Novi KONAN

[SIMERIJANAC]

A nikom ne izlazi para iz usta.
Irokezi su u stvari Pikti i po izgledu su verni Hauardovim opisima jer ih je on video otprilike kao Indijance severa Amerike i čak postoje i neke stare ilustracije Konanovih novela gde su Pikti upravo tako prikazani.
Ali bez obzira na to,meni je doslednost izvoru od strane ekipe filma u ovom slučaju -velika greška.Ne samo zato što će većina ljudi reagovati u stilu:"Šta je ovo,Konan se bori protiv Indijanaca",već zato što ovi Pikti ne izgledaju dovoljno grozno.
Da bi bili dovoljno strašni i autentični,Pikti treba da izgledaju onako kako su prikazani u Konanovim stripovima(najbolji primer epizoda Beyond the black river Tony de Zunige)-mali,crni,ružni divljaci koji najviše podsećaju na praistorijske ljude. Ili još bolje poređenje-onako kako izgledaju ljudožderi iz filma 13.ratnik.
Mali Leo Hauard je do sada jedina svetla tačka ovog filma-on jeste Konan.
Nažalost,ostalo što vidimo u insertu ne uliva optimizam:
Meni je bilo veliko razočaranje kada sam čuo da je majmunoliki Perlman izabran za Konanovog ćaleta,ali nisam očekivao da će Nispel insistirati da ga još dodatno poružne i pretvore u neandertalca.
Još veće skrnavljenje je što Bugari igraju Simerijance.
Umesto da Simerijanci budu ogromni dugokosi Arijevci iz Busceminih stripova koji najviše podsećaju na Vikinge ili Slovene,autori filma su se odlučili na jeftiniju i seljačkiju varijantu iz strip serijala Born on the battlefield gde oni više podsećaju na neko azijsko nomadsko pleme a u filmskoj varijanti sa Bugarima-na ganjcije.
Scena borbe je kao iz nekog dečjeg kung- fu filma ili crtaća.
Kao prvo,Konan je prikazan kao idiot koji bezglavo juri u susret smrti.Ignoriše upozorenje oca zbog pobede u trci iako su pred njim četiri odrasla piktska ratnika.
Na osnovu čega on smatra da može da ih savlada?
A ako je tako lako srediti ih,zašto svi ostali klinci zbrišu kad ih vide.
Mali Konan ih skenja po sistemu deset malih crnaca,rve se sa odraslim ljudima i baca ih po snegu kao da su deca,jednom od njih razbije glavu o sneg,drugog šutne u kung fu stilu a trećeg nabije u drvo kao u vestern tuči u salunu.
Mislim,jasno je meni da je reditelj ovom scenom odmah hteo da nam objasni ko je i šta je Konan,ali to je trebalo da izgleda uverljivo, a ne kao crtać.
I zašto se simerijanske žene koje učestvuju u bitkama zajedno sa muškarcima zgražavaju kad mali Konan donese odsečene glave Pikta?

[Alex]

I zašto se simerijanske žene koje učestvuju u bitkama zajedno sa muškarcima zgražavaju kad mali Konan donese odsečene glave Pikta?

Ženska posla.

[ridiculus]

Još veće skrnavljenje je što Bugari igraju Simerijance.
Umesto da Simerijanci budu ogromni dugokosi Arijevci iz Busceminih stripova koji najviše podsećaju na Vikinge ili Slovene,autori filma su se odlučili na jeftiniju i seljačkiju varijantu iz strip serijala Born on the battlefield gde oni više podsećaju na neko azijsko nomadsko pleme a u filmskoj varijanti sa Bugarima-na ganjcije.

Dok se sa drugim što si rekao uglavnom slažem (osim da Pikti trebaju da budu "tamni", sem ako nisi mislio na tamnu kosu, a ne kožu), po meni Buscemina interpretacija isto toliko zastranjuje u odnosu na Howarda. Simerijanci su idealizovani Kelti, ne Germani, ne Sloveni. Njihova imena su keltska, njihovi bogovi su keltski. Ne mogu da se setim da je kod Howarda opisan neki drugi pripadnik tog naroda, osim Konana, pa su priče o njihovom izgledu malo apstraktne, ali Howardova namera se ne može osporiti.

Sad, ne treba se uvek držati predloška kao pijan plota, ali u ovom slučaju bih stao na Howardovu stranu - prvo, iz poštovanja, drugo, jer bi to skrenulo od postojećih trendova "germanizacije" Simerijanaca i možda odvelo film u zanimljivije i manje stereotipne vode.

[cutter]

Ne nedostaju mi plave kose u Simerijanaca ali mi nedostaju koplja kod Pikta. Valjalo bi se rukovoditi Frazetinom slikom, gde ratnici izvitoperenih lobanja nadiru preko crvene humke držeći dugokose glave neprijatelja pobodene na koplja. Koplja! Pikti moraju da imaju koplja. Ta i omiljenom Piktu Kralja Kula je to bila glavna i titula i karakterna crta.

[SIMERIJANAC]

Dok se sa drugim što si rekao uglavnom slažem (osim da Pikti trebaju da budu "tamni", sem ako nisi mislio na tamnu kosu, a ne kožu), po meni Buscemina interpretacija isto toliko zastranjuje u odnosu na Howarda. Simerijanci su idealizovani Kelti, ne Germani, ne Sloveni. Njihova imena su keltska, njihovi bogovi su keltski. Ne mogu da se setim da je kod Howarda opisan neki drugi pripadnik tog naroda, osim Konana, pa su priče o njihovom izgledu malo apstraktne, ali Howardova namera se ne može osporiti.

Baš zato što su apstraktne treba ih na filmu prikazati onako kako je atraktivnije.
U Busceminim stripovima oni izgledaju moćno i natčovečanski dok kod Nispela koji je njihov izgled bazirao na Nordovim stripovima izgledaju prilično jadno i ciganski.
Ne znam, meni je čudno kako ekipa filma pravi greške čak i kada pokušava da se drži originala(kao u slučaju Pikta recimo),a sa druge strane pravi stravična odstupanja koja jednostavno ne mogu da se tolerišu niti opravdaju kao što je recimo to da Konan u filmu neće imati plave oči.

[mac]

Možda ova ekipa Pikta nema koplja jer mora da ih zasluži donošenjem nekih Simerijanskih glava?

[ridiculus]

@SIMERIJANAC

Kada si već spomenuo Beyond the Black River... Više bih voleo da su napravili neku adaptaciju te epizode (ili neke druge iz kasnijeg perioda), iako sam svestan da to ne bi bio blokbaster. People of the Black Circle mi je omiljena, ali sadrži previše fantastike - nisam siguran da bi ispala kako treba. Zašto ne The Hour of the Dragon? Može i A Witch Shall Be Born - ima tu materijala da se napravi čitav film uz nešto domišljatosti. Umesto toga, svako želi da izmisli točak iznova.

[SIMERIJANAC]

Tome su se svi fanovi i nadali - da se od par originalnih Hauardovih priča uradi adaptacija za film. Sve njegove priče su filmične i samo je trebalo napraviti pravu kombinaciju.Mogla se raditi i adaptacija Marvelovih stripova(meni su za film stvorene Kćeri Ranove,Crveni zamak,Erlikova ruka..),bilo šta osim ove idiotske izmišljotine o Konanovoj osveti zbog ubistva oca.
Nažalost,producenti nisu imali poverenja u izvorni materijal nego su išli na ziherašku  Scorpion king varijantu sa nekoliko poznatih glumaca ne bi li zaradili pare od klinaca koji gledaju Transformerse i Princa Persije.
Sve ipak zavisi od Džejsona-ako uspe da nas ubedi da je bar 70% Konan,možda ima nade da se u nastavcima neki reditelj zajebe i najzad snimi Konana kakvog svi pravi fanovi žele da vide.

[Usul]

Nije Konan Lesli Eldridž

[SIMERIJANAC]

Прва филмска критика новог Конана

I have seen the new "Conan the Barbarian". And it is an awful mess of a movie.

There is no explanation for anything that happens. Things just come with no rhyme or reason. There is no sense of pacing or emotional depth. The videoclip style made it impossible to get a handle on what's going on. The inconsistencies range from contradicting Howard, to contradicting their own damn tale. Plot holes threaten to engulf the entire film – characters just disappear, Chekhov's guns are left on the mantelpiece, dialogue is disjointed with no logical flow.

I blame Marcus Nispel for the whole debacle. I am pretty sure he destroyed this movie with bad ideas, no direction for the actors, and a poor choice of shots. I blame the producers too, of course, because they don't put enough money, time or effort into this flick.

