6.9 rating is a disgrace - Conan the Barbarian (1982) Discussion

[–] Ace_Spade (9346) 2 years ago

It's deceptively deep. Most people seem to think of it as a meathead action movie that's kinda silly, if fun, for its testosterone-fuelled sword fight scenes.

I'm with you. It's an almost impossibly contemplative film which uses near-silent (speechless, anyway) scene show us character and story. It connects with all that you're talking about. Mostly it asks what a person's place in the world is. Conan starts out with his father telling him to shun men, beasts, and gods in favour of steel. After Thulsa Doom's attack on his village, he spends his life dedicated to revenge and violence, but always contemplating the Riddle of Steel. Meanwhile, he makes friends, finds a lover, and encounters cultists who are seeking their own place in the world. Is Conan more free than they are? Slave as he is to violence and vengeance?

As you say, it doesn't preach or tell us what to think. It presents us with a man struggling with his place in the world and with the big things in life, and by showing us, it lets us think about it and dive deep.

It's an 8/10 at *least*.

reply

[–] Jakethesnake (29) 2 years ago

As much as I love this film and have it in my top 100, I do understand that other people don't. It's simply bad, awkward and amateurish at times. The intro for instance, is amazing, like an opera, all the way up to when the raiders of doom take off their helms and you get to see these weird Skandinavien, clueless bodybuilders. One of them are chewing gum, I swear... It just clashes hard with the otherwise perfect execution. And the movie is filled with these. Subotais introduction is indeed laughable. Arnold is indeed a bit laughable in general at times. But many, me included, can see past these shortcomings and maybe that's why we cherish it even more. With a few pretty minor adjustments this could indeed be a masterpiece and what I was hoping for with the remake. Right now it's an uncut gem.

reply

[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (1535) a year ago

The more polished parts of the film, especially some of the dialogue, are outstanding though. The soundtrack also.

Also, never hope for anything with remakes.

reply

[–] stickman38 (3014) 2 years ago

Honestly, it's a pretty good movie but I looking back on it with an earnest heart and mind, it's really not that great. Fun movie, yes, definitely, but is it up there with other films of this nature like Gladiator, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Lawrence Of Arabia? I don't think so...

Arnie's accent was a distraction from the story to some degree. You're never quite sure how he acquired such an accent. With that being said, I think Arnold was good in this but Lou Ferrigno would have been an interesting choice for this part. Sure, he had an accent too but his voice was a little better than Arnold's and coming off his role as the Hulk could have made him a perfect choice.

Plus, I never cared that much for Valeria, played by Sandahl Bergman. She always seemed out of place and a little "too pretty" for a film like this. The story itself is not too bad though, I kinda like the chemistry between the 3 main characters and how they work together. But something about it never quite worked. Subotai was okay too but his mustache and goatee looked way too trimmed and tailored.

For the most part, in my view, they should have made the characters look a little more scruffy. Still, it's not too bad in this regards, at times they do look like rough characters.

At the end of the day, I would probably give it about the same rating of 6.9. The sets really aren't that impressive either. The cinematography is perhaps the weakest part of the film. But again, I don't want to sound like I'm bashing the film, it's entertaining stuff. I do like it...

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 2 years ago

“Up there with Gladiator”!!??

Gladiator is a fucking chick flick disguised as a boy movie.

reply

[–] stickman38 (3014) 2 years ago

Hmmmm...interesting. First time I've seen someone call Gladiator a chick flick. lol...

Braveheart is another one I would compare this too as well as Spartacus, both are better than Conan. I would say Ben-Hur is another but I haven't seen Ben-Hur yet. Hell, even '63 Cleopatra film was also better than Conan and the main character is a woman.

When you start talking epic films, Conan falls a little short. But still not too bad for an evening of watching movies.

But R_Kane, what did you think of the Conan sequel - Conan The Destroyer? lol. I thought it was somewhat laughable but not so bad you have to turn it off.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9346) a year ago

I'm not sure where I'd rank Conan in terms of epics, nor how I would place it against great, classic movies - like the ones you are mentioning - but I think it's a smarter movie than its reputation.

I rewatched it a short time ago and it always impresses me with how the story is told through movements and deeds. The action scenes are balletic, and the taciturn script is surgical with its lines and poetic with the mythology. Conan feels like a world where meaning seeps from the limbs and burning eyes of the heroes and gods and demons we encounter. The characters struggle through a harsh world, seeking revenge or treasure, but there is the scent of death along with these things. They should seek something else. Conan seeks the answer to the Riddle of Steel, but what does that mean? It's a movie about identity and truth, honour, revenge, and one's place in the universe. It feels cosmic to me. There's something magic here that gets overlooked because the surface level is bulging muscles and gleaming swords.

Combine that with Arnold's natural charisma (and the fact that the script/direction doesn't rely on his line delivery, but his presence) and the film turns out pretty great, in my opinion.

Of course, I notice that you didn't "click" with characters like Valeria, and I think she's terrific, so maybe there are elements that worked for me and didn't for you.

