Movie got awful reviews. I trust IMDB more than any source for movie ratings and the users gave it a 5.4. That's awful.
I won't rent a physical disc unless it gets a 7.0 and won't even bother streaming it over Netflix unless it gets a minimum 6.0.
5.4 is an average rating at IMDB not an awful one. If you're limiting yourself to only movies with ratings of 6 or over then you are missing some good and even great movies for no good reason by being a sheep.
5.4 maybe an average of all movies but 5.4 is also an awful movie. That's like saying in a 5 star system the average is around a 2.5, and therefore a 2.5 is a good score. That's false.
And what 'good' movie has below a 6.0 according to IMDB?
EDIT: 6.9 is the current average on IMDB.
Toxic Avenger is below a 6.0. I could probably name a ton of solid movies that are worth watching under that and name quite a few ones rated high that are total garbage.
Movies are what you like out of them. I loved Punisher WarZone, I liked The punisher(Thomas Jane), Warzone was more true to his character IMO and a lot of people don't like WarZone. That being said, I'd enjoy Conan just haven't gotten the chance to watch it with a couple buddies, schedules all seem to just miss by an hour or two.
Then again maybe I don't go see movies to see great acting, a great plot, I mean hell we got three horrible transformer movies with the name "Michael Bay" attached and people seem to think they are the box office smashes, when in reality they are nothing but total and utter garbage and destroyed an IP more than Ep1 or this rehash could ever imagine in my books.
Never seen either but Punisher WarZone has a 6.0 and Toxic Avenger has a 5.9.
Again, a 5.4 is simply a bad score. No getting around it.
If you actually base your decisions on what other people think when it comes to things like movies, that's really sad. I will watch the movie at some point, and I don't care what any of you think. I have my own thought process and opinions, so if I want to see something..I won't be deterred by what some random person on the internet thinks.
All of the old Conan movies were horrendous if you were actually going into it expecting a AAA movie title. If you go into it knowing that it's an over-the-top, cheesy, laughingly stupid movie, you'll like it better. That's all it is or ever was meant to be. You can't be mad that an apple is an apple and not an orange. If you can follow me with that really easy analogy.
If you actually base your decisions on what other people think when it comes to things like movies, that's really sad. I will watch the movie at some point, and I don't care what any of you think. I have my own thought process and opinions, so if I want to see something..I won't be deterred by what some random person on the internet thinks.
All of the old Conan movies were horrendous if you were actually going into it expecting a AAA movie title. If you go into it knowing that it's an over-the-top, cheesy, laughingly stupid movie, you'll like it better. That's all it is or ever was meant to be. You can't be mad that an apple is an apple and not an orange. If you can follow me with that really easy analogy.
The way to make an informed choice is to view the available information. It's nice to know that if you are going to spend your money, you are going to spend it on something enjoyable. The whole review process is there to enable people to make the best choices suitable for them.
The original Conan was a good film, hampered by budget constraints and perhaps not the film originally envisioned by Oliver Stone when he wrote the screenplay. But all things considered it worked, John Milius as director and his military knowledge came through in the staging of the battle scenes. Conan being almost super-human was well represented in Arnold (Mr Olympia winner) you don't get many (if any) blokes bigger than him at that time. Arnolds lack of acting skill actually helped the film, with limited dialogue. You had an excellent bad guy in the shape of James Earl Jones, Max von Sydow as the King. All together you have quality people involved with the film and I think it shows. The original film to me has stood the test of time.
I have to say, that my introduction into the Conan franchise was actually with Conan the Destroyer. Yes in retrospective it may be lame bad whatever. But I sure as hell enjoyed it when I was in my early teens! Conan the Barbarian I saw many years later, also enjoyed that one.
But I really agree with others in that they didn't need to re-do Conan's intro story. Also, in Conan the Barbarian his intro story was like 10x better. Everyone loved the wheel of pain, I loved his discussions with his grandfather on the Riddle of steel. Those brought depth to the character and the back story.
[SPOILERS]
In this film, what was the point of showing Conan vastly superior to his peers in that race, then killing all those picts? It was ok and while it was true, it just wasn't as captivating as in the original film. Also there was no mention of Conan's grandfather, who played a vastly more important role in Conan's life than his father did.
Some people claim the young witch (forgot her name already!) was good. But she was just untapped potential. You could see her lust for power, despite her father but they just never played on the betrayal concept which could have really given this film's story a boost. She even said a line indicating that that may happen, but it never came to pass.
The main villian was ok, I didnt see anything too bad about him. I liked his combat scenes with Conan.
