Rate Conan the Barbarian (1982)

Aug 1, 2017 14:08:03 GMT stefancrosscoe said:

Aug 1, 2017 6:01:19 GMT moviemouth said:

6/10

It's not very well written or directed imo and it's only moderately entertaining.

Not well directed? 
The combination of John Milius ruthless military tactics combined with the legendary soundtrack by Basil Poledouris are used to absolute perfection, especially in scenes such as the violent attack on Conan's village.
One of the best moments in the whole film happens between 01:00 and up to 01:20 where a young Conan, playing in the forest suddenly sees this strange looking figure appearing out of nowhere only to be followed by the breathtaking sight of witnessing Thulsa Doom's merciless warriors unleashing hell upon Conan's people.

Then you have this great little scene which comes afterwards, where a young and helpless Conan can only watch on in horror as Thulsa Doom ruthlessly decides his fate there and then, without a single word being spoken.
Of course it helps having talented actors such as James Earl Jones along with Poledouris score to help make the scene feel much more powerful, but I like that several of the emotional scenes in the film, often comes with little or no dialogue, which I think is one of the main reasons why the film worked so well, and to this day still stands as a true landmark of the 1980s fantasy/adventure genre. 

And by the way, I give this classic a 10/10.
If you took away the score/soundtrack, it would still be somewhere between 8/10 and 9/10.

And just for the sake of it, here is the best scene of the whole film: "Two stood against many!"
Now this is what I call great film making.

I didn't say the movie doesn't have some well directed parts (and yes, those scenes you show are well done) but as a whole I don't find the movie effective. My favorite directed part is the scene when James Earl Jones transforms into a snake. If it didn't have any well directed scenes my rating would be even lower.

My main problem isn't the directing though, it's that I don't find the story or the characters (besides James Earl Jones) very interesting or engaging and some of that falls on the director too. It's also not nearly as fun or thrilling as it should have been.

And by the way, I give this classic a 10/10.

I'm happy for you. It's nice to live in a world where we are allowed to have our own opinions.

I could say I think the movie is good, but that would be a bold face lie.

Aug 1, 2017 16:43:22 GMT moviemouth said:

I didn't say the movie doesn't have some well directed parts (and yes, those scenes you show are well done) but as a whole I don't find the movie effective. My favorite directed part is the scene when James Earl Jones transforms into a snake. If it didn't have any well directed scenes my rating would be even lower.
My main problem isn't the directing though, it's that I don't find the story or the characters (besides James Earl Jones) very interesting or engaging and some of that falls on the director too. It's also not nearly as fun or thrilling as it should have been.

Yes, the snake transformation part still looks damn good, in fact that giant snake look far more menacing than any of the modern CGI snakes I have seen. 
Sadly for Thorgrim, his beloved pet ends up losing its head, after meeting up with Conan. 

I guess we just have a very different view of the film, as I think the film does one hell of job with with what it got, especially the actors (most of the main leads were played by people with little acting experience, and that was most known for being athletes and I loved how we see Conan go from being a scared little kid into becoming a man. 

Another great scene is when Conan and his crew ends up at the hands of the once mighty King Ozric, played by Max von Sydow. 
Very touching little part: "There comes a time, thief, when the jewels cease to sparkle, when the gold loses its luster, when the throne room becomes a prison, and all that is left is a father's love for his child."

Aug 1, 2017 16:43:22 GMT moviemouth said: