Amph Conan the Barbarian (2011)

Ever since I started reading comics; I put two comic-heroes aside from the others.One is Batman; in which the adventures/stories take place in a half-dedective, half super-hero athmosphere.Batman has no superpowers, even though; with the equipments he'd invented and the super-vehicles he has, he struggles with the villains who are above ordinary criminal types.When I compare Batman to the super-heroes like Superman, Spider-Man and Spawn, I find his strength limited, but while he tries to overcome his enemies (like Joker, Penguin and Riddler; who also have no superpowers) with his limited strength, the comic-readers (like me) also get a taste of a dedective story from from his adventures (I also watch the "Gotham" tv show (I'm at the very beginning of the 1st season) and it's great.I like Robin Lord Taylor's (who plays the youngerself of "Penguin" ) acting a lot; this is one of the main reasons why I'm watching the tv show ).....

The other comic-hero is the sword-swinger barbarian Conan.As being a character that grows up in a savage-land; he arrogates even the "fiercest" territory of this land to himself as his home.Idling in a fantastic world (which is backgorunded with the dark athmosphere of the medieval age), he's open to all kind of adventures.He becomes a gladiator, a thief, he ascends to the status of kingship, he becomes a pirate who searches treasures hidden within the ruins of the long-lost civilisations, and I have to admit that all of his film-adaptations give me the taste of an Indiana Jones movie whenever I watch them .And when I watched the latest movie (the third one) "Conan the Barbarian" at the cinema, I liked it a lot.Well, to be honest; it wasn't as good as the previous two movies (which starred Arnold Schwarzenegger as the muscled-barbarian ), but it was good altough, and as being a comic-reader, I can say that the movie "nearly" gave me the taste of the Conan-comics as well as the previous films.

I observed some-positive-things-in the movie as well-as-some-mistakes, and there were also some beautifull screenshots and great shooting technics those differed the movie from Arnold Schwarzenegger's movies which I shall detailedy mention at the pharagraphs below (I read Owen Williams' documentarial article at Empire Magazine back in issue 251, I liked it a lot, so much so that I read it some time ago (I keep the previous issues of Empire, I make a collection of them ), and I also read Kim Newman's critics back in issue 268), but since it has become a long topic, I've decided to seperate it into 6 parts.Well, I could write a very few things I'd observed about this movie and opened this topic right after my 12th thread ( "Come, let me get you something".Why not mindtrick? ), but I've got an "itchy" feeling that motivates me to write "everything" I noticed about the movies I watch .The ones who'd read my topics thus far know, but for the ones who hadn't read them before, and for the new members (of the site); I've got to make this explanation: Each part is independent from the others; so that means the ones who read a part don't have to read the other parts, and you can pick out any part you wish.So, here we go ..........



PART 1:

At that part; I shall touch on 6of the 7 positive things I observed in the movie.....The first one is; when I compare the last movie to the previous movies; this one stands more loyal to the comics.Ok; originally, Conan is a novel-character created by Robert E. Howard, but this is the fact that comics are forming the essential-axis of the "Conan Universe", and when the audiences (well, at least me) watch the movie, they want it to appear close to the comic-world as it can be, and the visuality-in-the-movie was really great, and in a way; when I compare the film to Zack Synder's "300 Spartans" (which was adapted from Frank Miller's comic) , from "that" (visuality) perspective, it was better than 300 Spartans.Well, in general; 300 Spartans is better than "Conan the B.", but the visuality in Spartans was-stuck-in-tones of certain colours and some scenes in the movie were too exaggerated (I can give the scene; in which the humans tied to the huge tree as an example to that), but in Conan, there-were-various-tones of colours, and Marcus Nispel (the director) adjusted-the-dose-of those colours so well; they weren't either reduced to certain tones or overdosed colours.And also; I may instance Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man Trilogy" for-using-too-much overdosed colours.The movies were good, but they could be better, much better if the overdosed colour tones were reduced-to-pale-tones, for because of the mixed colours, our wall-crawler's story was loosing its massivity.So; if we make a comparison-by-taking-the "adjustment of colour tones in visualiy" as a measure, we can say that Conan is a movie-that-stands-between "300 Spartans" and (Sam Raimi's) "Spider-Man".....