My main (maybe only) praise for this film was some of the CGI imagery. Sure sometimes it felt a little over the top and in a lot of cases crude and noticeable, but it did help to bring a feel from the Comics/AOC.
P.S. As for Jason Momoa's physique? poor. He was not ripped throughout the film, it was quite clear. If he had slightly larger shoulders, he could have fit the look better. Sure he had the cat-like reflexes. But he just seemed too skinny for me.
Needless to say, Arnold is the one true Conan. Now if only he had cat like reflexes and wasn't 60+
Currently waiting for the MMO industry to put out something good.
P.S. As for Jason Momoa's physique? poor. He was not ripped throughout the film, it was quite clear. If he had slightly larger shoulders, he could have fit the look better. Sure he had the cat-like reflexes. But he just seemed too skinny for me.
Needless to say, Arnold is the one true Conan. Now if only he had cat like reflexes and wasn't 60+
I have a hard time with a Hawaiian being Conan full stop. Considering according to the map of Hyboria Cimmeria was to suppose to be Britain/Scandinavia that sort of area of the world, you could do with somebody with at least a European look. I would of been happier if they had picked some unknown Icelandic giant or something. Momoa is a bit too pretty for Conan to my mind, Arnold wasn't ideal but he at least had a European look.
Comments
Never seen either but Punisher WarZone has a 6.0 and Toxic Avenger has a 5.9.
Again, a 5.4 is simply a bad score. No getting around it.
If you actually base your decisions on what other people think when it comes to things like movies, that's really sad. I will watch the movie at some point, and I don't care what any of you think. I have my own thought process and opinions, so if I want to see something..I won't be deterred by what some random person on the internet thinks.
All of the old Conan movies were horrendous if you were actually going into it expecting a AAA movie title. If you go into it knowing that it's an over-the-top, cheesy, laughingly stupid movie, you'll like it better. That's all it is or ever was meant to be. You can't be mad that an apple is an apple and not an orange. If you can follow me with that really easy analogy.
The way to make an informed choice is to view the available information. It's nice to know that if you are going to spend your money, you are going to spend it on something enjoyable. The whole review process is there to enable people to make the best choices suitable for them.
The original Conan was a good film, hampered by budget constraints and perhaps not the film originally envisioned by Oliver Stone when he wrote the screenplay. But all things considered it worked, John Milius as director and his military knowledge came through in the staging of the battle scenes. Conan being almost super-human was well represented in Arnold (Mr Olympia winner) you don't get many (if any) blokes bigger than him at that time. Arnolds lack of acting skill actually helped the film, with limited dialogue. You had an excellent bad guy in the shape of James Earl Jones, Max von Sydow as the King. All together you have quality people involved with the film and I think it shows. The original film to me has stood the test of time.
I have to say, that my introduction into the Conan franchise was actually with Conan the Destroyer. Yes in retrospective it may be lame bad whatever. But I sure as hell enjoyed it when I was in my early teens! Conan the Barbarian I saw many years later, also enjoyed that one.
But I really agree with others in that they didn't need to re-do Conan's intro story. Also, in Conan the Barbarian his intro story was like 10x better. Everyone loved the wheel of pain, I loved his discussions with his grandfather on the Riddle of steel. Those brought depth to the character and the back story.
[SPOILERS]
In this film, what was the point of showing Conan vastly superior to his peers in that race, then killing all those picts? It was ok and while it was true, it just wasn't as captivating as in the original film. Also there was no mention of Conan's grandfather, who played a vastly more important role in Conan's life than his father did.
Some people claim the young witch (forgot her name already!) was good. But she was just untapped potential. You could see her lust for power, despite her father but they just never played on the betrayal concept which could have really given this film's story a boost. She even said a line indicating that that may happen, but it never came to pass.
The main villian was ok, I didnt see anything too bad about him. I liked his combat scenes with Conan.
My main (maybe only) praise for this film was some of the CGI imagery. Sure sometimes it felt a little over the top and in a lot of cases crude and noticeable, but it did help to bring a feel from the Comics/AOC.
P.S. As for Jason Momoa's physique? poor. He was not ripped throughout the film, it was quite clear. If he had slightly larger shoulders, he could have fit the look better. Sure he had the cat-like reflexes. But he just seemed too skinny for me.
Needless to say, Arnold is the one true Conan. Now if only he had cat like reflexes and wasn't 60+
I have a hard time with a Hawaiian being Conan full stop. Considering according to the map of Hyboria Cimmeria was to suppose to be Britain/Scandinavia that sort of area of the world, you could do with somebody with at least a European look. I would of been happier if they had picked some unknown Icelandic giant or something. Momoa is a bit too pretty for Conan to my mind, Arnold wasn't ideal but he at least had a European look.