I've always been a big fan of the John Millius and Arnold films, so I was both afraid of seeing what newfangled nonsense had done to the story, yet eager to see what people were claiming was even better... Even my favourite reviewer, Catherine Reitman, gave it some favourable comments... just some, though.
The first act of the movie was cool. Heavily over-gory, but appropriately so and without being oversensational about it (ie, like 300). The storyline is rich and the environment bursting with detail. True, the plot is somewhat OTT, but this is a tale of high adventure. Given the legend, I can well believe a kid like Conan achieving what he does.
For me, a character's appearance is usually representative of the whole film's cinematography and style.
Conan is tall and panther-like, never Arnie's bricks-in-a-pillow muscley look. Jason Momoa has that down well, along with the dark hair and some vague semblance of Oriental/Eastern Steppes sort of look.... But he still has too much Hawaiian to be fully convincing, for me.
He is also a touch too boyish and pretty for my eyes and the stereotypical plastered-on scar (down through the eyeline, but subtle enough not to spoil his beauty) only adds to the cartoony Xena feel. I always saw Xena as being about barbarians who shower and exfoliate every day, with at least one stylist on hand, spray-on sweat and grime applied Mary Poppins style (from a make-up compact). In short, he is NOT Conan... he is The Scorpion King all over again, but without even the snappy dialogue. And he looks like he learned to act solely by copying three expressions from Karl Urban.
Conan films should be dark, dirty, bloody, filthy and have almost NO characters that we would consider 'Hollywood beautiful', unless they are princesses or gods (Sandahl Bergman as a Valkyrie :) ).
But regardless, the first half of the film is good - Slightly cheesy plot and nothing that's not been thought of before, but convincing enough that you go with it and executed with enough unique moments to be thoroughly entertaining.
Then, all of a sudden, everything falls flat... The sets start getting over-detailed and like they're only there to look visually impressive to a 3-D audience. Conversely, the acting got worse and all the characters magically became one-dimensional. It's like the filmmakers just got bored and did 'whatever' just to finish the project and collect a paycheque.
We meet the female co-star - She's gorgeous, pretty, shiny and a former model... totally unsuited to a Conan flick. The plot gets lazy and starts sounding like a generic, cheap fantasy film. The swordplay gets all spinny and everyone suddenly starts fighting like Eastern martial artists. The stunts get all Jackie Chan and the only thing missing is heavy wire-work with people flying around. As a swordsman myself, the moves in the original Conan are flawed and over-staged but still work and are realistic enough to entertain. The stuff in this new film is just pure show and no-one after the first third of the film ever looks like they have even picked up a sword before. There was only one move in the whole film that grabbed my attention. 2 mere seconds of footage throughout the whole thing!
Chuck in a random big sea monster to complete the circle and you have your massive Hollywood crowd-pleaser... even though I've been more entertained by a $2000 B-Movie.
I was not a fan of the casting either, for the most part. Ron Perlman does a fantastic job of Conan's father... Not quite as legendary or with as epic a feel as William Smith, but he is easily the best actor in the cast. He has real presence, proper depth and, as with his lower budget films, is the only reason this film is worth watching.
Jason Momoa may have a good look, but he's too pretty and not once did I get the impression that his Conan was a deep thinker, or in any way the wise, quietly contemplative man I know him to be. He's just a mindless, violent thug with pretty looks and a bit of muscle. He even looked like his entire acting repertoire consists solely of 3 facial expressions stolen from Karl Urban. He is eye candy with a sword, but nothing more. For all his faults, Arnold actually brought his Conan to life. Momoa's portrayal will be quickly forgotten.
Samuel L Jackson??!! Why is he even here? He has what I call Morgan Freeman syndrome, since Morgan also crops up in a lot of similar roles. Yes, he has a good narrative voice, but there is no mystical quality and he doesn't even sound like a chronicler... He just sounds like Samuel L Jackson, sat down the pub, telling us about a film he watched the other day. He might as well have just said, "Back in 5000BC, the following happened:".
Stephen Lang... OK, he was a decent bad guy in Avatar... But now Hollywood are casting him in all their bad guy roles and the same trick does not work everywhere. There was almost no difference in his performance between here and Avatar. In fact, he wasn't even scary in this. Absolutely no presence at all. That's why James Earl Jones is still The Man!