The second thing is the "plundering scene" at the beginning of the movie which was also included at the first "Conan movie" made in '82 and directed by John Milius.At the first movie; the reason of the invaders' (led by the sorcerer Thulsa Doom (portrayed by James Earl Jones) ) coming was unknown and this was so parallel/harmonious to the dark athmosphere of the movie (I like Basil Poledouris' scores in the movie a lot; they give a great soul to the scenes, and in my opinion, the first film is the best Conan movie ever made ).At the recent movie; the marauders (who raided the village) had a certain reason: Their leader Khalar Zym (portrayed by Stephen Lang) was searching for the pieces of a magical mask those were kept in various locations all around the world, and one of those places was (soon-to-become our sword-wielder barbarian ) Conan's village.The marauding scene at the first movie was thrilling; and there were some "key scenes" those gave thrilling effect to the movie.The raiding part at the recent movie doesn't appear so startling, but there's-a-scene-which gives a certain effect to the part; and that scene-is-the-one at which we see Conan and his father Corin being chained to a kind of a torturing mechanism that's connected to a can which drops melting steel upon their heads.And at last; Conan's father (portrayed by Ron Perlman) eventually sacrifices himself to save his son (Conan), so all of the melted steel pours on him, and this (Conan's father sacrificing himself) also gives-an-emotional-effect to the part.....

The 3rd positive thing is; at the comics, Conan has a frowned face which gives him a tough appearance, and parallel to the comics, Conan (portrayed by Jason Momoa) also has a frowned face, and some of his speeches recall the audience Conan from the comics.For instance; when one of Khalar Zym's soldiers comes to take Tamara (who's being hold as a hostage by Conan), he bids to Conan to give her, and Conan (with a rough voice tone) says "the woman is mine".And at that scene; I said to myself "that's more like Conan from the comics I read" while I was watching the movie at the cinema .And as well as Conan, the design of Khalar Zym's witch-daughter Marique was made very cleverly.Her appearance resembles so much to the reckless bounty hunter Aurra Sing from the SW Comics.Hmmmmmmm; I think the character of Aurra Sing was the foremost thing that inspired Marcus Nispel while he was projecting the witch-character.And also; when I compare the appearance of Conan's father at the recent movie to the one at the '82-made movie; he (the recent one) stands closer to the comic world.....As for the fourth positive one; well, I can say that it's a small detail, but it makes a certain effect at the big picture, and that-detail-is-the adjustment of the colour dose of the sea used at the ocean-shots.It's a great tone of the blue colour, and it also increases the quality of the movie.....

The 5th subject: Visual Effects! So many times after Schwarzenegger's movies, the increasing effects technology really shows itself, and comparing this movie to the classic ones also gives me a great opportunity for instancing the evolution in visual effects upon (classic and recently-made) Conan movies.....At Schwarzenegger's movies; when Conan heads to a city, the only-thing-that-the camera shows is the appearance of a city from a certain distance.The audience is able to choose-very-few-things from that frame, but at the recent film, the visual effects gives us the advantage to see lots of things instead of a city shot from a distant angle: We can see whole of the city-being-shot-closely, we can see the big towers, castles (which have various, professionally- adjusted colour tones), and the-camera-also-doesn't shoot them from a certain angle, it rolls around the buildings, and that carries movie-watching to a more fun level.....One of the scenes that make me strongly feel the presence of the visual effects was the scene which we see Conan struggling with the demonic, white creatures created by Khalar Zym's spell which emerge from the ground.The effects technology was limited (in some ways) at the time of the classic Conan movies, and to demonstrate the visual effects for that kind of a thing (spell-created demonic creatures rising from the ground) was nearly impossible back then.And when I saw Conan fighting with the diabolic/white creatures, I said to myself "the visual-effects are doing their duty so well" .....And the 6th subject is the beautifull screenshots used in the movie which increased the esthetic of the film in general.The harmony-of-the-colours at the background scenes were greatly adjusted (which I give a lot importance) and the appearance of the locations were designed brilliantly; the projection-of-the-places were better than the ones at Schwarzenegger's movies.Ok, all right; the old Conan films were great; but the directors (of the old movies) didn't give-so-much-importance for the appearaces of locations as the director of the recent movie.I shall also touch on the background shooting methods and the projection of location appearances detailedly at the parts below.



PART 2:

The 2nd part includes 1of the 7 positive things and 4 of the 6 negative elements I've noticed along the movie.....The seventh and the last positive subject is the appearance of the octopus-like creature which appears at the scene when Conan and his friend enter the dungeon (which also is one of the scenes that I like its backscreen shots a lot).Its arms ascend from bars which resemble to an octopus' arms, and since it's a huge creature, its arms move clumsily instead of being fast.Marcus Nispel adjusts their (the arms') speed cleverly; they-make-idle-moves and they-don't-move-swiftly, for if they'd appeared fast and made intelligent moves (instead of moving clumsily), that'd reduce the thrilling effect of the scene and that'd also make a certain-effect-on-the quality of the movie as well..........The 7 subjects I've mentioned (six of them are at the 1st part) were the things those made the movie to be a good blockbuster and give it (the film) the upper hand when I compare it to the two classic Conan movies.As I've said, the (recent) movie may not be as good as the previous ones in general, but it really is a great movie for the audiences who are watching a Conan film for the first time; who hadn't seen the classic films before..........

