Same type of movie and made around the same time as Beastmaster
Why is this one so much better and less ridiculous?
shareWhy is this one so much better and less ridiculous?
shareI really enjoyed Beastmaster but the Conan sets, acting and script were far superior
shareNot sure the acting was any better on one vs the other.. but the overall production values were far superior in Conan. Beastmaster had a look very similar to what you would expect from a college film class. If any one thing was the defining difference it was probably the cinematography. You can find stills from Conan that just look good, I don't think you can find any shots in Beastmaster that really look good.
shareI thought the romance between Conan and Valeria was pretty spot on for this sort of epic adventure tale
Valeria: 'Let us take the world by the throat and make it give us what we desire'
What a girlfiend!
And I loved the chemistry between Conan and his best pal Subotai... Subotai was a bestie for the ages man, you could see these actors really enjoyed each other
And Jones as Thulsa Doom man! Second best villain ever only second to Darth Vader imo
While Jones was a fine actor the average quality of acting was piss poor in large part because of Arnold. He looked like Conan, but a barely bearable accent and poor acting was just too much to overlook... Considering Arnold was the main character his poor acting is what keeps me from saying the acting level was all that much better in Conan. Besides I would have rather watched Tanya Roberts tits bouncing around than Sandahl Bergman's, but that just a matter of preference.
Let's table the titty talk LOL!
That's surely a matter of preference😃
I felt like Arnold was a good fit because he was an uneducated
slave kid from the far North
I really think his accent worked in this one
Don't take this the wrong way, Thomas998, but people watch this for the action more than the acting or story. Complaining that this movie didn't have good acting is like complaining that One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest didn't have violence and explosions in it.
shareI disagree. If you want the pure action non-existent acting you just need to watch any kung fu movie and you'll get the equivalent of action porn, lots of action but no story, acting or any other redeeming quality.
shareI watch action movies to be entertained. If I want to see a movie with a good story and good acting I watch movies like One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest and Shawshank Redemption. With your comment about Arnold you seem to make it clear you don't like most of Arnold's movies.
shareNo, I liked quite a few, probably from his Terminator days up through True Lies... But his recent movies have been pretty much crap, then again he is just too old to be taken seriously as an action hero.
shareAnd the action and fight sequences in Beastmaster were pretty poor compared to Conan. I guess that was the main thing I noticed. Beastmaster fighting scenes just looked really silly compared to Conan.
shareGood point
In Conan it looked like guys could actually get hurt
Beastmaster was great fun but a tad silly in the choreography department
I think it's because this film was based on a character by Robert E. Howard, and used a number of elements straight out of Howard's stories. While Howard wasn't Shakespeare or Tolstoy, he was a damn good storyteller, so that really helps. Secondly, it had John Milius as a director, and Milius has a rather philosophical outlook on life. He brought a lot of that to Conan, hence the whole "riddle of steel" theme in the movie. What is the riddle of steel. Is it the strength and power of steel as a material? Is it, as Thulsa Doom suggested, that it is less powerful than flesh (i.e. men) which harnesses the power of steel. Is it a metaphor for the steel within the man? Don't get me wrong: this isn't the deepest or most philosophical of films, but it's also not light (in stark contrast to the sequel). Being the sort of man he was, Milius also treated the character and the film with real seriousness and respect, and tried to tell a thoughtful, serious, but still highly entertaining adventure story. In short, I think the director had a vision, and he did a pretty good job in bringing it to the screen.
By contrast, Beastmaster seems like a movie made by moderately talented filmmakers, who simply pulled a bunch of fantasy tropes out of the bag and, in order to make a buck, cobbled together a basically decent and fun, but nevertheless rather cheesy movie.
That is a good summation
shareI'm going to guess care and artistry. Beastmaster maybe was thought of by the production team as a cheap sword & sorcery picture whereas Conan had a long, troubled journey to the screen - guys had to get passionate and fight for it. I haven't seen Beastmaster, but maybe the end result was that Conan was portrayed as it should be: an epic, operatic saga, whereas the Beastmaster team just thought, "this will be cool", and didn't put a crazy amount of care into it.
share