I meant to talk about that new Conan movie that came out recently. I finally saw it with my two sons. As some readers here may know, Robert E. Howard is my favorite writer/author and the character he created, Conan, is my favorite of his many great characters. It was the Conan stories that hooked me and they were the ones that convinced me that Howard was the best writer of stories.
And when the first movie Conan came out, it was NOT Conan. Yeah, they called it Conan, and it was supposed to be Conan, but it was nothing like the character Robert E. Howard created and wrote about.
So what about this latest one? Well... it was better, but that's all. Was it the Conan Robert E. Howard wrote about? Not really. Again Hollywood missed the Bulls Eye. But I won't go so far as to say they missed the entire target like the first one. But they really only just barely hit it.
Yeah, Conan was born on a battlefield, as Howard did make that reference. But come on... I didn't buy into his father cutting him out of his dying mother's womb, like a crude Caesarian Section! That was ridiculous to me.
And I still don't get why they can't dye an actor's hair black. I do believe that Jason Mamoa can be a decent Conan, but they need to look at that Frank Frazetta painting, and pay a Hollywood make up man. It just can't be too hard to figure out.
As for the story... it was nothing like any Robert E. Howard story. They probably think it was, it had a sorceress, but not a very good one. Some kind of evil guy, but not a very convincing one. The dialogue was very poor at times, and the acting was just as inconsistent.
Overall I would give the movie a C minus. Which by comparison to the first movie is stellar, since that one got an F minus. But if, say, Peter Jackson had done it... in the same way he did Lord of the Rings... then I believe it would have been an A.
Oh, Peter Jackson, where for art thou?
No comments:
Post a Comment