As well as some positive elements, I also observed negative things; some mistakes those prevent the movie to be a "better" one.I've-gathered-those-negative things under 6 subjects, and I'll explain 4 of them at this part, so let's glimpse at those subjects .....The first one is; when the plunderers attack the village, we see cannibal make-ups on their faces.That appears great, and it (the cannibal-make up) gives them a fierce/scary looking, but when I watched the movie in 3D; the make up-colours on their faces were appearing so mixed to each other, and it-also-reduced-the freshness of the movies' visuality.After the movie was off performance, I also watched it from my video-player in 2D, and the marauders' faces were appearing better and unmixed.When I watched the film in 2D,it came more "eye-relaxing", more natural for me and the-esthetic-of-the movie was appearing more proper in general.Well, I don't say that the movie hadn't been good in 3D, it was good, but it'd be better if it'd been relased as 2D in theaters.....The second one is (I'm not giving those subjects by their order of appearances at the movie) ; after Conan captures one of Khalar Zym's men, he (Conan) puts him to the scoop of a catapult, and via the mechanism of catapult, he throws him to Zym's encampment.He doesn't only fall to the encampment, he also makes a crashlanding to Khalar Zym's room.But in my opinion; the scene appears too direct/unreal, and-this-mistake-was one of the elements those were lessening the massivity of the movie, and that kind of mistake wasn't made at the classic Conan Movies, that was-one-of-the reasons why they (the classic movies) were better than the recent film.Conan puts the man to the catapult's scoop to send Khalar Zym a message to meet him at Shaipur Bay Outpost.The scene'd appear more proper if Conan'd put the man on a horse (with his arms and hands tied) and had sent the horse directly to Zym's encampment to deliver his message.And after he went to Zym's office, he'd carry Conan's biddings face to face to him.When Khalar Zym got Conan's message, he'd become angry, and with his rage, he'd kill the (message-carrier) soldier by his sword.That'd also be-an-effective-scene to show the audience how evil he is.....


The 3rd mistake: After Khalar Zym's men plunder the Shaipur Monastery, Zym speaks with the high priest of the monastery and tells his story, and while he's telling it; we see flashback scenes which contain Zym's wife being burnt alive.While she's being burried, the camera shows Zym and his daughter; Khalar Zym staring at her (his wife) with sorrow (and in the meantime; we hear Zym continuing his story).In my opinion; the-part-would-appear better if the-camera-hadn't-directly shown Khalar Zym looking at his wife's burial.Ok, the scene appears good, it's not bad, but it wasn't a "must-be" scene.Well, it might seem as a small detail, but it makes a certain effect at the big frame.The camera might have shown a bunch of crowded people staring at the burial (while Khalar Zym's telling the story) instead of focusing on Zym and his daughter, and that'd-appear-"prominently"-more effective at the part.....The fourth subject is; after the movie starts, we firstly see Conan as a child.But despite his being child, he makes so unrealistic action moves.He gets into a traditional competition in his clan, and the task of the competition is: The adolescent boys (of the clan) take eggs in their mouths, they circle the hills (with the eggs in their mouths), and while they're running, they (the boys) try to prevent each other from reaching to the finishing point,and the one/s who get/s the egg/s broken (in their mouths/his mouth) disqualifie/s from the contest, and the one/s who manage/s to reach to the finishing point without the egg/s broken gain/s the right to fight back to back with the warriors of the clan.After the contest starts, the boys begin running at the forest,but their ordeal gets interrupted by Khalar Zym's slayers while they're struggling among themselves.The slayers suddenly attack to the boys of the clan, and among the boys, "only" Conan has the fortitude to fight them back, and despite his smallness, he beats them (who are much more bigger than Conan) with exaggerated fighting moves and beheads the ones who he'd beaten.

After that part; we see Conan (who is the only surviving member of the deadly struggle) come to the village while he's holding the chopped heads of the slayers with his hand.With a "great" temper, he walks among the crowded peasants, he looks rightward and leftward (to the crowded people) in a-manner-of-saying "I was barely accepted to the contest because of my being small.But I won the contest, and beyond winning the contest, I also overcame the slayers and I'm bringing you their heads, what do you say to that?Could you succeed it if you the ones at the forest?", he stops, throws their (the slayers') heads and spits the unbroken egg to the ground, and suddenly Yoda appears in front of him and says "I feel much hate in you, boy.Hate is the path to the dark side, it leads to suffering.I can not teach you, you're not ready" . Ok, Yoda doesn't appear beside Conan, but right after that scene we see Conan practicing with his sword and while he's practicing, we also see that (despite his being child) he'd also gained mastery in sword-using.Instead of Yoda , his father comes (to the room) and says "Come, time to forge your blade".At the '82-made movie, Conan wasn't appearing as an expert warrior/swordsman when he was a child.When he became an adult, he was sent to the instructors and by the courtesy of them (the instructors), he gained mastery in sword-fighting, and that was coming more, much more realistic for me.....