I will say this, though: Ben-Hur is absolutely better than Conan, and I'd highly recommend it. It's certainly up there with Spartacus. I think I might prefer Conan to Braveheart. I haven't seen Cleopatra.

reply

[–] stickman38 (3014) a year ago

Ace,

I know you like this film a lot and it has it's moments. It's above average.

It has good concepts and tells a solid story, I just wish it was a little more polished. It doesn't feel like an epic film even if it is.

And I did get a chance to watch Ben-Hur and while I thought it was good, I actually gave Conan a higher rating. Lol...

My review is found on page 2 of this thread here....

https://moviechat.org/tt0052618/Ben-Hur/58c7232f5ec57f0478ec78ca/81-Rating-Really?page=2

Anyhow, thanks for the reply. Your posts are some of the best on MC.org.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) a year ago

Ace, I adore Sandhal Bergman as Valaria. She was the first CONVINCING woman warrior I’d seen in a movie, and my history goes back to the days of Cynthia Rothrock.!I took the movie to my martial arts temple as soon as it was on nome video. The whole school agreed that she was MUCH better with a sword than Arnie, who is very, very slow.
Sandhal was the top lead dancer on Broadway for a long time. People with a dancing background often learn martial art very quickly, e.g., Bruce Lee, Jean-Claude Van Damme and Ziyi Zhang. Not click . . . ?! I fell in love with her.

So I’d like to add another layer to the taxonomy of layers you’ve assembled: the love story. This is actually a rather rich love story, with Valaria getting most of the dialog. “I have never had so much as now. All my life I’ve been alone . . . Let us grab the world by the throat and make it give us what WE desire” and “All the gods, they cannot sever us. If I were dead, and you still fighting for life, I’d come back from the dark, from the pit of HELL, to fight by your side.” Which, as you know, she does, arrayed in full-on valkyrie stormtrooper armor.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9346) a year ago

Yes, she delivers another physical performance which shows us the character through sinew and muscle. She is absolutely convincing as a fighter. I'm guessing Bergman probably wouldn't have been much use in a fight, but that's just a guess based on the fact that she's not really from the Hyborean Age; from watching Valeria, you feel quite convinced she's dangerous.

And, yeah, the love story works. Unlike 90% of love stories that get awkwardly shoved into action movies, this one works. I believe this is, again, due to the emphasis on physical storytelling. They don't just say, "I love you," they fight side-by-side. We see them grow from distrust to respect to fun-loving companions. These companions become attracted to each other (makes sense) and because this relationship is built on a foundation of mutual interest and admiration, we buy it.

reply

[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (1535) a year ago

Do you watch a lot of boy movies?

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) a year ago

They are the only things that I watch. A girlfriend forced Gladiator on me. The second Maximus decided not to kill the emperor, who had crucified and burned Maximus’s family, because a little boy was watching, my contempt filled my gorge.

Not for nothing, but I train at sword. So do my friends. The guys in this movie don’t know how to use a gladiator’s glave properly.

reply

[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (1535) a year ago

So uh, glave is another term for a gladius?

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) a year ago

Yes

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9346) a year ago

It's not just that the boy is watching, but that he might be harmed in the inevitable melee. As for masculinity, protecting children and setting aside one's own goals to preserve the weak - that's about as manly as it gets in my opinion.

reply

[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (1535) a year ago

"She always seemed out of place and a little "too pretty" for a film like this"

She also has fake tits.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7401) a year ago

I'm an Arnold fan so I agree. Frankly the fact this gets a 6.9 but the stupid movie 300 gets around an 8/10 is absolutely stupid.

reply

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) a year ago

it has clearly been downvote by vegan and vegetarian wuss!

this film is 8/10 minimums.

milius - legend director

arnie - legend action man

sword, giant serpent, evil temples, tits, gore - all great ingredient.

reply

[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (1535) a year ago

You forgot to mention the cannibal orgy.

reply

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) a year ago

yes good scene as is battle of mounds. i do not even like sword and sorcerys motion pictures but this film do very well to create epic world for conan to tear ass in.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9346) a year ago

It's a good deal more polished than a lot of S&S. Dare I say? It's more thoughtful, too. At its core, Conan is about a person who has his identity and life stolen from him, then is freed, and finds himself struggling to live up to ideals and philosophies he has never had a chance to embody, all while seeking revenge and following a very impulsive, physical path.

reply

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) a year ago

yes conan is only sword and sandels film i like but that is mostly down to milius who always give his film big scope and interesting character and great score. milius film always have central core and deep meaning. it is not just excuse for tits and gore.

milius know how to make film have epic feel like apocalupse now and dirty harry.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9346) a year ago

Conan does feel epic. It's like watching mythology. I rather enjoy the sword-and-sorcery/sandals films, but I do acknowledge that most entries in the genre are charming to some degree, but lack that special something; they feel small or cheap, like the cinematic equivalent of a pulp magazine.

I wonder if that's a budgetary issue (most S&S films don't have the financial backing they'd need to really make themselves look epic and grand) or if it's an issue with how much the filmmakers care.

