It's a good thing I don't follow online reviews all the time because they were wrong about Conan. Although they were right about Jason Momoa's acting which had been exceptionally barbaric (and I say that as a compliment), the movie wasn't as awful as they'd say it would be. It may have lacked the adventure expected of it, but seriously... don't you think the term barbaric should attribute to most of the scenes in this story. The point is, Lionsgate had already implicated that it was going to be all about vengeance and defeating a villain who was obsessed with power. The one liners and not so deep conversations should have already made that clear.
It's funny that even though most of the time, my eyes widened or squinted when there was blood or gore which makes up 60% of the entire movie, I still enjoyed it. Those critics talk too much about how it was as hollow and without much of a storyline. Come on people, it's Lionsgate. What did you expect? Something close to Rise of the Planets of the Apes?
As for Jason Momoa, who I've always wanted to see portraying someone other than the Dothraki king Khal Drogo, his role here made him look less serious and more playful. He was more of a boy wielding a sword skillfully than the barbaric powerful slasher and basher (which the movie did not lack, as well). And I give him credit for wielding dual swords which I had not seen Arnold do. I suppose, had it not been for Jason's charisma, I wouldn't have enjoyed the movie as much.
Overall, I felt the movie was meant more for people who just prefer to enjoy films for the sake of its visual artistry and Hellenic action scenes (Don't forget the gore! Don't forget the gore!). If you're the type of person, who appreciates rage, brutality, blood and gore, Conan the Barbarian is the film for you. But if you're into substance, drama and adventure, although it does provide some of those, better not get your hopes up.
I forgot to mention how scary Rose McGowan looked. I didn't realize it was her until a little later in the movie. To think I'd been telling myself, "Hmm, her voice really sounds familiar."
It's funny that even though most of the time, my eyes widened or squinted when there was blood or gore which makes up 60% of the entire movie, I still enjoyed it. Those critics talk too much about how it was as hollow and without much of a storyline. Come on people, it's Lionsgate. What did you expect? Something close to Rise of the Planets of the Apes?
As for Jason Momoa, who I've always wanted to see portraying someone other than the Dothraki king Khal Drogo, his role here made him look less serious and more playful. He was more of a boy wielding a sword skillfully than the barbaric powerful slasher and basher (which the movie did not lack, as well). And I give him credit for wielding dual swords which I had not seen Arnold do. I suppose, had it not been for Jason's charisma, I wouldn't have enjoyed the movie as much.
Overall, I felt the movie was meant more for people who just prefer to enjoy films for the sake of its visual artistry and Hellenic action scenes (Don't forget the gore! Don't forget the gore!). If you're the type of person, who appreciates rage, brutality, blood and gore, Conan the Barbarian is the film for you. But if you're into substance, drama and adventure, although it does provide some of those, better not get your hopes up.
I forgot to mention how scary Rose McGowan looked. I didn't realize it was her until a little later in the movie. To think I'd been telling myself, "Hmm, her voice really sounds familiar."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.