PART 3:

I shall mention 2 of the 6 negative negative subjects and 4 of the 6 good-appearing; "golden" screenshots which gave a quality visuality to the film at the 3rd part.....The 5th negative element is; after his village is ruined by Khalar Zym, Conan raises his sword and yells, and right-after-that-scene, we hear the narrator (Morgan Freeman) telling Conan's story; the things he (Conan) had done until he becomes a grown-up, but wee see no pictures or scenes those show the events those Conan'd involved, and suddenly the audience sees Conan as an adult character, and-the-scene-comes a bit hollow for me.When the movie starts; the narrator begins to tell the story, and his (the narrator's) biddings about the events are adorned with pictures and (blurry) scenes and that was appearing better, much better when I compare the scene to the other one (which starts after the demolition of the Cimmerian Village).The scene might've gone like that: While the narrator is telling Conan's story, we-see-the-pictures of the events on old-appearing/pale clothes which had turned yellow, and Conan might've appeared like the characters in hieroglyph-drawings.....The sixth and the last subject is; towards the end of the movie, Khalar Zym makes a ritual to sacrifice Tamara at the temple.Well; the scene appears good, but it'd be better if the temple was a bit more crowded and the colour-tones-at-the scene (especially-the-background-colours) might've appeared richer as well as the ritual scene through the end of '84-made "Conan the Destroyer" and the one at "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom".The ritual scenes in both movies were appearing more "alive" and were including more colour tones...............

Now, after the positive and the negative subjects I've observed, I shall-also-touch-on the "golden screenshots" those took my attention, for instead of being a Conan movie; the film also is-a-treasury-of "great" screenshots, which is one of the elements those increase the movie's quality.I shall not give those screenshots by their order of appearances in the movie, but I-shall-use-a different method to ease the readers' effort for finding the screenshots: I'll give those scenes with their minutes of appearances, so the people who read the part (about the screenshots) may effortlessly find the scene by taking the timer to the exact minute.....The first screenshot is: After Conan escapes from the dungeon and leaves the torturer at the mercy of the prisoners; the camera shows the Shaipur Monastery at-the-38th-minute.We see the monastery through a cavernous tunnel.There are two columns at the beginning of the twisted bridge which lies towards the monastery.The-upside-part-of the leftward column is broken, and that gives a more natural look to the frame.The tiny plants are hanging loosely from the top of the tunnel, the city (of monastery) appears from afar; the-tones-of-white preponderate at the design of the buildings, and most of the buildings are domed, some structures (especially the one at the leftward of the city) have columns in front of them.The fog that's surrounding the monastery gives it a mysterious appearance (the hanging plants and the fog reminds me of Dagobah ).....

The second screenshot begins rrrright after the appearance of the "Conan" logo at the beginning of the movie at-the-4th-minute.At the scene; the audiences see the Cimmerian Village from a distance.The village stands aside a mountain which has a snowy top.The village also appears near a lake, and there's a tiny passage amidst the lake heading to the place.Three-boats-appear-rightwards of the way.A net (for fish-hunting) stands in front of the third boat.I like the appearance of the mill wheel in front of the village, and brown-colour propendorates at the projection of the place.The vast-bushes are covering the vicinity which appear with a tone of (again) brown colour.The fog that's surrounding the village appears so well and it also indicates that Cimmerians live on a high altitude.The passage (that heads to Conan's village) is mossy, and that gives the way a green colour which is mixed with the (brown) colour of the ground.....

The 3rd one (screenshot) appears after Conan speaks with his friend Ela-Shan at the City of Thieves at the 80th minute of the movie.At the scene; we see Khalar Zym's fortress which has sharp-edged minarets.The fortress stands on a shore which is beneath a cloudy sky.The sunset gives the cloudy horizon a flesh colour.The-tones-of-grey and pale-white clouds shroud the fortress and the sea that's covering it.The grey-colour of the sky also reflects to the sea below.We-see-a-broken column very close to the camera which had slightly bent rightwards, and between that column and the fortress, there's another one (column) that'd lightly bowed to the sea-side leftward of the screen.The shadowy mountains those are backing the fortress give a good background to the picture.Right-after-the-scene (still, at-the-80th-minute) the very fortress appears closely.But this time, the flesh colour propendorates the clouds and we see lots of minarets within the territory.The fog is covering the buildings and the steam coming out of the bottom of the building gives a feeling to the audiences (at least me) as if a work was in progress.....The 4th screenshot begins at the 88th minute, and the audiences see a skull-shaped temple that has a wide-opened mouth (which; also is the entrance of the temple).The appearance of the temple reminds me of the "Castle Greyskull" and the water flowing from its mouth recalls me the "Snake Mountain" from my childhood cartoon "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe" .A withered tree appears leftwards of the screen close to the camera.The tones of (as before) grey-colour-weighs-down the clouds, and beautifull tones of pink and grey unite on the horizon level.....