Perhaps Milius took Conan seriously, was genuinely excited about making the film, and saw the potential and depth that the material could have. Because he nurtured those aspects, Conan lived up to its potential. Maybe other directors just thought, "Oh, it's just a silly movie about heroes and wizards," and never put in the love.

reply

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) a year ago

yes ace i like what you say in final paragraph. i think conan is all milius. that is my opinions.

milius have such big personality. he have great knowledge of history and great love for military, for battles, for ancient myths and legend and great warriors. his enthusiasm infects all those around him.

it is why basil poledouris give such legend score - greatest adventure history score of all times. it is why arnold can act so well without saying word (at valeria's pyre and before battle of mounds). is why the conan set/costume/production designer all creates such amazing places and things. all this is because milius and his personality inspire them.

every actors who work under milius love him. he is actors actor. every film he make have his character placed in every scene and all throughout film. his huge personality dominates every film he make.

just look at difference between barbarian and destroyer. milius goes and conan lose all soul.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9346) a year ago

I would say that Milius was the engine or nucleus, but it's not all Milius. He still needs to work with writers and designers and actors to fully realise everything. The best example might be Arnold Schwarzenegger, who demonstrates time and again that he has massive charisma. He just connects with audiences. He's got that "je ne sais quois" magic. So, yes, Milius gets a good performance out of Schwarzenegger, but without Arnold's natural charisma and massive build, he couldn't have done as much.

You are right to highlight the score. This is one of the best soundtracks of all time. Super underrated and underappreciated by the wider community. I'm not sure if I would personally consider it the greatest... Howard Shore's score for Lord of the Rings is monumental, too. But Poledouris' score is epic and perfectly suited to Conan.

I think one of the reasons Destroyer failed was because they didn't think the story through as much. It's not personal to Conan. It doesn't cut into his character deeply. They just thought, "Oh, magic and swords, right?" without providing a deeper reason and driving force to the story and characters. But, yes, Milius' direction (and input into the story) was also a great loss.

reply

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) a year ago

yes it is unfair to give zero credits to other people who work on conan but there are many shit film with talent people working on them. films have no chance without leadership capabilities that great men like milius give them. milius direct and write his own film incl. conan.

arnold is good action man but he tend to excel only with good director like cameron in terminators or mctiernan in predator & finally milius in conan - they get best of arnold. i think if milius not direct conan then arnold act like he do in destroyer and he stink place out in that film.

i think poledouris is just as talent as john williams. he create score for conan which is best score of 80s and if not top 5. the score for conan add substance to film. make you think of this world. bring it to life. poledouris score destroyer and it was not good score becuase no inspiration from milius.

destroyer is shit film. studio wanted more fantasy and lighter tones but it is horrible shit film. if milius make destroyer that would be good film.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9346) a year ago

Point taken; the director of a film does bring cohesion to the whole and Milius deserves that credit. I do always give extra points to writers, though; without a strong foundation to build on, the movie's story just isn't going to work.

You're also right insofar as Arnold (most actors) do better with better directors. But Arnold definitely has some kind of special something. Even in bad movies (Jingle All the Way) it's fun to watch him because he brings the fun - to some extent.

I've never seen Destroyer end-to-end, but what I have seen is pretty bad.

We're in agreement. Directors pull projects together. But without talented people at every tier, they can lose anyway. A big part of leadership - maybe the most important part - is making sure you've got the right team.

reply

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) a year ago

yes ace. milius is not like normal director. when he direct and write film (like conan) then he dominate entire film. when milius make film then film become milius.

99.9 percents of other director do not dominate film in this way. it is why milius direct so few film in his careers because he can not do this all time. he make conan special but lots of great people work on this film but they need the milius spirit to inspire greatness.

yes arnold film are always entertaining but his film usually entertain but are still bad. the few quality film he do was when he have proper director. anrold need great director to be good.

you are lucky you do not watch destroyer all way through. that film should be set on fire and shoved up keelai's fat ass.

reply

[–] ccr1633 (1413) a year ago

yes ace. milius is not like normal director. when he direct and write film (like conan) then he dominate entire film. when milius make film then film become milius.

I think that's because Milius is tremendously well-versed in the history and politics of war. I would bet he has expert knowledge of the battle tactics and weaponry of Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Miyamoto Musashi, and the like. The costumes and weapons in this film have the stamp of Asian and middle-eastern warriors all over it. Watching Conan is almost like being at a museum.

reply

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) a year ago

yes yes exactly ccr! i agree with everything you say. good point about conan being like musuem. milius enthusiasm for war and history and legend and great battle is what make his film so great.

milius did not direct apocalypse now but that film is all milius especially colonel kilgore character. that kind of legendary war character come from milius and his knowlegde of all these great warriors who are myth and larger than life. no one else can create kilgore but milius. and colonel kurtz and his myth/aura is no doubt based on tyrants from ancient history that milus learn about.

reply

[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (1535) a year ago

You are right. The Rings of Power, which was utter dogshit, made by spineless cretins, for idiots, has the same rating as this classic.

reply

[–] doctorc1970 (270) a year ago

Damn fine movie. Problem is most of the current generation can't handle the Days of High Adventure!

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Definitely should be closer to an 8.

reply