plot was minimal, the acting (with the exception of James Earl Jones) was atrocious, and the pacing was strangely irregular. The only real leg up over 2011!Conan the original has is its soundtrack, which was truly excellent. Otherwise, they're both movies you watch to see a guy with giant pecs fight things, and both do a great job of delivering that.
Many fans have a stupidly fierce loyalty to the property without having read the original stories or even having seen the first film in years. Nostalgia is causing people to say 2011!Conan is terrible simply because it's not the original, and there's no pleasing people like that.
So don't listen to the critics in this case; their opinions are pretty biased. Keep in mind that both films are adaptations, and inaccurate ones at that, and the new movie isn't trying to be the old movie. Go into the theater not expecting some brilliant, thought-provoking piece of cinema, but an adventure story and nothing else. And no, that's not to say the film "isn't trying to be good". It is trying be a Conan movie, and doing a pretty damn good job. You should be expecting to see evil wizards, giant monsters and ridiculous, over-the-top fight scenes, and you won't be disappointed. This is probably the best Conan movie we can expect from Hollywood's current generation. No, it's not the greatest thing to come out this year. But it's certainly not the worst.
So watch the film and decide for yourself whether it was worth your time. I can pretty safely say Bob's wrong about this one.
2011!Conan sets out to do one thing: to tell a violent and spectacular fantasy story. There's none of the metaphorical speculation of Inception, none of the ham-fisted morals of Avatar. It is, at its heart, pure adventure. And really, what should we be expecting here? Conan was a character created to kill monsters, thwart power-mad sorcerers, explore ancient ruins, have sex with busty women, and find hidden treasure. With that in mind, does this movie pull it off? Absolutely. We get sweeping vistas of ancient castles, a pitched battle aboard a pirate ship and a duel above a volcanic chasm, a horse and wagon chase, the requisite tentacle monster, and plenty of sorcery and berserking. Accompanying this is a soundtrack by Tyler Bates that comes pretty close to Poledouris' score for the original in scale and impressiveness. In terms of spectacle, the movie delivers without any doubt.
Granted, it's not without flaws. There's nary a break in the action longer than ten minutes, and we don't get to see much at all of Howard's frequently stealthy and charismatic Conan. It's definitely darker than 1982!Conan, and perhaps does take itself a little too seriously. However, at the end of the day, it is at least as good as the original film. Jason Momoa plays a more driven and believable (if not all that well developed) Conan, as opposed to Schwarzenegger's clumsy, inarticulate character who kind of just seemed to be along for the ride for much of the time in the '82 version.
So why are the critics giving it such a hard time? Well, I think it all boils down to that great enemy of progress and rationality, nostalgia. A lot of people, especially some older fans who haven't seen the movie in over 20 years, are remembering the original as far better than it actually was. 1982's Conan was a wonderfully cheesy film that was great fun to watch, but the plot was minimal, the acting (with the exception of James Earl Jones) was atrocious, and the pacing was strangely irregular. The only real leg up over 2011!Conan the original has is its soundtrack, which was truly excellent. Otherwise, they're both movies you watch to see a guy with giant pecs fight things, and both do a great job of delivering that.
Many fans have a stupidly fierce loyalty to the property without having read the original stories or even having seen the first film in years. Nostalgia is causing people to say 2011!Conan is terrible simply because it's not the original, and there's no pleasing people like that.
So don't listen to the critics in this case; their opinions are pretty biased. Keep in mind that both films are adaptations, and inaccurate ones at that, and the new movie isn't trying to be the old movie. Go into the theater not expecting some brilliant, thought-provoking piece of cinema, but an adventure story and nothing else. And no, that's not to say the film "isn't trying to be good". It is trying be a Conan movie, and doing a pretty damn good job. You should be expecting to see evil wizards, giant monsters and ridiculous, over-the-top fight scenes, and you won't be disappointed. This is probably the best Conan movie we can expect from Hollywood's current generation. No, it's not the greatest thing to come out this year. But it's certainly not the worst.
So watch the film and decide for yourself whether it was worth your time. I can pretty safely say Bob's wrong about this one.