PART 4:

At the 4th part; there are 2 of the 6 "golden" screenshots and 3 of the 4 shooting technics applied by M. Nispel.....The 5th screenshot appears after Conan speaks with his friend Artus on the ship at the 40th minute.We see structures those are built aside a cliff.Different from the classic Conan movies (which I also explained above), the-camera-closely-proceeds near the structures.Marcus Nispel appraises-the-tones-of open brown at the design of the structures.The buildings are square-shaped (they appear like parcels ) and they have tiny windows.The big dome (which has the combination of grey and green colour) appears so well at the backside of the domain.The-camera-moves-fastly from the side.Then, right-after-that-scene; at the 41st moment, we see Conan riding his horse slowly below a destroyed bridge.I like the bridge designed as a broken passage, for it gives more character to the scene.The ground and ledges around it have the tones of brown colour.A staff stands leftwards-of-the-screen close to the camera, it has dark red clothes hanging loosely around it.And there's an animal-skeleton rightwards lying on the ground; which is the thing I like most after the destroyed bridge at the screen.The sky is cloudy, and the clouds have the tones of dark grey and pale white.....


And finally; the 6th screenshot appears rrrright after the crash-landing soldier delivers Conan's message to Khalar Zym.The-scene-begins-at the 60th minute, in which we see "Shaipur Bay Outpost" from afar with a beautifull landscape.There are 2 columns leftwards of the frame; one is short, and the other appears tall but broken.Their colours slightly slip to pink from pale white.A-ledge-appears-rightwards of the screen, and between the outpost (which stands at the cliffside) and the ledge, there-are-5-more big ledges which prominently emerge from the sea.There's a small building behind the outpost.The small building and the outpost stand on a green, grassy ground.The dark green bushes and the ledges adorn the ground around the 2 columns.The sea has the colour of the pale blue.The open colour tones of various colours (mostly pink) weigh down the horizon.But above the horizon level, it's the dark grey colour that preponderates the sky.Right after the scene; (still, within-the60th-minute) another scene starts which detailedly shows the inner part of the outpost.The camera slightly slips from rightwards to leftwards, and while the camera's moving; the audiences see a big-brown wheel and a ladder behind it (which are very close to the camera).The ground is adorned with barrels and wheels.In front of the buildings (of the domain) ; there are too many platforms with ladders.Those are probably for the labourers to work on the outside part of the buildings, and since there're no workers on the platform, I could say that the place'd been deserted some time ago.The things I mostly like about the scene are the appearance of the platforms (which are brown-coloured) and the pale white steps.And while the camera is moving, we see the tassels hanging from above, and while the domain is appearing in general, it's the colour of pale white that preponderates the frame..........

Now, I shall touch on some shooting technics I'd observed in the movie.And as before, I shall not give those parts in a row, but I'll explain them by their minutes of appearances.I'll begin writing by mentioning 3 of the shooting technics I'd noticed along the movie.The first one is; at-the-39th-minute (rrrright after the scene at which we see Khalar Zym and his army proceeding with a war-vessel) , the camera shows Conan's ship from top, and it slightly turns around the ship; which, in my opinion, is a good-way-to-indicate the hugeness of the ocean (and as I've said above, I like the colour tone of the sea a lot ).Right after the scene (still, within the 39th minute) ; the camera shows the front part of the vessel, it (the camera) again (with-a-faster-motion) turns around the front side; we see a man holding one of the ropes (of the ship) and looking to the ocean, but while the camera's turning, it shows the man from downwards; Marcus Nispel continues-the-same-shooting style he left at the previous scene.A small detail; but the ship's net appears so well between the camera and the standing man.At the 69th minute (right after the scene in which Conan chats with his friend Artus) , we again see the ship, Nispel uses-"exactly"-the-same style again; he turns the camera around the vessel, but this time he shoots the same ship from-a-different-angle.....


The second (shooting) technic appears at the 60th minute: Right after we see "Shaipur Bay Outpost" from afar, the camera shows the inside part of the very outpost.Nispel slightly-moves-the-camera rightward and the audiences are able to see everything in the domain.Well, I mentioned about that part above among the "Golden Screenshots" of the movie, but I like the shooting at that scene a lot.The camera "slowly"-makes-a-movement, but it shows everything that's within the outpost, which is a clever style of shooting.....The third part is the one that's about the competition among the adolescent boys of the clan; which includes more than one shooting style.It (the competition part) begins at-the-6th-minute of the movie and lasts-until-the-beginnings of the 10th minute.Throught the competition scenes which also includes the boys' (mostly Conan's) deadly struggle with the marauders; Nispel makes-swift-camera-motions parallel to the boys' and attackers' running.He (Nispel) also uses the "camera-trembling" technic at the (boys' and attackers') encounter scenes.....



