MovieChat Forums > Conan the Barbarian (2011) Discussion > A hell of a lot better then the original...

A hell of a lot better then the original films


From start to finish, the film felt truer to the original books. For the first time I actually felt like watching a true Conan film. Nispel isn't the best director out there, but he is excellent at creating a "different world" - for a lack of a better saying. The cinematography. The production design. Zym's boat. Artus's boat. Nispel did a fantastic job creating Conan's world.

And he's always had a great eye for casting right for the character. Momoa was born for the role of Conan. Not only does he look exactly like the character, he brought the pasion, anger and fun as well as an incredible speed for someone his size. Momoa looked like he was born with that sword. This role is his, it never was, and never should be Arnold's. Leo Howard and Ron Perlman are stand out as Corin and young Conan. Howard was brilliant as a young Conan. He embodied the character, he was fearless in the role and as the character should be and the two really had a relationship of a man trying to train the raging stalion.

The film is true to the character's pulpish origins. It's a shame the film makers are going to be able to continue and build this world. I would have loved to have seen a larger sequel.

reply

The reason I like this better than the original is because it's 10x more gory and has tons more action

reply

Yes, the first 5 minutes are good. Until the end of Conan childhood.

Then, the film became predictable, cliché and more and less pointless.

I enjoyed the 1982 better, and watch it from time to time.

I don't think i'll watch this one again.

reply

*grunt* moar blud

*grunt* sords

*grunt* guts

*grunt caterpults

*grunt*

Characterization BAD

Decent script *grunt* SHALL BURN LIKE A WITCH ON A FULL MOON


*thumps chest

eats shyte*




´¨*¨)) -:¦:-
¸.•´ .•´¨*¨))
((¸¸.•´ .•´ -:¦:-
-:¦:-(ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง

reply

No, this movie sucked. The original film is a classic.

reply