I am not a great fan of Arnold or John Millius, but I must admit that the 1982 movie was really good. It doesn't have much dialogue, but some of the lines are truly poetic, and the characters say more with the eyes than many others with a thousand of words.

I am not a Howard purist either. I have read the original stories once and I enjoyed them, that's all. I would prefer a straight adaptation, but I have no problem if they invent a good new story.

I love sword & sorcery movies. It is my favorite genre. Before the screening I had no prejudices towards anyone involved, and I really wanted to enjoy the experience. But this film is worse than "Conan the Destroyer", worse than "Kull the Conqueror" and even worse than "Red Sonja". Worse, far worse than "The Scorpion King".

The fight scenes are embarrassing. Tedious and confusing. This is not an insignificant flaw in an action movie! Everything happens too fast, with too many close ups. And the editing is a real disaster. There are a lot of continuity errors, crossing the sight lines, and no sense of place.

Rachel Nichols' character, Tamara, never caught my interest. She is pretty, but with no outstanding characteristics. She gets in some action scenes, but it is simply ridiculous. Nichols looks fragile all the time, and she is supposed to be a nun, so there is no explanation about her fighting skills.

Stephen Lang is a cheesy over-the top-villain without much charisma. Rose Mcgowan is not sexy or menacing enough. Most of the other bad guys have no presence, no background, no lines of dialogue, no character arc... they even have no names!

I think Jason Momoa is a good actor. I have enjoyed him in Game of Thrones and Stargate. He was a good choice. But, unfortunately, you never see him as Conan the Cimmerian...

First, because he doesn't look like Conan. His hair is not black enough, he has no square cut mane, he is not big enough and, most important of all, he has no volcanic blue eyes.

Second, because he doesn't speak like Conan. Forget the long philosophical monologues or the subtle irony. This character talks like a self-confident bully. He doesn't even say "Crom" in the entire movie!

Third, because he doesn't act like Conan. The original character is a free man that enjoys the fruits of adventure and has learned to fight for survival. The protagonist of this movie is a cruel sociopath that enjoys torturing people, and doesn't hesitate in killing women.

The film's modest budget means the special effects are unpolished. In a summer blockbuster this is plainly unacceptable. The giant squid looks terrible, and the great Hyborian cities are like a bad matte painting from the fifties. The swords looks like plastic, the clothes are like halloween costumes, and the built sets are too little.

The story has a lot of absurd moments too. For example, there is a giant battleship that Khalar's army moves along the Hyborian world... and in the sea battle, the bad guys use little boats. How stupid is that? In another scene, Conan's swashbuckling friends save a village from slavers. Not only do the pirates have no reason to act in such a heroic way, but even the methods they use are highly questionable. They throw giant rocks, so the village they are trying to save is destroyed in the process. Then, they have a bloody hand-to-hand combat with the enemy. It is unbelievable that no slaves get harmed!

Again, I don't want to blame the screenwriters for all that stuff. It seems that a lot of dialogue and key scenes have been cut in order to make the movie shorter and more action packed. We know how Hollywood works, and how bad directors can ruin a good script.

The final battle is truly disappointing. The averange viewer can accept a silly adventure movie if, at least, it has a good climax. This one does not. If you expect some giant monsters, incredible nightmarish sets, emotional depth, or the resolution of intriguing conflicts... forget it. There is no excitement, no drama, no spectacle, no real danger. Only bland characters fighting each other (without much conviction) in an ugly cave.

Finally, the soundtrack is mediocre at best. I cant recall a single theme from it. Coming from Basil Poledouris' magnum opus, this is a clear problem.

Movies like Transformers 2 are bad because have no plot, but they are made by professionals that know how to tie two scenes together. This nasty experiment has been made with very little money by untalented people. It really needs a full recut with 30 minutes more, better pacing and coherent action scenes in order to start to be a movie.

I cant understand how these people decided to kill the franchise from its very inception. If this is the motion picture that Paradox put off the ground with so much effort... it would be better to have no Conan movie at all.

[cutter]

He doesn't even say "Crom" in the entire movie!

Neoprostivo!

Kritika, avaj, deluje dosta temeljno na potkovan način; na osnovu trejlera rekao bih da je pomalo puristička kada je reč o Momoinim fizikalijama/očima/kosi (meni deluje kao crnoputo osveženje kao što rekoh) ali je znakovito ovo kad kaže da ne izgleda dovoljno velik. Čak su i GoT paceri umeli da ga ukadriraju tako da deluje kao nauljena mrcina pa je ovo možda mogao otpisati na problem s zakazalim donjim rakursom ili prevelikom koncentracijom statista mobilisanih s obližnjeg takmičenja u cepanju telefonskih imenika. Unatoč svemu, odbijam da verujem da je ovaj Konan gori od Kralja Škorpiona...

[SIMERIJANAC]

Najzad i dugo očekivana kritika jednog od najvećih autoriteta za REHa i Konana,Škota Ala Harona:

Well Cromrades, you knew it was coming, and it is: I have seen Conan the Barbarian, and I have thoughts on it. Many, many thoughts.

This was always going to be a very difficult review to write. I have so much invested in the character of Conan, the work of his creator Robert E. Howard, and any future adaptations that hinge on this film. The reception and gross of this film is vital to the productions of Kull of Atlantis, Dark Agnes, Bran Mak Morn, Vultures, Pigeons from Hell, and who knows how many other Howard creations are in the pipeline. If the film does well, then we might finally get what Howard fans want most in a Robert E. Howard adaptation: Robert E. Howard.

While I'm always aware that I'm a big fan at heart, and it isn't as if my word can make or break a production. But I am aware that what I say matters, and that I make a difference – the extent of that difference not immediately clear or quantifiable, but definitely present. I'm keenly aware of my responsibility for my words to be said with the utmost care.

As such, I'm going to write both a review and a critique: the review is the general, broad opinion of the film based on my reaction, with no real delving into plot, character or story details. The critique will deal with much more in-depth analysis, which would naturally mean every other aspect of the film. Those wanting to wait until they've seen the film to make a judgement would be advised only to read the review, and wait until after viewing for the critique.

As of this moment, I'm still putting the finishing touches on my review, so as a taster, here's the capsule:

Conan the Barbarian (2011) is better than I was expecting in some respects, and worse than I was anticipating in others. On pure cinematic merits, it is not as successful as the 1982 film or Solomon Kane, but it is not quite as heinous as Conan the Destroyer or Kull the Conqueror either. In terms of adapting Robert E. Howard's creation, it's only marginally more faithful than any of its predecessors, just in different respects. Jason Momoa, with the right director, script and story, could be a fine interpretation of Howard's Conan: there are brief, wonderful moments in the film where I momentarily forgot what film I was watching, and he's definitely closer to REH than Arnold's ever was. The basic story is still pathetic, some of the effects are simply atrocious, and there's no thematic core, philosophy or subtlety to speak of – on the other hand, the natural scenery of Bulgaria is a joy to behold, some of the effects are surprisingly solid, and there's a pervasive sense of enthusiasm from the cast that can be woefully lacking in these sorts of films. In short, some parts better, some parts worse, but overall, much as how I expected it to end up.

UPDATE: Now for the review itself. Click on, if you dare...


My initial reaction to Conan the Barbarian 2011 was that parts of the film were much less terrible than I was fearing, while others were much worse. Frankly, it's still a rather terrible film from a pure cinema fan's perspective (which tends to be the case for a lot of action films, so much so that they're called "critic proof") – but is it at least an enjoyably terrible film, and does it have any bright spots? Therein lies the dilemma.

I like starting off with the bad in my reviews, since I like to think the good makes up for it, and leaves a more positive feeling in the end.

First of all
Right from the start, I know exactly what my greatest grievance with the film is, and it's the direction by Marcus Nispel. Now, I'm not going to say he's an atrocious director, or incompetent, or an idiot with no sense of basic narrative structure, because frankly, I don't think it would be very nice. Marcus Nispel is, in fact, something of an auteur: I get the distinct impression that this is exactly the film he wanted to make. All his idiosyncrasies make sense if you think of him in the same terms as you would for Uwe Boll: he's a man who doesn't care about things most people take for granted, like "this has to make sense," or "you have to explain this," or "you have to have some sense of pace or tempo or rhythm in order to make a satisfying film" – just that the film he makes is the film he wants. The problem with all this is self-evident: the type of film Marcus Nispel wants to make is directly opposed with the kind of film that Conan deserves.