PART 5:

The 5th part consists of 1 of the 4 shooting technics and 2 of the 3 scene methods used in the film by the director (Nispel).....The 4th (shooting) technic begins at the 40th minute right after Conan talks with his friend Artus (Artus tells (to Conan) that he wanted to accompany him on his quest and Conan says "Not this time Artus.This is something I must do alone").Now, I'm dividing-this-part-to 4 "sub-parts".The 1st, 2nd, and the 3rd sub-part is within the 40th minute of the movie.At the first sub-part; we see Conan riding his horse and the camera shows Conan from downward and slightly slips to rightward, which is a good way of indicating the hugeness of the structures those are about-to-appear-at the 2nd and 4th sub-parts.At the second sub-part, the camera rapidly moves while showing the structures which are built aside a cliff, and upside and backwards of the buildings, (towards-the-end-of the sub-part) we see Conan proceeding with his horse from a great distance.The third sub-part: The camera shows Conan (while he's looking at the broken bridge) from downwards and moves from front to back.

Now; if we return to the 1st sub-part; we see that Nispel'd used the same mold of that technic.The camera shows Conan again, but if we compare the 1st sub-part to the 3rd one; the-camera-shoots-Conan from a farther distance and moves slower in-proportion-to-the 3rd sub-part.And shooting Conan from a closer distance from the same aspect and moving the camera faster is a "stronger" way of indicating the structures' (those appear at the 2nd and the 4th sub-parts) enormous appearance.And finally; the 4th sub-part: At the 41th minute; the camera shows Conan from backwards and from a certain distance while he's passing above the broken bridge.But if you behold the scene; you see that the-camera-slowly-proceeds while Conan is moving forward (well, I; too, had written about the appearances of both the structures built aside the cliff and the broken bridge at the "Golden Screenshots" part, but that wasn't about the camera shooting technics, I touched on those parts from the aspect of their scene appearances)..........

There're also some "Scene Methods" I'd observed, and I shall mention two of them at this part.The first one is; after Conan gets captured after the fight at the pub, he's put in a dungeon.At the dungeon, Conan gets chained and is seated in front of the guardian.He (the guardian) hurls some part of the meat he's eating to the other prisoners, and they (the prisoners) suddenly rush at the piece of meat as if they were hungry dogs, and that scene shows how evil is the guardian.At the 2011-made movie "The Immortals", Tarsem Singh (the director) uses-the-same-scene method.At the scene when the traitor-soldier (Joseph Morgan) is brought beside King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) after betraying his people, we-see-Hyperion-throwing the piece of the fruit he's eating to the woman squating down nearby.A small detail; but that scene-is-a-great method of indicating how ruthless is Hyperion (the-screenshots-used-at the movie are GREAT in general! At the movie, Mickey Rourke appears like the ancient age version of Darth Vader ) .....

The second (scene) method is; after Khalar Zym enters Shaipur Monastery with his army; his daughter tortures and kills some of the woman at the monastery in search of the poor blood.Khalar Zym himself also fiercely kills the high priest of the monastery, which is also a great way of showing how tyrant Khalar Zym is.If we again glimpse at "Immortals", we-could-see-that Tarsem Singh applies the same method.After the oracles revolt against Hyperion's soldiers, three of them are brought before the king (Hyperion).After the king questions them, he closes the oracles within a big bull statue which's filled with boiling water.After Stavros and Theasus free them from the (bull) statue, they (the oracles) appear unconciouss with their burned bodies, and that also is a smart way of indicating how oppressive Hyperion is.And also; at the '85 made movie "Red Sonja", Richard Fleischer uses the same mold of that scene.At the very beginning of the film, Queen Gedren (Sandahl Bergman) raids the temple in search of a mystical gem.After she (Gedren) enters the temple, she orders her soldiers to throw the priestesses in the temple to a deep pit.And after they're hurled to the pit, the soldiers seal the stone-hatch upon the priestesses, and while the hatch is being sealed, we hear the priestesses' yelling of suffering from inside (of the pit), and like-the-two-previous samples I'd given; this scene shows how merciless is Gedren.....