The rest of the cast, the plot, the film in general is just chalked up as 'another film I saw, once'.
The first act of the movie was cool. Heavily over-gory, but appropriately so and without being oversensational about it (ie, like 300). The storyline is rich and the environment bursting with detail. True, the plot is somewhat OTT, but this is a tale of high adventure. Given the legend, I can well believe a kid like Conan achieving what he does.
For me, a character's appearance is usually representative of the whole film's cinematography and style.
Conan is tall and panther-like, never Arnie's bricks-in-a-pillow muscley look. Jason Momoa has that down well, along with the dark hair and some vague semblance of Oriental/Eastern Steppes sort of look.... But he still has too much Hawaiian to be fully convincing, for me.
He is also a touch too boyish and pretty for my eyes and the stereotypical plastered-on scar (down through the eyeline, but subtle enough not to spoil his beauty) only adds to the cartoony Xena feel. I always saw Xena as being about barbarians who shower and exfoliate every day, with at least one stylist on hand, spray-on sweat and grime applied Mary Poppins style (from a make-up compact). In short, he is NOT Conan... he is The Scorpion King all over again, but without even the snappy dialogue. And he looks like he learned to act solely by copying three expressions from Karl Urban.
Conan films should be dark, dirty, bloody, filthy and have almost NO characters that we would consider 'Hollywood beautiful', unless they are princesses or gods (Sandahl Bergman as a Valkyrie :) ).
But regardless, the first half of the film is good - Slightly cheesy plot and nothing that's not been thought of before, but convincing enough that you go with it and executed with enough unique moments to be thoroughly entertaining.
Then, all of a sudden, everything falls flat... The sets start getting over-detailed and like they're only there to look visually impressive to a 3-D audience. Conversely, the acting got worse and all the characters magically became one-dimensional. It's like the filmmakers just got bored and did 'whatever' just to finish the project and collect a paycheque.
We meet the female co-star - She's gorgeous, pretty, shiny and a former model... totally unsuited to a Conan flick. The plot gets lazy and starts sounding like a generic, cheap fantasy film. The swordplay gets all spinny and everyone suddenly starts fighting like Eastern martial artists. The stunts get all Jackie Chan and the only thing missing is heavy wire-work with people flying around. As a swordsman myself, the moves in the original Conan are flawed and over-staged but still work and are realistic enough to entertain. The stuff in this new film is just pure show and no-one after the first third of the film ever looks like they have even picked up a sword before. There was only one move in the whole film that grabbed my attention. 2 mere seconds of footage throughout the whole thing!
Chuck in a random big sea monster to complete the circle and you have your massive Hollywood crowd-pleaser... even though I've been more entertained by a $2000 B-Movie.
I was not a fan of the casting either, for the most part. Ron Perlman does a fantastic job of Conan's father... Not quite as legendary or with as epic a feel as William Smith, but he is easily the best actor in the cast. He has real presence, proper depth and, as with his lower budget films, is the only reason this film is worth watching.
Jason Momoa may have a good look, but he's too pretty and not once did I get the impression that his Conan was a deep thinker, or in any way the wise, quietly contemplative man I know him to be. He's just a mindless, violent thug with pretty looks and a bit of muscle. He even looked like his entire acting repertoire consists solely of 3 facial expressions stolen from Karl Urban. He is eye candy with a sword, but nothing more. For all his faults, Arnold actually brought his Conan to life. Momoa's portrayal will be quickly forgotten.
Samuel L Jackson??!! Why is he even here? He has what I call Morgan Freeman syndrome, since Morgan also crops up in a lot of similar roles. Yes, he has a good narrative voice, but there is no mystical quality and he doesn't even sound like a chronicler... He just sounds like Samuel L Jackson, sat down the pub, telling us about a film he watched the other day. He might as well have just said, "Back in 5000BC, the following happened:".
Stephen Lang... OK, he was a decent bad guy in Avatar... But now Hollywood are casting him in all their bad guy roles and the same trick does not work everywhere. There was almost no difference in his performance between here and Avatar. In fact, he wasn't even scary in this. Absolutely no presence at all. That's why James Earl Jones is still The Man!
The rest of the cast, the plot, the film in general is just chalked up as 'another film I saw, once'.