Savvy-Geek reviews CONAN

The short of it the movie looks like it was made by a Barbarian. Continue reading to see my rating and review of the movie.

source: http://savvy-geek.blogspot.com

PollMaster Rates CONAN THE BARBARIAN
	Very Bad	Bad	OK	Good	Great
MOVIE
Picture In General	Vomit Inducing	Meh!	Just Ok	It was Goooood	Uber Great!
			*			3
Directing	lousy and clunky screenshots	noticeable amateur shots	A watchable movie	Good scene compositions	Innovative and memorable scenes
			*			3
Acting	Skill Non-existent	Amateur	So-so	Inhabits the Character	Is the Character!
			*			3
Story	Nauseating and Repulsive	Zzzzzzz… wha… what was that?	That was nice… Next!	It's good	Whoa! Mindblowing!
		*				2
Movie Editting	A monkey could have done better	A monkey has done it	Nice but there's still some monkeying around	A monkey has nothing on you	Flawless
			*			3
Cinematography	Worse than Crap	Crap	Passable	Alright	Awesome
			*			3
Visual FX	I'll gorge my eyes out now	I'm squinting	Doesn't make me dizzy	Good to look at	Amazing to look at
		*				2
Costume Design	Good Gawd!	You won't see it near me	Hmmmm.	Love to have one	I MUST... get me one of those
			*			3
Sound Editting	After that, I wish I was deaf!	A monkey is doing it again.	I didn't really mind it.	Nicely done	Kudos! Bravo!
			*			3
Score	No way that's music!	"Amateurs clanging in the basement"	Highschool Musical Presentation?	Now that's good music	Angelic Chorus
			*			3
		OK Movie			28	/50
Recommendation:		Watch it only if it's in TV

Just got out of the cinema, so the movie is still fresh from my mind. First of all I have not read Robert E. Howard's books where Conan was adapted from (might get on that someday), and I am too young when Arnold's version was released. So, my knowledge of Conan is pretty much what the general public knows of him, which is... his a Barbarian.

If you were viewing my rating scale you already have a pretty good idea what I thought about the movie, and to put it more bluntly it was not really a good movie. Directing, acting and storywise was pretty much all over the place. It is one confused movie, who does not know where it wants to be placed at - It is a fantasy movie who strives hard to be set in a real world and failed in both attempts.

Momoa, is striking as Conan and he probably resembles Howard's vision of the character than the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Unfortunately I find him lacking charisma, that a lead needs to hold together a movie. Rachel Nichols, pretty as she is - which I guess is the plus factor, does not have the chemistry or from the looks of things did not even tried to make her onscreen relationship with Conan work. I can go on through the list of actors but none really brought their A-game, all of them seem tired of the movie which does not inspire me to put an effort as well in reviewing it.

I love the sword and sandals genre, but this is definitely not the best example of it. There were often times that I forget what I was watching, and would swear that I was watching another god-awful sequel of the Scorpion King. To be fair with Scorpion King at least some parts of it was fun. Here they even tried to have a comic relief with that thief, but even him was not really sure what his part is in the whole movie. The CG effects were fantastic if this was made for TV but for a theatrical release it is out of place. The practical effects especially the blood splatter was often times comical, it seems like the people in Conan's time were like paintball pellets - splash they go when they hit a hard surface.

However, I still think there is an audience for this movie but unfortunately I am not one of them.

Share on facebook     Follow me on twitter
Okay Savvy-"G"s, Glorious Geekcreds to the first five individuals to leave geeky comments below.