Conan 2011 is a pathetic remake which attempts to ride the coattails of and cash in on the classic John Milius MASTERPIECE, Conan the Barbarian from 1982.
Conan 2011 plagiarizes the title, font, and basic plot of Conan 1982: the people of Conan's village, and Conan's father and mother, are slain by an evil warlord while Conan is a child; Conan then grows up and his one goal in life is to avenge the murders by killing said warlord.
Plagiarism is always evil, but *at least* they are plagiarizing a masterpiece. As plagiarism goes, they could do worse. But then they do! Unfortunately, Conan 2011 soon stops plagiarizing *just* Conan 1982, and also plagiarizes, badly, a plethora of other films, such as Onibaba, Pirates of the Caribbean, The Matrix, Prince of Persia, Star Wars, etc.
Momoa should go back to surfing and luaus, and leave filmic barbarianism to appropriate actors. As Conan, Momoa is a horrid replacement for the legendary Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger is - as a true barbarian must be - a gigantic juggernaut. In contrast, Momoa is a puny weakling. Momoa might be bigger than the average guy who hangs around the beach surfing and sun tanning all day long, but that is *not* our standard. When placed in the category of BARBARIAN, Crom and mortals alike do and must put to flight out of the realm the runt Momoa, with our laughter!
Some hardcore Howard (the author of Conan books) fans make the ludicrous claim that Momoa is better as Conan than Schwarzenegger, simply because Momoa is 'faster' than Schwarzenegger. It's easy to be fast when you are a puny like Momoa is, and when you are carrying fake plastic swords, like Momoa does in Conan 2011. Schwarzenegger carries real eight-pound steel swords in Conan 1982. Howard does say that Conan is 'agile.' However, Howard also says that Conan is a giant. One cannot, in real-life, be *both* agile *and* a giant - Howard created a paradox of a fictional person. Any actor is a real person, and can therefore only be one or the other. Of the two traits, for a Barbarian, giant is far more important and impressive. Those with knowledge of the Riddle of Steel do surely know that a giant juggernaut with an eight-pound real steel sword will never fail to crush a puny weakling with a half-pound fake plastic sword.
Schwarzenegger dominates the screen. His inherent visual appeal, charm and charisma establish between himself and the viewer an empathetic relationship with and vested interest in the Conan character.
Momoa is the exact opposite in all of those regards. Momoa has zero screen presence, visual appeal, charm or charisma. Whereas Schwarzenegger inspires thrills and cheers, Momoa inspires boredom and indifference.
Unquestionably, Schwarzenegger with his might has ousted the failed usurper and pretender to his Conan throne, Momoa.
Conan 1982's majestic score by Basil Poledouris is universally recognized as one of the best film scores of all-time. Suffice to say, it is a masterpiece of unmatched greatness. Conan 2011's score is so poor that to even call it a score is to give it far more dignity than it deserves. Cheesy, familiar, and generic pseudo-musical cues is a more accurate description for the abomination that masquerades as a score for Conan 2011.
Milius fills Conan 1982 with grand, masterful shots of sweeping natural landscapes and mountains. These shots give Conan 1982 the feel of a timeless fantasy epic. For Conan 1982's action, Milius relies on simple yet raw shots which expertly represent the brutality of the world, and which always clearly show the viewer the action.
Nispel fills Conan 2011 with incompetent shots that make the action impossible to see, and which give Conan 2011 a claustrophobic feel, as well as the feel of a rushed, amateur hack job by a sub-par first year filmmaking student. For example, such shots comprise the sequence of young Conan fighting off some unintentionally comedic caricatures who are intended to be savage warriors. Nispel's incompetent camera placement (he places the camera close to Conan when it should be far, and vice versa) ensures that the viewer cannot properly see the action.
The action in Conan 2011 is asinine. Conan, as a child, slays four adult savages. Despite being savages, the four of them all conveniently wait their turns to be slain in a one-on-one fight with Conan, rather than attacking him four-on-one, from all sides, as would real savages. After being stabbed in the leg, one savage stands idle and lets Conan take his weapon so that Conan can continue to slay him and his companions.
To take out one of the savages, Conan uses a Jet Li-style flying jump kick to the face. Where did Conan learn this? Is that a standard barbarian technique from ancient times? Is the viewer really supposed to believe that a kid kicking a man in the face once would knock the man out? YES, says Nispel. This is a joke, which Nispel does not *intend* as a joke. He intends the viewer to accept that this nonsense is realistic and believable.
As a parody, the fight scenes in Conan 2011 would be the work of genius. But since they are not intended to be parody, they are instead the work of utter failure.
The dialogue of Conan 1982 is brilliant, delving into deep thematic concerns such as whether steel is more powerful than flesh, and similarities between avenging hero and the villain who shaped him, etc. I do not have enough space to expound on the richness of Conan 1982's dialogue versus the total banality of Conan 2011's dialogue, but any viewer of both will surely understand the point.
Do yourself a favor: laugh at Conan 2011 as you banish it from your memory, and savor the immense enjoyment you will receive as you load up and watch tonight Conan 1982.