Conan does not deserve a film where the action is interspersed with Bond-esque one-liners, or people making funny squeals and mugging for the camera when they're kneed in the groin, or an interlude involving a man strapped to a catapult that looks, sounds and feels like a live-action Wile E. Coyote vignette (Holy MITRA, that scene...) Conan does not deserve action scenes that are devoid of visceral power and suffused with the sort of balletic acrobatics more suited to a stage show or Xena: Warrior Princess. Conan does not deserve to live in a world that has no sense of history or majesty, where one beautiful city is like any other, and there's no idea of scale in the various characters' travels. As a generic Swords-and-Sorcery film, it's merely adequate: as a Conan film?

John Milius' Conan the Barbarian had a lot of faults. Let's forget for a second that it had next to nothing to do with Howard's work, or the myriad plot and shooting issues. Milius' film was directly inspired by the likes of Kurosawa, Kobayashi, Eisenstein, Pastrone, Ford – some of the greatest and most influential minds in cinematic history. Sure, it could be disjointed and uneven, but Milius was inspired by the best, and it shows. Some shots in that film are works of art. Marcus Nispel's Conan was more inspired by Lucas, Spielberg, Zemeckis – in other words, people of the same generation and mindset as Milius. All those directors were inspired by earlier filmmakers, to the point where they actively homage them in their work – lifting entire scenes from previous works. Nowadays, people are making homages to them – which is essentially a homage to a homage. This results in a work that is as lifelessly derivative and creatively bankrupt as a photograph of a traced drawing of a painting.

Marcus Nispel's Conan the Barbarian suffers from this issue to a profound extent, but instead of being reminded of Kwaidan, Alexander Nevsky or Cabiria, we're reminded of the blockbusters of yesteryear, and instead of working for the benefit of theme and narrative, they're in there purely to look cool and take up space. Milius taking visuals from "Hoichi the Earless" was used to emphasise the eastern mysticism pervading the film; borrowing the sword ceremony and armour of the Teutonic Knights of Alexander Nevsky was highlighting the "glamour of the crusade" in Doom's quest for steel and the cult-like devotion of his men even at that stage of his life; taking the visual of Maciste pushing a wheel served to illustrate the Kafkaesque symbolism of the wheel in regards to mind-numbing repetition reaping rewards as well as being trying. Nispel borrowing the falling sacrificial wheel from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was done because... it was a neat action scene. Nispel lifting the egg-chase from Rapa Nui was done because... it was cool. There is no sense of invention, creativity, or daring about the film: everything that's good is good because it's been done – better – elsewhere, and everything that's bad is because it doesn't have any place in the film.

Despite Sean Hood's efforts, very little of his work remains in the film, and I fear he's going to take the fall for such horrendous lines as "what is your claim – DEATH!" "Now I'm going to kill you with your own father's sword!" and the transcendent "Farewell my friend." Some story choices are just bizarre, confusing and self-contradictory: more of those in the critique. All the set-pieces feel like set-pieces, not organic episodes of a whole narrative, but a series of unconnected events happening in succession. None of the characters are fleshed out beyond basic lip service, and many don't have lines, or even names. They don't even have closure half the time.

The effects in this film were... uneven. Some of the effects were quite good, while others were just horrendous. The prologue was probably the worst. Utterly dire, effects more worthy of the Asylum than other effects we see in this very film. Khalar's battleship and its accompanying elephants were quite shockingly poor, and although I can't be sure, I think they might actually have looped the animation of the pachyderms in one scene. Though the matte paintings were excellent as a general rule, there were some that were not up to that standard: a stack of ruins on the coast, the opening shots of Acheron, a few close-ups of Khor Khalba, and a few others scattered about that were very obvious in comparison to the good effects and natural scenery.

I'm not going to bother talking about the music, because even accounting for the fact that we weren't going to be blessed with anything approaching Poledouris' opus from the 1982 film, I'm truly astounded by how unmoving Bates' score was. It was just... there. Completely perfunctory, uninspired, blase, mundane, adequate. No flair, no power, no drive, no soul. The only part that was remotely interesting was the end credits... and it's not good when the accompaniment to a list of names is the only part of a film score that has any impact.

Aside from the obvious, I think what I hated most about the film was its treatment of sex and violence. I actually felt insulted by it. First, the violence: if you remove all the blood, it's the sort of balletic acrobatics you see in Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and 300. It's all jumping about, 360 flips, and inefficient flourishes that would get anyone in an actual fight killed in short order. It isn't men fighting for their lives, it's men showing off their agility and flair. It isn't something with gravitas, power and resonance, it's something light, bland and irrelevant. This isn't battle, it's a dance. The sheer amount of action scenes inevitably mean that the violence is sincerely diluted as a result, to the point where it's meaningless. Conan doesn't come across as an incredible warrior laying waste to mighty foes: he comes across as a monster massacring helpless enemies – or he would, if the enemies had any distinguishing elements worth a damn. Despite accusations of Conan glorifying violence, Howard was actually very frank, stark and relentless in his depiction of violence as the cruel and unpleasant experience it is – but the fact that the hero was still alive added the thrill of knowing you are still alive to counterbalance it. For violence to be Howardian, it has to have people simultaneously repulsed and enthralled: I felt neither during this film's action scenes, and was actually put off by how insincere it was.

The treatment of sex, frankly, disgusted me. This film is unforgiveably chauvinistic in some key scenes, which put off the good will I had in their depiction of Conan's mother, for all the two minutes she appeared on screen. Given that Howard was nothing short of ahead of his time when it came to not only making strong women, but giving the women who aren't warriors or leaders a bit more backbone than the fawning whelps of his peers, I'm not happy about this one bit. This film presents Tamara's independence as impudence rather than perfectly justifiable indignation, and though she eventually gains Conan's approval through her martial skills, that doesn't justify one early scene that had me fuming in rage, and will no doubt not be well received by feminist viewers. The slave girls... well, I'll leave that to the critique, suffice to say that this nonsense might fly in a John Norman story, but shouldn't be anywhere near a Robert E. Howard one. The film's one sex scene was, not to put too fine a point on it, about as natural-looking as an '80s softcore music video, exacerbated by its hilarious incongruity within the film's setting. At least it wasn't offensive, unlike the slave rescue.

As for fidelity to the source material... yeah, you all know by now. If Conan the Barbarian was a rock 100 miles from Robert E. Howard, then this film is about 95 miles away. I should say that the attempts to reconcile the film with Howard are appreciated, much appreciated, but to be frank, it's too little too late. The infusion of Howardian elements in this film is like using plasters to heal decapitation. Sure, putting a few bandages (sorting out the geography, improving Khalar's backstory, changing races and nationalities to fit better) might stop some of the blood seeping out and close up some of the wound... but you can't fix a beheaded corpse. Once the head's cut off, you can't save it. All you can do is put on a prosthetic head and hope no-one will notice.

On the other hand...
With all this criticism, you might wonder if there are any bright spots. I did say some parts were better than expected, after all. The most noticeable one, for me, is that the film is a lot easier to follow than I was fearing. Many lines of vital exposition, plot development and character interaction which I was led to believe were removed were indeed in the cut I saw. Artus' brief explanation of Conan's worldview to Tamara, Marique & Tamara's conversation (my assistant asserted this wasn't nearly enough to pass the Bechdel test, and admittedly I agree: if they'd just cut Khalar out of the conversation...), even a little extra dialogue for the villains to make them more than just meaty scenery. I can only assume the European cut of the film differs in some way, or earlier versions had just cut those scenes out: whatever the case, I was pleasantly surprised to hear some lines – if gnashing my teeth at some of the cheesy additions which most certainly weren't in the script I read.

Jason Momoa is another success... sort of. In fact, Jason was by far the most frustrating thing about the film, in a way, because as with James Purefoy in Solomon Kane, there were real flashes of Robert E. Howard's Conan in his performance... but because of the story and direction, these brilliant moments were few and far between, and horribly undermined by the very non-Robert E. Howard things that we see. There's one particular moment in the film which almost had the hairs on the back of my neck standing up, so Conan-esque it was. Based on Game of Thrones and a few moments in Conan, I know that Jason Momoa could be Howard's Conan, so long as the right director and story were involved. In this, he's a swaggering, sadistic, chauvinistic bully, about whose personality and worldview we know practically nothing, who is utterly unchanged from beginning to end.

Is he closer to Howard's Conan than Arnold, and does he make a better Conan than Arnold? By Crom, yes, on both counts. Arnold's Conan could never be Howard's Conan: the two characters' histories are just so irreconcilable that you might as well be talking about two different individuals. However, what's worrisome is that the ways he's closer to Howard's Conan than Arnold is because of what he isn't, not because of what he is: instead of Jason's character being more like Conan because he's more like Howard's Conan, it's because he's less like Arnold's. It may seem like splitting hairs, but I think there's an important distinction to be made. Jason's Conan is closer than Arnold's Conan because he is not forced into slavery as a child, nor is he thrust into pit-fighting as an adult, nor taken to the Far East to train in the use of the katana: all greatly appreciated, but it's like saying "Jason's Conan was not abducted by aliens; nor has he had his brain swapped with that of a tapir, nor was he transported to the 25th Century": there's an awful lot more that Conan didn't do than what he did do, and of the things we know Robert E. Howard's Conan did, there's precious little evidence of it in this film.

