MovieChat Forums > Conan the Barbarian (2011) Discussion > Finally saw the movie and I can see why ...

Finally saw the movie and I can see why this movie gets the 5.2 rating!

posted 13 years ago by illimattic
5 replies | jump to latest

Never saw the original, but the acting in this movie by everyone involved was pretty bad (Jason Mamoa, Ron Perlman, Rose McGowan, Rachel Nichols)

The movie itself was pretty cartoonish and underwhelming as well...the battle scenes didnt look too great either. And Conan shouldve been able to beat the old man that killed his father easily in a sword fight!

[–] jorghnassen 13 years ago

There's so much more that's wrong... I'm surprised it's got a 5.2 rating, particularly given how disastrous it was at the box office. And for all its flaws, one of the things that the 1982 movie had above this one is character. This one had less than the Clash of Titans remake.

[–] manchof1 13 years ago

I enjoyed it, I think it deserves more than a 5.2 rating but that's just me.

[–] Radalan 13 years ago

I just couldn't stand the scene transitions and cutting.

"We shall go to the castle of skulls!" -"We're at the castle of skulls" "Damnit, wrong place, we have to go to the giant spinxh." -"We're at the giant spinxh, apparently it's only few kilometers from the castle of skulls, Hyboria is such a small world." and it goes on and on from the beginning all the way to the end.

I would have had hardly any problems with the beginning of the film if those guys with mohawk haircuts wouldn't have had obvious dubbed animal roars, what the *beep* was with that?

What clichés? Thats a word the wannabe critics use when they want to whinge.

[–] Zentaurion 13 years ago

"We shall go to the castle of skulls!" -"We're at the castle of skulls"

LOL.

I feel the editting and mostly the cinematography of the movie really let it down. I just saw this movie for the first time and was mostly comparing it to the Scorpion King. That movie was shot ten years before, and on a budget that was $10million less. But it looked a whole lot better, and looking back I think it was because it had much more impressive visuals. Only the opening scenes looked good in Conan.

I would have had hardly any problems with the beginning of the film if those guys with mohawk haircuts wouldn't have had obvious dubbed animal roars, what the *beep* was with that?

I thought that was a good touch. It kind of implied that the time period meant people were still a bit animalistic.

The scene of the attack by Khalar's forces, the leading attack when one of his mercs just slashes through the cimmerian, showing the superior armory of the attackers. The work that went into creating the motivation for the villain. And at the end, Conan using the same move that his father used to throw him into the icy water. Those were some nice touches, that kind of went to waste in a movie that should have been a lot better.

'thumara thaufa sirf yeh hai'

[–] queenshan 12 years ago

Daughter and I "roared" with laughter at the animal sounds!

It's one thing to sound animalistic, it's another to sound EXACTLY like various animals (big cats, bears, horses, etc)! At one point, one guy sounded like a screaming ELEPHANT! We just couldn't believe how stupid that was.