Conan 2011 plagiarizes the title, font, and basic plot of Conan 1982: the people of Conan's village, and Conan's father and mother, are slain by an evil warlord while Conan is a child; Conan then grows up and his one goal in life is to avenge the murders by killing said warlord.
Plagiarism is always evil, but *at least* they are plagiarizing a masterpiece. As plagiarism goes, they could do worse. But then they do! Unfortunately, Conan 2011 soon stops plagiarizing *just* Conan 1982, and also plagiarizes, badly, a plethora of other films, such as Onibaba, Pirates of the Caribbean, The Matrix, Prince of Persia, Star Wars, etc.
Momoa should go back to surfing and luaus, and leave filmic barbarianism to appropriate actors. As Conan, Momoa is a horrid replacement for the legendary Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger is - as a true barbarian must be - a gigantic juggernaut. In contrast, Momoa is a puny weakling. Momoa might be bigger than the average guy who hangs around the beach surfing and sun tanning all day long, but that is *not* our standard. When placed in the category of BARBARIAN, Crom and mortals alike do and must put to flight out of the realm the runt Momoa, with our laughter!
Some hardcore Howard (the author of Conan books) fans make the ludicrous claim that Momoa is better as Conan than Schwarzenegger, simply because Momoa is 'faster' than Schwarzenegger. It's easy to be fast when you are a puny like Momoa is, and when you are carrying fake plastic swords, like Momoa does in Conan 2011. Schwarzenegger carries real eight-pound steel swords in Conan 1982. Howard does say that Conan is 'agile.' However, Howard also says that Conan is a giant. One cannot, in real-life, be *both* agile *and* a giant - Howard created a paradox of a fictional person. Any actor is a real person, and can therefore only be one or the other. Of the two traits, for a Barbarian, giant is far more important and impressive. Those with knowledge of the Riddle of Steel do surely know that a giant juggernaut with an eight-pound real steel sword will never fail to crush a puny weakling with a half-pound fake plastic sword.
Schwarzenegger dominates the screen. His inherent visual appeal, charm and charisma establish between himself and the viewer an empathetic relationship with and vested interest in the Conan character.
Momoa is the exact opposite in all of those regards. Momoa has zero screen presence, visual appeal, charm or charisma. Whereas Schwarzenegger inspires thrills and cheers, Momoa inspires boredom and indifference.
Unquestionably, Schwarzenegger with his might has ousted the failed usurper and pretender to his Conan throne, Momoa.
Conan 1982's majestic score by Basil Poledouris is universally recognized as one of the best film scores of all-time. Suffice to say, it is a masterpiece of unmatched greatness. Conan 2011's score is so poor that to even call it a score is to give it far more dignity than it deserves. Cheesy, familiar, and generic pseudo-musical cues is a more accurate description for the abomination that masquerades as a score for Conan 2011.
Milius fills Conan 1982 with grand, masterful shots of sweeping natural landscapes and mountains. These shots give Conan 1982 the feel of a timeless fantasy epic. For Conan 1982's action, Milius relies on simple yet raw shots which expertly represent the brutality of the world, and which always clearly show the viewer the action.
Nispel fills Conan 2011 with incompetent shots that make the action impossible to see, and which give Conan 2011 a claustrophobic feel, as well as the feel of a rushed, amateur hack job by a sub-par first year filmmaking student. For example, such shots comprise the sequence of young Conan fighting off some unintentionally comedic caricatures who are intended to be savage warriors. Nispel's incompetent camera placement (he places the camera close to Conan when it should be far, and vice versa) ensures that the viewer cannot properly see the action.
The action in Conan 2011 is asinine. Conan, as a child, slays four adult savages. Despite being savages, the four of them all conveniently wait their turns to be slain in a one-on-one fight with Conan, rather than attacking him four-on-one, from all sides, as would real savages. After being stabbed in the leg, one savage stands idle and lets Conan take his weapon so that Conan can continue to slay him and his companions.
To take out one of the savages, Conan uses a Jet Li-style flying jump kick to the face. Where did Conan learn this? Is that a standard barbarian technique from ancient times? Is the viewer really supposed to believe that a kid kicking a man in the face once would knock the man out? YES, says Nispel. This is a joke, which Nispel does not *intend* as a joke. He intends the viewer to accept that this nonsense is realistic and believable.
As a parody, the fight scenes in Conan 2011 would be the work of genius. But since they are not intended to be parody, they are instead the work of utter failure.
The dialogue of Conan 1982 is brilliant, delving into deep thematic concerns such as whether steel is more powerful than flesh, and similarities between avenging hero and the villain who shaped him, etc. I do not have enough space to expound on the richness of Conan 1982's dialogue versus the total banality of Conan 2011's dialogue, but any viewer of both will surely understand the point.
Do yourself a favor: laugh at Conan 2011 as you banish it from your memory, and savor the immense enjoyment you will receive as you load up and watch tonight Conan 1982.
Tell Your Friends