Leo Howard was also a pretty solid young Conan. This was a young Conan I could believe hunted mountain-beasts with spears, or had been discussed in the council fires all over Cimmeria, or – in a few years, perhaps – would break the neck of a wild Cimmerian bull. In-between the ridiculous roundhouse kicks and silly katas, Leo brings an intensity and ferocity to the role that's sorely needed to wash away Jorge Sanz's heartfelt but entirely inappropriate performance. If they cleaned up the fight choreography and made his attacks brutal rather than flashy, I've no doubt people would buy that this boy is not someone to trifle with. Frankly, I'd love to see Leo take on the early thief Conan stories in a few years.

Of the supporting cast, I like Ron Perlman's Corin and Nonso Anozie's Artus the best. Perlman does a great mixture of loving father and brutal barbarian, treating his son with alternate kindness and harshness without his treatment being jarring or schizoid. He doesn't sleepwalk through the role like he did recording the 2007 Conan game, either: this was him on his A-game, and though the material he had to work with precluded a stellar performance, he was still a highlight. Anozie was given a somewhat thankless task as the Token Black Sidekick, but his jolly eloquence constrasting with his bearlike charisma and presence was very likeable to me, to the point where – horror of horrors – I might not necessarily mind seeing him return in future. Perhaps, in an adaptation of "Queen of the Black Coast" treated as a prequel, we could see Conan's first meeting with Artus on board the Tigress...

The one thing I liked about the other cast members was that there was a definite sense of enthusiasm. Everyone was having fun in this film, be it Lang devouring the immediate area as Khalar Zym, McGowan savouring her large portion of ham as Marique, or Anozie and Taghmaoui being energetic and cheerful as Artus and Ela-Shan respectively. Bob Sapp and Nathan Jones fulfill their roles as Professional Huge Persons admirably, though Nispel never really takes full advantage of their grand dimensions to the extent he should. Of all the cast, only Ron Perlman and Raad Rawi try to give somewhat more sombre and serious performances, but even they couldn't resist going overboard at times, having a nibble at the few parts of the set Lang and McGowan haven't consumed in their rampage. I didn't think anyone was on autopilot, or having a rough time: everyone seemed to be enjoying themselves, and it's kind of infectious. Compared to the dull, lifeless dross of Prince of Persia and Clash of the Titans, I'd at least prefer the cast to seem entertained by what they're doing than bored to tears.

The effects that were good, were very good: these were the particle effects of dust, fire, cloud and whatnot, which are damned difficult to do well, and so I applaud them for doing them well done. The stunts may have been completely inappropriate for the type of Conan film I envision, but in terms of technique and competence, the 300 choreographers and Bulgarian stuntment did a fine job. As I said earlier, some of the matte paintings are quite beautiful: the far shots of Khor Kalba, the Shaipur outpost, the monastery, Messantia, Argalon and what I presume to be Hyrkania are quite lovely, and I wish the other mattes were up to those standards.

Special mention should be made of the locations. It's very evident when the film is showing us a digital matte, and when we're seeing Bulgaria: when it's the latter, it's absolutely beautiful, and entirely real. The scenes shot at Prohodna, the petrified forest, the stone river, the Black Sea Coast and elsewhere add that touch of authenticity that the film desperately needed, and it isn't as familiar as the much-mined New Zealand locations of Hercules, Xena and the Lord of the Rings films.

"But what do you expect? It's just a Conan movie"
If all you know of Conan is a vague recollection of a pair of 1980s films, coupled with a rough knowledge of other Sword-and-Sorcery films, then I can see why someone would react to my criticism of the film's story, characterisation, themes and general content with perplexity. After all, people only go to Conan to see sex, action and adventure, right?

Even those who know that Conan was created by Robert E. Howard – even some who've read his stories – might think those expecting more from a Conan film than blood, breasts and brutality are pretentious, deluded souls seeing things that aren't there, desiring profundity and complexity in an adaptation that isn't warranted from the source material.

These people, of course, are idiots.

Well, no, of course they're not idiots, that's just unkind – but I do strongly disagree with that assessment. Greater Howard fans and scholars than I have given copious examples of why Howard was more than just a particularly good pulp writer: that there is real depth and complexity to his writings, mythic significance in his characters and narratives, philosophical and symbolic vigour that truly does elevate his work beyond the status of mere subliterary hackwork. One need only peruse REHupa.com, The Cimmerian, REH-e-apa.com, Two-Gun Raconteur and other sources to find that there is indeed quite a lot more to Howard's Conan than you'd find in a dime-a-dozen other Sword-and-Sorcery films.

That's why this film smarts so much: it's just a dime-a-dozen Sword-and-Sorcery film. The villain has slightly more motivation than most, and it has nicer scenery than most... but what does it have to offer over The Scorpion King or The Beastmaster? Does it have the cosmic tragedy, subverted Biblical allusions and intellectually curious barbarian of "The Tower of the Elephant"? Can one glean the civilized hypocrisy and arrogance threatening the honest underclass through colonialism of underestimated barbarism of "Beyond the Black River"? Is there an iota of the delving into the corruptive power of decadence and complacency exemplified by "Red Nails"?

In fact, let's forget the deeper things, and concentrate on the basic stuff. Are any of the villains in this film remotely as compelling as the inhuman Xaltotun, the charismatic Thoth-Amon, the sadistic Tsotha-Lanti, the conspiratorial Tascela, or the sympathetic anti-villain Khemsa? Do any of the creatures have any of the impact of the heartbreaking Yogah, the sinister Satha, the monstrous Winged One, the unstoppable Khosatral Khel, or the almost-human Thak?  Is a single one of the supporting characters comparable to the magnificent Valeria, the stalwart Pallantides, the heroic Balthus, the boisterous Taurus, or the unforgettable Belit? Any locations so resonant as Zamora's Maul, Xuthal, Xuchotl, Tarantia, Belverus, Khemi? Any set pieces as memorable as Conan's stand against his conspirators and the chilling reminiscence of his homeland in "The Phoenix on the Sword," his battle against the spider and subsequent meeting with the tower's captive in "The Tower of the Elephant," his monstrous battle with Thog in "Xuthal of the Dusk," breaking the neck of a vulture in his teeth while crucified in "A Witch Shall Be Born," his pulse-pounding flight from the Picts in "The Black Stranger"?

No. There's obviously something that has people coming back to Robert E. Howard and Conan after 80 years in a way they aren't coming back to his contemporaries or successors; something that's missing in the tales of Brak, Thongor, Jongor, Elak, and other Sword-and-Sorcery heroes; something that makes him worth returning to every generation. The sex, violence and bloodshed in Howard's Conan is like the heroics, guns and battles of Lawrence of Arabia: they're what makes it the same as other war films, not what makes it special.

But what did you think of the film?
A lot of people worked hard on this film. Fredrik Malmberg has been battling the dunderhead forces of Hollywood to get a remotely Howardian film made since his company bought the rights. Sean Hood worked tirelessly to make a film that's not only more Howardian, but just more coherent and satisfying a narrative. I needn't even mention the many cast and crew members who put so much effort into performances and creating sets, props and tools to make the best film they could with the budget, resources, time and talent available.

So it's actually really painful for me to admit that I hated the film.

Not only from a Howard purist's standpoint, mind – no doubt if I didn't know of the divergences in advance, I would've hated it even more – but from a cinemagoer's standpoint too. Contrary to popular opinion, I'm not so blinded by purist sensibilities that I can't enjoy a film on its own merits. I enjoyed the 1982 film, after all, as well as Total Recall, Blade Runner and I, Robot despite their vast divergences to their respective source material, and their own disparate qualities to boot. I'm not even that much of a snob: while I confess to preferring the likes of Tarkovsky and Reggio, that doesn't mean I can't also relish truly abysmal flicks like the live-action Fist of the North Star. But this film...

Believe me, I tried to like this film. I wanted to like it so much. But I couldn't, and I can't lie. But that doesn't mean you won't like it: after all, the only way you can find out is to experience it for yourself. Crom knows I have my share of films I've liked that others hated, and the reverse: perhaps my opinion will be in the minority. Frankly, I'd love that to be the case, that I'm just a curmudgeonly old purist/film-lover who had completely too much investment to make a fair assessment of a film. It's entirely possible that those with different expectations will enjoy the heck out of this film: certainly you never have time to be bored, there's always something happening on screen, there are plenty of nice visuals, it's easy enough to follow. Have I got myself in so deep that I simply can't make an impartial judgement? Only one way to find out: you, the reader, are the only one capable of making the decision. I'm not going to recommend people don't see the film, as I believe it's one of those films where you'll just have to see for yourself. Will you enjoy it, or will you hate it? I sure can't tell. I just wish that, if Conan the Barbarian turns out to be well-liked – maybe it will, look at the bank Michael Bay's Transformers series made – I could join in that chorus.

