MovieChat Forums > Conan the Barbarian (2011) Discussion > Pros and Cons compared to the '82 versio...

Pros and Cons compared to the '82 version


WHAT WORKS:

•Jason Momoa, as Conan, is excellent; far better than Arnie. It's hard to conceive of a better Conan.

•The Bulgarian locations are outstanding.

•The Costuming is more convincing than the '82 version. Conan's apparel, for instance, is more faithful to REH than Arnie's fur loincloth.

•Better acting than the '82 version, excluding James Earl Jones, of course.

•Brutal, thrilling action throughout with convincing swordplay (unlike the contrived ’82 version).

•Corsairs, highlighted by Conan's comrade Artus, effectively played by likable Nonso Anozie.

•Excellent sets/props; it definitely looks like the Hyborian Age.

•Good serious vibe, despite the cartoony, over-the-top last act.

•Rose McGowan as the witchy daughter is ee-vil and creepy.

•Ron Perlman as Conan's father.

•The whole opening sequence.

•I liked how the film stressed the closeness and love of Conan and his father. There's a correlation between true greatness and a close relationship with a strong father-figure and his example of excellence.

•You have to give credit to the filmmakers for effectively illustrating Conan's youthful days and life in a Cimmerian village in general, something Conan's creator never delved into in any detail.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK:

•The film deviates from Robert E. Howard, albeit not as much as the '82 version. Regardless, it certainly adhered to REH's overall pulp vibe. I'd prefer to see one of REH's originals put to film, like "A Witch Shall Be Born" or "Beyond the Black River."

•Stephan Lang as Zym makes a worthy enough villain for Conan, but he comes off too clichéd and cartoony, especially in the final act. James Earl Jones' Thulsa Doom worked better, likely because he was so unique.

•Rachel Nichols' Tamara is solid as the female protagonist, but she doesn't hold a candle to Sandahl Bergman's Valeria.

•The score is serviceable but pales in comparison with Basil Poledouris' score from the '82 version and "Conan The Destroyer" (1984). This score definitely won't be celebrated 30 years later like Basil's. Why didn't they just update Polerdouris' piece?

•There’s too much "Modern Blockbuster Syndrome" that appeals to those with ADHD.

•Especially the over-the-top final act, which is way too comic booky. It's cartoony overkill, pure and simple. But, then again, it did bring to mind REH's "Jewels of Gwahlur," so maybe it's not so far off the mark.

•The biggest flaw was that there wasn't enough depth. The film needed more 'downtime' to contrast the wall-to-wall action, like campfire scenes (which would better indicate distances), more camaraderie on the ship, more development of Conan & Tamara's relationship, etc. Although it had some of this, it wasn't enough. Action sequences naturally hold more weight when the audience cares about the characters. As it is, it's clear that the filmmakers wanted to make an action flick above all else and this weakens the film.

•Along with lack of depth was the lack of epic-ness or moving moments. The '82 film deviated from REH but at least it made up for it with depth and a sense of epic-ness. For instance, when Conan & Subotai make their stand against the riders of doom or Conan's moving victory salute, not to mention the potent love & death/funeral scenes, etc. This 2011 version had glimpses of this, like when Conan is birthed on the battlefield then raised to the sky and when Conan's father expresses his love with his final act, but, again, it needed more.

reply

Momoa is good as Conan, but I still love Arnold. He's not as good an actor - okay - but his *presence* is basically unmatched. Schwarzenegger has always had charisma. Plus, the original made up for his lack of skill by keeping his lines down. Ultimately, yes, Momoa is a better actor, but I think it's closer than you're implying. I can definitely conceive of superior Conan performers than Momoa.

Costumes were good in both films, in my opinion. I've read a lot of Conan, and he wears a lot of different things; fur loin cloths would not be out of the question.

As to the acting, I honestly don't remember any performance from the remake. I remember the movie, but I just don't remember the performances. On the other hand, I remember Mako, James Earl Jones, and Sandahl Bergman very fondly. Using non-actors for the three heroes let the original Conan keep the performances physical, which is interesting.

I'm with you 100% on the music. The original soundtrack is one of the best themes of all time. I also agree with your last point fully: the original felt epic and has depth that people don't often notice. On those points alone - the tone and the surprising depth - I'll take the original over the remake.

This movie did have good action scenes, and was shot well. I agree with you that the film looks good, but I wouldn't say better than the original. It's more modern, but I can get into almost all eras of filmmaking, so the original doesn't bug me with its look.

As to the Cimmerian life, it's neat that the film tried, but nothing stood out to me. It was just basic medieval peasant village stuff.

Ultimately, I think the original film feels like watching mythology and this one is just "fine". It's a serviceable action movie with swords. I can't quote it (contrast, "What is best in life?"), I don't really remember a lot of the side characters, and it doesn't have that specialness peculiar to the first film.

reply