PART 6:

I'll explain 1 of the 3 scene methods used at the movie and I'll give 2 examples from different movies related with this method at this last (6th) part.....And finally; the 3rd (scene) method: While Artus and Tamara are talking about Conan on the boat; Artus says (to Tamara) "Most men are born to mother's milk.His taste was of his mother's blood.He was battle born".And while he (Artus) is saying "He was battle-born", the-camera-shows-Conan from a certain distance, and that gives a massiver appearance to Conan.Nispel also-makes-the-camera tremble while he's showing Conan at the scene.After Artus' speech ends, Tamara asks "So all he can do is kill?",and Artus replies "Oh,no.He has the heart of a king.The loyalty of a blood-hound", the-camera-again-shows Conan from a distance while he's poking his sword in its handle, and that also makes Conan appear as an earnest character.....At his '99-made movie "The Mummy", Stephen Sommers also uses that method.While O'Connell (Frazer) and Beni are talking on the boat, Beni asks (to O'Connell) "You never believed in Hamunaptra, O'Connell.Why are you going back?".And O'Connell (meaning Evelyn) replies "You see that girl?She saved my neck".During their talk (which results with O'Connell throwing Beni from the boat to the river ) , the-camera-shows-Evelyn (Weisz) "3 times" from afar while she's petting her camel, and that increases the importance of the character of Evelyn a little bit, and gives a "bit" more serious looking to her.....

I might also give a scene from Wolfgang Peterson's "Troy" as a last example to that method: At the movie; while the vessels are heading to the shore of Troy, we see Achilles and Patroclus talking on the boat.Patroclus tells Achilles that he wanted to fight in the battle among the Myrmidons, and he (Achilles) says "And you're a good student.But you're not a Myrmidon yet.Look at these men.They're the fiercest soldiers in all of Greece.Each of them spilt blood for me.You'll guard the ship".And while Achilles is saying "They're the fiercest soldiers in all of Greece", the-camera-closely-shows the Myrmidons preparing for the battle, and that-detail-increases-the importance of Achilles' warriors.....The thing that has-to-be-paid attention for that sample is; different from the methods those were used by (Marcus) Nispel and (Stephen) Sommers; the-camera-shoots-Achilles' warriors "closely" instead of showing them afar..........

This movie might not be as good as the classic Conan movies, but it's a professionally made film and it "deserves" a sequel, and if a sequel is made, it'd be so cool to see one of Conan's most prominent enemies "Thoth-Amon" as a villain at the movie.I've always found "Thoth-Amon" as the most charismatic villain ever since I started to read Conan comics, for he (Thoth-Amon) is a powerfull, very powerfull sorcerer, so much so that even Conan becomes desperate when he struggles with him in the comics..........Oh, by the way; as well as the release of "The Force Awakens" at the theaters in December (I watched all of the trailers, they were great ) , I also am so happy that SW Comics had passed to Marvel Comics.Don't think in the wrong way, I also like the Dark Horse's comics a lot (and nowadays I'm reading the 8th comic of the 9-issued "Clone Wars" series ), but this is the fact that the Marvel comics have a unique, different way of comic-making.I give a lot of importance for SW comics, for when it comes to the "Expanded Universe"; instead of the animated series and the books, SW is a sci-fi universe I mostly follow from the comics, each SW comic I read gives me the taste as if I was watching a new SW movie , and it's so cool to see the sci-fi world created as a result of Geoge Lucas' TREMENDEOUS IMAGINATION has combined with the unparalelled beautifull comic-making style of Stan Lee's Marvel Team one more time ever since the 80's (I also read Mr. Lucas' interview at the 301th issue of Empire Mag., and I liked it a lot ).....

While I was mentioning about the comics; it reminded me of the latest X-Men Movie (X-Men: The Days of Future Past) I watched at the cinema.The movie (directed by Bryan Singer) was the best one among the X-Men Movies, and it also was one of the best comic-adapted movies that I'd ever watched.Bryan Singer is very clever, for as I'd-observed-along-the movie, he successfully "repaired" the contradictions in the storyline those occurred after the second X-Men Movie.The sound effects in the movies are made ssssooooo well these days; at the scene when James Mc Avoy put the cerebro-helmet to his head; the cinema parlour (including the seat I was sitting) completely trembled .....Among the comic-adapted films those shall appear in theaters, the one I mostly wonder is Thor 3, for the second movie had ended at a very critical point, and as before, it will be very cool to see Natalie Portman as Jane Foster, Antony Hopkins as Odin and Chris Hemsworth swinging his hammer as Thor .Among the cast (of Thor), the actress that I most like her acting is Natalie Portman.She's a great actress; so much so that I may define her as a "one-personed" casting team .I also wonder how the movie "A Tale of Love and Darkness" shall be; which's going to be directed by Mrs. Portman.As far as I know, it shall be her first try as being a director, but since she's a very talented artist, I'm sure she'll handle it in the best way .....