I'll have a longer, more detailed critique of the film up sometime this week, where I get into exactly what parts I enjoyed and, ahem, what parts I didn't, explaining more thoroughly why I liked/disliked them, and where I think the Conan film franchise can go from here. Until then, I'm going to have to catch upon other reviews...


This entry was posted on Monday, August 15th, 2011 at 11:46 pm and is filed under Conan Movie Blog.

[kikec]

najnoviji Conan The Barbarian bi vrlo vjerovatno mogao ponijeti titulu filmskog promašaja godine, barem ako je suditi prema premijernom vikendu u američkim kinima, gdje je u 3015 kino dvorana ostvario utržak od jedva 10 milijuna dolara. jednako kao publika, niti kritika mu nije ništa više naklonjena, te ga je sasvim pokopala.

[Milosh]

Baš bizaran vikend, svi novi filmovi su flopovali, a od Konana je (malo) više zaradio čak i najnoviji Spy Kids, Fright Night rimejk je prošao još gore, teško da će nakon ovog biti nastavaka...

[Kunac]

Potpuni fijaskao... 

[Meho Krljic]

Međutim, gde vi vidite poraz, kreativni ljudi vide novu mogućnost:

Сценариста ,,Конана" припрема ,,Рамба 5"

ЛОНДОН - Сценариста филма ,,Конан варварин" Шон Худ радиће на петој и последњој причи из серијала ,,Рамбо", објавио је магазин Емпајер.

Худ је рекао да је сценарио за филм ,,Рамбо: Ласт Станд" предао продукцијској кући Миленијум филмс. ,,Прошле године сам се два пута састао са (Силвестером) Сталонеом. Дао ми је старији сценарио и двадесетак страница које је сам написао како би ми послужиле као инспирација за последње поглавље саге о Рамбу", казао је Худ.

Заплет филма биће у духу првог филма из серијала. Худ је рекао и да није сигуран да ће Сталоне играти у филму.

,,Тренутно не знам да ли ће га Сталоне снимити. Колико знам, тренутно су му пуне руке због филмова 'Bullet To The Head' и 'Плаћеници 2'. Али, Миленијум филмс ме је ангажовала да довршим сценарио и надам се да ће (Сталоне) урадити још један филм о Рамбу, у стилу филма 'Неопроштено' Клинта Иствуда", рекао је Худ.

[Milosh]

Pogledao. 

[SIMERIJANAC]

Posle odgledanog filma ostajem pri onome što napisah nakon trejlera, a ujedno mogu i da potpišem gornje dve kritike.Kada običan gledalac koji zna vrlo malo o Konanu(prva recenzija) i Hauardov purista(druga koju je pisao Haron),ovako iskasape film,onda je jasno kakvo je smeće Nispelovo ostvarenje.
Ne znam samo da li da se radujem što je film tako slavno pukao u bioskopima(do sada povratio samo pola uloženih para), ili da mi bude žao što Džejson neće dobiti još jednu šansu sa autorima koji poštuju i razumeju originalnog Konana,sa dobrim scenaristom i adekvatnim rediteljem, jer su on(fizički deo uloge,jer dijaloge nije ni imao) i mali Leo Hauard(preslikani Konan iz Bornonthebattlefield), jedine svetle tačke ovog smeća.
Sa zanimanjem očekujem utiske ostalih fanova Konana sa Sagite.

[Nightflier]

Moj je utisak da su se glumci veoma trudili. Mislim da je Momoa odičan Konan, naročito nakon što sam preveo pedesetak epizoda Conan the Barbarian i Savage Sword of Conan. Jedino mu fale plava sočiva pa da bude savršen. Roj Tomas u stripu insistira da je konan preplanuo i bronzane puti, tako da Momoin prirodni ten savršeno odgovara ulozi, baš kao i način na koji se kreće u filmu. Čak su i negativci više nego solidni.

Moje primedbe su upućene pre svega scenariju, koji je na nivou loše D&D avanture, sa još gorim dijalozima - ali i režiji, koja je počesto besciljna. Kao da se režiser usredsredio na snimanje pojedinačnih scena, bez ikakve ideje kako će da ih uklopi u celinu. Kadriranje, odnosno fotografija, je veoma dobro, doduše.

Ukratko, tragično propuštena prilika.

[M.M]

Iskreno, nemam nikakvu želju da pogledam novog Konana.

[Nightflier]

Šta znam. Ja gledam skoro sve što kod nas dođe u bioskope, ali otkad sam počeo da idem u Ušće, drastično manje gledam divxove. Ovaj film sam baš želeo da pogledam, ako ni zbog čega drugog, a ono zbog gikovske opšte kulture.

[Kunac]

Nju Konan iz a pis of šit.

[SIMERIJANAC]

Čak su i negativci više nego solidni.

S tim mogu da se složim,Lang je odradio šta je mogao sa tekstom koji je dobio. Čak je i Ruža bila grozna, a ne smešna kao što sam očekivao.
Ali je Rejčel takav promašaj da je to neverovatno-kao što sam u nekom od prethodnih postova napisao-prozirna,svilena i meka,ni s od strasti,ona jednostavno nema izgled žene iz Hiborijskog doba,izgleda kao fashion model koja je u taj svet zalutala sa nekog kastinga za kozmetiku.
Ej bre,pa u filmu o Konanu nema ni jedne dobre ribe,a level of nudity je na nivou Holmarkovih filmova za domaćice.U celom filmu imate jednu mračnu scenu sisa Rejčeline dublerke i par sekundi toplesa rumunske zečice Aline u idiotskoj sceni u kojoj Konan oslobađa robove tako što poput šimpanze svali kamen na njihov kavez.

[Kunac]

Novi Konan je smejurija... Bez obzira na sve, šokantno je koliko scenario ne valja. Hajde, sam zaplet... Ali realizacija, dijalozi. Katastrofa.

[Torrente]

[SIMERIJANAC]

Evo mog detaljnog kasapljenja Nispelovog filmskog abortusa.
Kritika za ovaj film mi je bila i prilika da konačno napišem zašto i Milijusovo i Stounovo ostvarenje smatram svetogrđem i uvredom za Konana,njegovog tvorca Roberta E. Hauarda i sve časne Simerijance.

Džejson Mоmoa i Leo Hauard su jedine svetle tačke novog filma o Konanu.
Horhe Sans koji je u Milijusovom filmu igrao malog Konana je bio samo jedan simpatičan klinja koji ništa nije ni radio ni pričao, već je samo slušao i gledao šta se oko njega dešava.
Leo Hauard je i po izgledu, ali i po svemu ostalom što odlikuje mladog Konana , kao preslikani mali  Simerijanac iz Dark Horsovog serijala Born on the Batlefield. Zato je šteta  što tog divljeg i okretnog  klinca nismo mogli da gledamo duže u ovoj ulozi.

Da li je Džejson zadovoljio u ulozi Konana?
Jeste.
Da li je on savršeni Konan?
Naravno da nije.
Da li je bolji Konan od Arnolda.
Naravno da jeste.
Kao prvo, Džejson je po liku vrlo sličan crtanom Konanu Frazete,Bjuseme, De Zunige, Nebresa i ostalih legendarnih crtača koji su ga kreirali prema Hauardovim opisima i zato je trebalo da se stilisti samo malo potrude pa da vizuelno bude gotovo identičan-mislim,naravno na plave oči bez kojih Konan nije Konan i na frizuru, jer Konan mora da ima ravnu kosu sa podsečenim šiškama.
Zašto im je bio problem da to izvedu,ostaje nejasno;biće ipak da su autori ovog nedela čvrsto rešili da osim po imenu , svojim filmom izbrišu svaku drugu sličnost sa Konanom Simerijancem.
Majmunoliki Švarceneger nema apsolutno ništa od fizionomije pravog Konana.
Da, u pogledu mase i mišića, Švarceneger je verniji originalnom Konanu, jer Džejsonu fali još rada u teretani i steroida, ali u pogledu pokretljivosti, fizičkih mogućnosti i ubedljivosti u izvođenju akcionih scena, Džejson je baš ono što Konan treba da bude i kilometrima je ispred drvenog i ukočenog Arnolda.
Uostalom, Konan kod Hauarda i nije opisan kao troma bilderčina koja ne može da se pomeri kao Arnold, a kamoli da sprinterski trči ili se vešto i lako vere po planinama i kulama Hiborijanskog sveta.
Džejson je brz, konja jaše kao da je na njemu odrastao, a  u rukovanju mačem je  izvanredan( iako je tu pod uticajem samurajskih filmova koje je gledao pripremajući se za ulogu, uneo i malo nepotrebne teatralnosti i poziranja).
On definitivno ima harizmu i skrin prezens, a za to što nije uspeo da nam dočara i Konanov karakter krivi su podjednako scenaristi  koji mu za to nisu dali materijal i Nispel koji nije umeo da ga uputi kako da to iznese na pravi način, niti mu je za to dao dovoljno mesta u svom filmu.
A da je sposoban da tako nešto izvede, Džejson je pokazao u Igri Prestola jer je Kal Drogo mnogo moćniji, strašniji i u svakom smislu ubedljiviji varvarin u odnosu na onog koga smo videli u Nispelovom filmu. Čak je i fizički impresivniji, jer je HBO-ova serija snimana posle Konana tako da je Džejson za Igru prestola stigao da nabaci veću mišićnu masu.
Ali baš zato je HBO - HBO, a Nispel  šminkerski reditelj muzičkih spotova i reklama.

A sad da krenemo na paranje po šavovima Nispelovog nedela.

Isto kao što Milijusov film nema nikakve veze sa Konanom osim po imenu, tako nema ni ovaj, a u mnogim segmentima je još gori i dalji od izvornog Konana Roberta Hauarda i onog koga nam je u stripovima verno i majstorski predstavio Roj Tomas.
Ta pođemo od toga na koji način je predstavljen Konanov karakter.
Hauardov  Konan je inteligentan i mudar,sposoban da razmišlja i deluje kao diplomata kada je potrebno, odličan je vojni strateg, on govori i čita na više drevnih jezika.
Kao što može da bude nagao i impulsivan, isto tako ume da bude smiren i strpljiv. Kao što može da uživa u društvu,da bude veseo, otvoren i duhovit, tako može da bude i povučen, zamišljen, melanholičan i ciničan.
Onoliko koliko je nemilosrdan prema svojim neprijateljima , toliko samilosti i zaštite pruža slabima i nemoćnima.
Konan poštuje datu reč, a zbog prijatelja će rizikovati i svoj život. Baš zato je toliko surov i neumoljiv prema onima koji ga prevare ili izdaju, pa je zato spreman da pređe i čitavu pustinju da bi kaznio izdajnika.(priča ,,Crne suze" )
Da,Konan osvaja žene sa istim uspehom kao i neprijateljske zamkove, ali to ne radi varvarski kao što bi zbog njegovog porekla i pojave neupućeni gledaoci  pomislili, već šmekerski. (-You said I was a barbarian,and that is true,Crom be thanked, and though your kind call me a robber,I never forced a women against her consent-"Dolina izgubljenih žena")
Konan je sposoban  da voli pa i da iskreno tuguje kada mu je ljubav (Belit) ubijena. Ali u tom bolu ostaje dostojanstven(,,Smrt na Crnoj obali") jer ni zbog najtežeg ličnog gubitka nije spreman da se odrekne svoje časti i ljudskosti i oduzme nevin život čak i ako na taj način može povratiti voljenu osobu(odbija da ubije Crvenu Sonju u zamenu za vraćanje života  Belit u ,,Ratu čarobnjaka")
Iako najčešće okružen praznoglavim i sebičnim lepoticama lakog morala(poput Jene na primer), Simerijanac najviše poštuje one žene čiju fizičku lepotu prati snažan i nezavisan karakter, a koje je mali broj muškaraca uspeo da nadmudri,pobedi u borbi i odvede u krevet(Belit,Sonja,Valerija,Zenobija)
Gotovo ni jednu od ovih osobina nismo videli u filmovima o Konanu.
Kod Milijusa smo imali Konana kao glupavu sirovinu koja ne ume ni da misli, ni da priča, već samo da ubija.
Nispelov Konan nije retard, ali nije ni mnogo daleko od toga - nismo čuli  da je bilo šta pametno ili duhovito rekao osim što je izdeklamovao par citata iz REH-ovih priča koji su izvučeni  iz konteksta zvučali totalno idiotski, a borbena strategija i planiranje mu se sastoje od svaljivanja stene na robinje koje želi da oslobodi i zaključka da će lakše pobediti protivnika sam, bez pomoći vojske svojih prijatelja.
Nispelov Konan na prevaru pobeđuje sopstvenog prijatelja u takmičenju, a neprijatelja kome je prethodno obećao život ako mu otkrije gde se nalazi glavni negativac Kalar Zim, posle toga pošalje u smrt.
Još veću štetu originalnom Hauardovom liku Nispel je naneo time što ga je prikazao kao sadistu koji uživa u mučenju zarobljenika i kao primitivnog seksistu.
Kao što je neko od Konanovih fanova tačno primetio: -Da,naravno da on nije klasičan gud gaj i ima vrlo specifičan moralni kodeks,ali nije ni negativac, a u ovom filmu vi stvarno ne znate za koga da navijate, jer  razlike između njega i glavnog zlikovca koga tumači Stiven Lang, gotovo  da i ne postoje.
Iako je kod Milijusa Konanov odnos sa Valerijom u stvari ripovana veza sa Belit,  tu ipak vidimo  Simerijanca kome je stalo do svoje devojke.
Kod Nispela je on prikazan kao pećinski čovek  koji zadovoljava svoje seksualne nagone poput životinje, a žene tretira kao stoku. Prvo ona scena sa robinjama, a zatim i njegov odnos  i seks sa Tamarom koji je  lišen bilo kakvih emocija i strasti.
Srećom, u ovom filmu Konan nije na kolenima cmizdrio moleći Mitru da mu pomogne niti je bio rob kao kod Milijusa što su bile najveće  greške u predstavljanju simerijančevog karaktera u starom filmu, jer on ne bi pristao da bude rob duže nego što bi mu trebalo da pokida lance ili da smisli plan za bekstvo ili bi pak umro pokušavajući da se oslobodi.
Nema ni dosadnog  Kineza koji bi bio komik sajdkik kao u Milijusovom filmu, ali ne zbog toga što to scenaristi nisu želeli, već zato što za njega u filmu koji se sastoji isključivo od akcionih scena nije bilo vremena (ovde imamo nekog smotanog lopova koji je imao dve replike u filmu, a jedino smešno u vezi sa njim je jak francuski akcenat glumca koji ga tumači).
Zemlje i gradovi Hiborijanskog sveta u filmu ne samo što geografski odstupaju od originalnih Hauardovih mapa, već su i njihovi nazivi izmenjeni ili potpuno pogrešno izgovarani.

Šta je sa ostalim glumcima?
Rejčel Nikols kao Konanova devojka Tamara je takav promašaj da je to neverovatno -prozirna,svilena i sterilna;ni šarma, ni strasti,ona jednostavno nema izgled žene iz Hiborijanskog doba, izgleda kao fashion model koja je u Hiborijanski svet zalutala sa nekog kastinga za kozmetiku. Pravi Konan se ne bi ni osvrnuo na devojku poput nje. Da ne spominjemo koliko je neuverljivo to što je Tamara, jedna nežna sveštenica koja je celi život provela u miru manastira moleći se,uspela da ovlada svim borbenim tehnikama i pretvori se u tako ubojitu i neustrašivu  ratnicu  kojoj bi na veštinama i hrabrosti pozavidela čak i Crvena Sonja.
U tome je još više odmogla sama Nikolsova koja je Tamaru odglumila kao fensi ribu iz neke moderne američke tv serije.
Kada vidite Olgu Kurilenko u Centurionu, jasno vam je da bi vas ta divljakuša sa zadovoljstvom iseckala na komade i zaista poverujete da je ona u stanju da jaše, gađa kopljem i bori se jednako dobro kao i muškarac.
Nikolsova, s duge strane, u Konanu izgleda kao junakinja Seksa i grada koja je sve vreme nervozna, jer kasni kod frizera.
Konanov ortak ,crnac Artus koji glumi gusarskog kapetana i očigledno predstavlja zamenu za Zulu, je takođe totalni miskast;on izgleda kao čuvar slonova iz nekog afričkog rezervata.
Jedna od retkih pozitivnih stvari Milijusovog filma bio je prikaz Konanovog oca koga je igrao Vilijam Smit, a koji bi u svojim mlađim danima po izgledu bio savršeni Konan.