As a comic reader, I'm so happy to see that the comic-adaptations are not only limited with movies, but they also overflow to the television screen as tv shows, and my most favourite one among them is the DC Comics' speedy hero's take on "The Flash" .....It's a great tv show, but it shall be better if the-colours-those-are being used for some scenes are reduced to paler and darker tones and a convincing background story shall be made for the prison (at the Star Labs) where the super-villains are being put .Among the cast, the one I mostly noticed is Candice Patton (who portrays Dr. Caitlin Snow), for instead of being a good actress, she's also very cure.She has a natural, childish beauty and she becomes more beautifull when she smiles.To be honest, I can't keep myself from staring at her while I'm watching the show ...............


(Oh, by the way; I apologise both from the moderators and members if I'd made a mistake about writing my comments on the movie (Conan the Barbarian).I mean, the scenes I explained minute by minute might show differences in various footages of the film.There might be-a-slipping-time of 2-3 seconds.After all, I haven't been opening topics for 1,5 year, therefore I'm a bit dusty and rusty .)

 

It's got Rachel Nichols in skimpy outfits (even though there's a body double for the nudity) and various bits of sword murder so I can't hate it entirely. Still, there ain't a damn thing in the movie that has as much kick in lines such as "Crom, I have never prayed to you before, I have no tongue for it", "tie him to the tree of woe. Crucify him!" or "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of The Women."

 

You should never be forgiven for your abuse of the semi-colon.

 

Yeah, that's right; I remember those speeches from the 1st Conan Movie, and those kind of catchy phrases weren't included in M. Nispel's take on.But in my opinion; Stephen Lang's acting performance, highly-advanced visual effects and beautifully-made screenshots were the foremost factors those covered that lack.

 

It was terrible, but Destroyer makes it look like Gladiator in comparison.

 

TL;DR. But I did skim; maybe we could get a summary for those who don't want to spend two hours reading a post about an awful movie?

I'm a longtime Conan fan, but so far there has only been one well-made Conan film, and that is the 1982. However, as great as I think that film is, it's not very accurate to Howard's creation. It exists on its own terms, and it's beautiful. The only reason to see the 2011, IMO, is Jason Momoa's excellent performance as THE Conan created by my fellow Texan RE Howard. The movie around him is complete drek, but Momoa does a terrific job breathing that pulp-literary character to life. The only time that has been done on film to date.

 

I can't say much for the 2011 film since I haven't seen it. Although given that I've read all of Howards stories I take a very critical look at how the charater is portrayed in any sort of media outside those stories. None have ever got him exactly right, mainly because Conan really isn't a human being, he's a force of nature. Based off what I did see of that film, Moa Moa didn't capture the character other than he looked angry at times and smirked at times.

The 82 is a great movie, but not a real Conan film. I'd venture to guess the 2011 film has nothing on it.

Conan should get the Dredd treatment. Once reason Dredd is special is because Dredd was allowed to be Dredd. He's the character from those books. He doesn't change or grow, nor are you made to care about him. He's the personification of that Law system on that screen. Anderson is used as the character the audience is to connect with.

Conan needs that. He needs a movie where he can be Conan, and another character is used as the audience filter.

 

The bolded part is the only thing I object to in the above post. There are plenty of things in the world I have no clue about, but I do have a few areas of expertise, and Conan -- Howard's stories and the Marvel comics of the 70s and 80s -- happens to be one of these. Momoa absolutely does his best to inhabit Howard's Conan. In a film as terribly written and clumsily executed as the 2011 film, that is a major achievement.

Everything else you've written there is spot-on IMO.

 

I did like Stephen Lang in the movie but, goddamnit, I like Stephen Lang in everything. Actually, I think the actors in the 2011 movie are all putting in a solid effort, its the script that bobbles it. Especially when you compare it to the eminently quotable 82 version, it's almost unfair.

 

I just want to see this guy on the big screen.

 

Well, after all; Conan is a character that idles in an anarchic-world looking for adventures, who associates the medieval-dark age version of Sergio Leone's "Man With No Name" (portrayed by C. Eastwood) from his (Leone's) "Dollar's Trilogy", and this is the fact that comics have a "certain" importance to keep the character's popularity active.

As a person who'd grown up with reading Conan comics, and especially as a strong fan of the 235-issued "The Savage Sword of Conan" series (in which various artists display veeerrrryyyy remarkable examples of comic-drawing), I could say that if a sequel to the 2011-made film or a new take-on (which shall set out to tell the whole story (of our "American-wrestler" barbarian ) from zero one more time) is to be made, I'd prefer the savage-land in the movie stand close (I mean really close) to the dark realm of The Savage Sword of Conan comics.The '82 made film is the only one which had reflected "that" world in the most efficient way so far.

(As far as I know, Jason Momoa shall star in the movie adaptation of the (Dc Comics') super-hero "Aquaman".It'll be cool to see Mr. Momoa wielding his staff to enforce justice as the underwater Atlantean .)