Ovde pak Konanovog oca igra majmunoliki Ron Perlman.
Nispelu valjda nije delovao dovoljno varvarski, pa je insistirao da ga dodatno poružne i pretvore u neandertalca. On na početku filma izmumla par reči, a onda ga ubiju.
Još veće skrnavljenje je što Simerijance igraju Bugari.
Umesto da Simerijanci budu ogromni dugokosi Arijevci iz Bjuseminih stripova koji najviše podsećaju na Vikinge ili Slovene,i izgledaju moćno i natčovečanski, autori filma su se odlučili na jeftiniju i seljačkiju varijantu iz strip serijala Born on the battlefield gde oni više podsećaju na neko azijsko nomadsko pleme, a u filmskoj verziji sa Bugarima-na cigane iz neke čerge.
Srećom,bar je Konanova majka odlično odabrana i mnogo je bolji izbor od istina prelepe ali too softy plavuše Nadjuške iz  Milijusovog filma, ali je glupšoću Nispela i scenarista, Lejla Ruas koja je tumači ovde dobila samo nekoliko sekundi, jer umire na samom početku filma.

Kakvi su negativci?
Lang je odradio šta je mogao sa tekstom koji nije/je dobio. Čak je i Ruža bila solidna to jest grozna kakva  njena veštica i treba da bude, (a ne komična kao što sam očekivao posle odgledanog trejlera), čemu su u velikoj meri doprineli masker i šminker.
Ovo su jedini likovi koji su u filmu imali više od par rečenica, svi ostali su bili samo statisti.

Bob Sap je neprimetan i jeftino potrošen(malo rvanja sa Konanom i to je to)

Da se sad okrenemo scenariju.
I tu je ponovljena greška iz prvog filma-zadržana je idiotska priča o ubistvu Konanovih roditelja koju je Oliver Stoun ubacio u film iako Hauard tako nešto nikad nije napisao. O Konanovoj mladosti je poznato vrlo malo-zna se jedino da mu je otac bio kovač i da je rođen na bojnom polju.
Ubistvo porodice u mladosti sigurno bi snažno uticalo na njegov karakter i motivaciju, a pošto se to nije dogodilo, Konana u životu ne vodi želja za osvetom, već želja za avanturom.
Da je pravom Konanu neko ubio oca i majku,on se ne bi smirio dok ih ne pronađe i osveti im se.
Nispelovi scenaristi tu prave još veću grešku. Njihov Konan u osvetu kreće tek kada slučajno posle petnaestak godina nabasa na ubice.
Scenario u Milijusovom filmu bio je sastavljen od mešavine segmenata iz različitih novela i stripova koji su spojeni zbrda zdola i zato je krajnji rezultat bio tako loš.
Konanovi fanovi su se nadali da će scenario za novi film predstavljati adaptaciju originalnih Hauardovih priča jer su gotovo sve filmične i samo je trebalo napraviti pravu kombinaciju.
Mogla se raditi i adaptacija stripova od kojih su pojedini kao stvoreni za film i maltene predstavljaju gotov storyboard.
Producenti su međutim rešili da idu sa potpuno novim tekstom.
-OK,nemamo ništa protiv ako verno predstavite Konana i napišete dobru priču, rekoše fanovi.
Prvo neprijatno iznenađenje je usledilo kada se saznalo da je izrada scenarija dodeljena dvojcu Doneli i Openhajmer zloglasnih po bljuzgi Sahara, a najcrnje slutnje fanova su se obistinile kada se skript pojavio na netu, jer je sa Hauardovim Konanom i njegovim svetom imao veze jedino po imenu.
Scenario (ako se ova hrpa idiotskih replika, dijaloga u pokušaju i pretnji kao iz stripova Zlatne serije i trećerazrednih Kung –fu filmova  tako može nazvati)je napisan  po oprobanom ziheraškom modelu  sword and sorcery limunada poput Scorpion kinga-što manje priče,razvoja karaktera i zapleta i što više akcije,ne bi li se od retardiranih  američkih tinejdžera na siguran način uzela gomila para.
Izgleda, međutim, da ni oni nisu toliki debili, jer je film slavno flopnuo na blagajnama povrativši tek polovinu uloženog novca.
Fanovi iz celog sveta sa zvaničnog sajta Roberta Hauarda su bili toliko besni da su čak napisali i peticiju Frederiku Malbergu,direktoru Paradoxa, vlasniku prava na Konana i ostale Hauardove likove,i koproducentu filma u nadi da mogu uticati da se stopira rad na ovom scenariju dok se ne izmeni - poboljša i približi originalnoj Hauardovoj ideji. Zbog ovoga je naknadno angažovan Šon Hud,mladi američki horor scenarista i fan Hauardovog Konana da uradi rewrite skripta Donelija I Openhajmera, i spase što se spasiti može.
Pokazalo se međutim da u tome nije uspeo, jer sa nekoliko Hauardovih citata istrgnutih iz originalnih Konanovih priča nije se naknadno moglo mnogo uraditi. On je istina uspeo da malo zatalasa šablonsku i neoriginalnu sword and sorcery priču ubacivši naznaku incestuoznog odnosa  između  glavnog negatica i njegove ćerke, ali  mu nije bilo dato dovoljno vremena u okviru filma da tu priču i razvije i sa njom nešto kompleksnije uradi.
Osim što su karakteri svih likova u filmu jedva  osenčeni i jednodimenzionalni, scenario je i sa čisto zanatske  strane katastrofalan- linearan,naivan i predvidljiv, pun rupa i nelogičnosti.
Jedna od najidiotskijih scena u filmu je ona kada Tamara visi nad ambisom držeći se samo za Konanovu ruku, a on se napinje, muči i nikako da je izvuče. Da ne zaboravimo i ništa manje debilnu scenu u kojoj gomila robova vuče ogromni Kalarov brod preko kopna jer će im možda zatrebati ako negde usput naiđu na more.
Jedina iskra originalnosti u celom filmu je način na koji je Konan iskoristio glavu svog mrtvog  protivnika kao ulaznicu u zatvor Zimovog generala.

Ali takav kakav je, ovaj scenario se savršeno uklapa sa Nispelovom konfuznom režijom.
Ceo film izgleda kao jedan dugačak spot sastavljen od iscepkanih i nepovezanih segmenata i kadrova koji se tako brzo smenjuju da ni ne vidite šta se i zašto dešava - narativni postupak  jednostavno ne postoji.
Vizuelno film izgleda kao mešavina Princa Persije,Mumije,Sudara titana i Skorpion kinga.
Ušminkana i šljašteća fotografija,CGI animacija,eksplozije kao u nekom modernom akcionom hitu,slow motion kadrovi kao u Matrixu,(oni smešni ljudi od peska koji gađaju Džejsona nekom vrstom šurikena kao u nindža filmovima) ,a negativci,scenografija i kostimi izgledaju kao da su ispali iz neke  SF TV serije.

Kako bi trebalo da bude izgleda Konanov svet na filmu?
Pa ako je prikaz iz Refnove Valhale (koji se meni najviše sviđa), suviše varvarski i sumoran za širu publiku,ne bih imao ništa protiv lokacija i setova iz starih Sinbadovih filmova, ali to definitivno nije  postapokaliptični svet sa negativcima koji izgledaju  kao da su pobegli iz Mad Maxa.

Akcione scene? Pa džaba je što se ceo film jedino od njih i sastoji, kad su tako loše snimljene.
Kadrovi se tako brzo menjaju i montaža je tako amaterski sklepana, da jedva nešto od toga i možete da vidite.
Među brojnim besmislenim, naivno postavljenim i rešenim akcionim scenama izdvaja se borba malog Konana sa Piktima na početku filma.
Kao prvo, Pikti kod Nispela izgledaju kao Irokezi. OK,po izgledu  su verni Hauardovim opisima jer ih je on video otprilike kao Indijance severa Amerike i čak postoje i neke stare ilustracije Konanovih novela gde su Pikti upravo tako prikazani.
Ali bez obzira na to, doslednost izvoru od strane ekipe filma u ovom slučaju je velika greška. Ne samo zato što će većina ljudi reagovati u stilu:"Šta je ovo,Konan se bori protiv Indijanaca",već zato što ovi Pikti ne izgledaju dovoljno grozno.
Da bi bili dovoljno strašni i autentični, Pikti treba da izgledaju onako kako su prikazani u Konanovim stripovima.Najbolji primer je epizoda Beyond the black river Toni de Zunige u kojoj su oni mali,crni,ružni divljaci koji najviše podsećaju na praistorijske ljude.
Ili još bolje poređenje-onako kako izgledaju ljudožderi u filmu 13.ratnik.
Izgleda da je i sam Nispel  pred početak snimanja provalio da njegovi Pikti ne izgledaju dovoljno čudovišno pa je to pokušao da nadoknadi  time što je njihove ljudske glasove zamenio životinjskim režanjem.
A da su Pikti čvrsti momci,nema dileme jer se inače ne bi šetali goli po snegu usred zime.
A možda to i nije toliko hladna zima, jer ni jednom od njih ne izlazi para iz usta
Ali onda je nejasno zašto su Simerijanci koji su čuveni kao izdržlivi gorštaci natrontani tolikim krznima.
   
Sama scena borbe malog Konana sa Piktima (kojoj prethodi bezobrazno  ukradena trka sa jajima iz filma Rapa Nui) je kao iz nekog kung- fu filma za decu ili crtaća.
Kao prvo,Konan je prikazan kao idiot koji  ignorišući upozorenje oca bezglavo juri u susret smrti  zbog pobede u trci iako su pred njim četiri odrasla piktska ratnika.
Na osnovu čega on smatra da može da ih savlada?
A ako je tako lako srediti ih, zašto svi ostali klinci zbrišu kad ih vide i zašto onda nekoliko odraslih simerijanskih ratnika ne ode u piktsko selo i istrebi im celo pleme.
Mali Konan ih skenja po sistemu deset malih crnaca - rve se sa odraslim ljudima i baca ih po snegu kao da su deca, jednom od njih razbije glavu o sneg, drugog šutne u kung fu stilu, a trećeg nabije u drvo kao u vestern tuči u salunu.
Jasno je meni da je reditelj ovom scenom odmah hteo da nam objasni ko je i šta je Konan,ali to je trebalo da izgleda uverljivo, a ne kao crtać.
I zašto se simerijanske žene koje učestvuju u bitkama zajedno sa muškarcima, toliko zgražavaju kad mali Konan u selo donese odsečene glave Pikta?
Jedina akciona scena  koja dobija prelaznu ocenu je jurnjava za kočijom kroz šumu.

-Ali dobro,film bar ima R oznaku,znači da je surov i krvav, baš kakav film o Konanu i treba da bude-naivno će neki koji ga još uvek nisu videli.
Pa šta vredi ta brutalnost i hektolitri CGI krvi koji se razlivaju na sve strane, kada  Nispel  to snimi sterilno i bezidejno kao u kompjuterskoj igric tako da to onda nema nikakvog efekta.
(Stiven Lang je na pitanje kakav je Nispel reditelj i kakav je njegov način rada odgovoro da je on sve vreme snimanja vikao-Give me more blood!)
Uzalud je bilo što su fanovi na REHovom forumu gubili vreme ukazujući Malbergu i ekipi filma kako treba da izgledaju akcione scene u Konanovom filmu da bi bile ubedljive i efektne, pametno ukazujući na borbe u Apokaliptu,Refnovoj Valhali,seriji Rim,Manovom Poslednjem Mohikancu i Malikovom Novom svetu. 

A jel ima bar neko čudovište? Za 90 miliona koliko je film koštao sigurno može da se uradi neka dobra kreacija bar jednog od gomile fantastičnih bića koja su obogaćivala Konanov svet u pričama i stripovima.
Ništa od toga.U sceni koja se događa u vodi na dnu Kalar Zimovog zamka, vidite samo pipke nekog čudovišta koje je očigledno maznuto iz Džeksonove Družine prstena, i to je sve.
Ni traga od Lavkraftovskih monstruma koje su producenti  obećavali fanovima na REHovom forumu. 
 
Sad će neko ko još nije odgledao film pitati:-Dobro,ako je akcija tako loše urađena,i ako nema ni čudovišta,ima li bar zgodnih riba i golotinje jer ni bez toga nema pravog Konana.
Pa verovali ili ne,nema čak ni toga.
Ej bre,pa u filmu o Konanu nema ni jedne dobre ženske,a level of nudity je na nivou Holmarkovih filmova za domaćice. U celom filmu imate jedan mračan kadar sisa Rejčeline dublerke i par sekundi toplesa rumunske zečice Aline u idiotskoj sceni u kojoj Konan oslobađa robove tako što poput šimpanze svali kamen na njihov kavez.
Muzika? Pa naravno da vas posle Polidorusovog remek dela zanima da čujete  šta je uradio Tajler Bejts koji je bio angažovan da komponuje skor za novog Konana?
Bbiće dovoljno  ako vam kažem da nisam ni primetio da ima muzike u filmu.
Šta reći za kraj?
Zbog razmere  ovog debakla(osim što je film pukao na američkim i svetskim blagajnama, i kritika ga je iskasapila),od najavljenih nastavaka neće biti ništa, a  i bitno se umanjuju šanse da u skoroj budućnosti neka nova ekipa producenata  sakupi  dovoljno hrabrosti i novca da se iznova prihvati prebacivanja najpoznatijeg svetskog varvarina na veliko platno.
Ne znam zato da li da se radujem što su Nispel i cela ekipa pohlepnih producenata koji su očekivali da će na Konanovom imenu na lak način masno zaraditi, tako neslavno pukli, jer su odbili da poslušaju  dobronamerne i ispravne savete pravih poznavaoca Hauarda i njegovog najčuvenijeg junaka, ili da mi bude žao što Džejson neće dobiti još jednu šansu,sa kvalitetnim scenaristom i adekvatnim rediteljem,ali pre svega sa producentima i autorima koji poštuju i razumeju originalnog Konana i njegovog autora.

Konanovim fanovima koji sa ljubomorom gledaju na fanove Tolkinovog Hobita i Martinove Pesme, jer sa nestrpljenjem očekuju nastavke vernih adaptacija svojih omiljenih junaka, nije ostalo ništa drugo nego da sami uzmu stvari u svoje ruke. Uskoro se očekuje premijera filma Frost giants daughter koji su pravili i finansirali sami fanovi.

[Petronije]

Svaka čast i hvala što si mi uštedeo sat ipo vremena 

...A da su Pikti čvrsti momci,nema dileme jer se inače ne bi šetali goli po snegu usred zime.
A možda to i nije toliko hladna zima, jer ni jednom od njih ne izlazi para iz usta
Ali onda je nejasno zašto su Simerijanci koji su čuveni kao izdržlivi gorštaci natrontani tolikim krznima...

[Alex]

Film je zaista slab.
Nemam nešto vremena za predugačko pisanije, a nema ni potrebe posle Simerijančeve iscrpne analize.
Moj utisak je otprilike, sledeći:


Prvi utisak je nemaštovitost - ovde Konan traži negativca da bi se osvetio za ubistvo roditelja i pokolj u svom selu - kao u Milijusovom filmu, samo što su tamo stradala oba roditelja, ovde otac - plus u ovom filmu i negativac traga za nečim. Pored toliko sjajnih priča o Konanu u "pisanim" pričama i stripovima, napraviti film baziran na ovakvom konceptu i još goroj razradi je stvarno razočaravajuće.
"Razrada" se svodi na akciju i samo akciju. Nije loše za jedan avanturistički film, mogao bi neko da pomisli, ali kad akcija ne ostavlja mesto za dramu, psihologiju, likove - pa čak ni za interesantne dijaloge i interakciju tokom akcionih scena, onda imamo problem i dobijamo film u kome nema emocija, a akcija je mehanička.
Lik - karakter Konana je vrlo površno dat (ostali likovi su samo šabloni), a u to malo karakterizacije prepoznajemo neke postupke koji nisu svojstveni Konanu, pa film više podseća na film o junaku sličnom Konanu, tzv Konanovskom heroju, nego o samom Konanu. (Ovo nije drastičan slučaj, kao filmski Dilan Dog, ali sve to postaje prilično iritirajuće, kad su holivudske ekranizacije strip junaka u pitanju).
Zato ni pristojna pojava glavnog glumca nije mogla da spase stvari - delovao je mnogo gore na fotografijama, a mogao je da prođe (sa ispravljenom kosom) kao solidan Konan. Neki drugi glumci (devojka koju Konan spašava) su ispod očekivanog nivoa.
Režija akcionih scena je solidna, ali se režija samo na nivou pojedinih scena može nazvati dobrom - kao celina film se slabo drži.
Konačna ocena - laka filmska zabava, koja je gledljiva, ali se zaboravlja po završetku filma - nema ni jednu scenu za pamćenje. Nedostojno jednog od najprepoznatljivijih likova popularne kulture.
4/10

[Gwydion]

Skinuo pogledao i sad kad sam htreo da napišem nešto o filmu shvatio sam da se ne sećam baš ničeg vezanog za njega. Što dovoljno govori o tome koliko mi se svideo. 

[SIMERIJANAC]

 
http://youtu.be/363GQdni6Sk

http://youtu.be/STFZx-PUzpU