|
|
Post by conanfan on May 3, 2020 22:54:06 GMT -5
Conan the Barbarian 1982 is one of my Favourite movies. Conan the Destroyer is not as good. It still has a lot of things I like in it.
1)Music by Basil Poledouris 2)cinematography Jack Cardiff 3) costume design by John Bloomfield and lot A more stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by conanfan on May 3, 2020 23:27:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by conanfan on May 3, 2020 23:40:19 GMT -5
See some behind the scene footage
|
|
|
|
Post by conanfan on May 3, 2020 23:54:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by conanfan on May 4, 2020 0:53:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on May 4, 2020 8:40:25 GMT -5
Both 0s Conan films are making their way on the cable channels this month, so I rewatched most of both. You can see Destroyer trying to do something similar to Barbarian in tossing in a bunch of REH material into a pot and mixing it up. But you didn't have a singular force behind it like Milius, so it goes in so many different directions. You may have gotten Fleischer and Cardiff back together but the Vikings it ain't.
|
|
|
|
Post by theironshadow on May 5, 2020 5:19:09 GMT -5
Both 0s Conan films are making their way on the cable channels this month, so I rewatched most of both. You can see Destroyer trying to do something similar to Barbarian in tossing in a bunch of REH material into a pot and mixing it up. But you didn't have a singular force behind it like Milius, so it goes in so many different directions. You may have gotten Fleischer and Cardiff back together but the Vikings it ain't. This was actually the film that i discovered Conan with, a film i thought was so bad that any interest in the character was shelved for quite a few years until the Dark Horse adaptations came along. You can see that they are trying to portray Conan as closer to Howard's creation and adding more humour to make it more of an adventure. Arnold's performance in this film rises above the one of the 'mono-syllabic musclebound hero' of the first film. Nice touches with some of the material lifted directly from Howard, though not sure why it didn't maintain direction. The whole borderline comical fightscene with the apeman creature was just bizarre... |
|
|
|
Post by Lonewolf on May 5, 2020 13:35:41 GMT -5
Both 0s Conan films are making their way on the cable channels this month, so I rewatched most of both. You can see Destroyer trying to do something similar to Barbarian in tossing in a bunch of REH material into a pot and mixing it up. But you didn't have a singular force behind it like Milius, so it goes in so many different directions. You may have gotten Fleischer and Cardiff back together but the Vikings it ain't. This was actually the film that i discovered Conan with, a film i thought was so bad that any interest in the character was shelved for quite a few years until the Dark Horse adaptations came along. You can see that they are trying to portray Conan as closer to Howard's creation and adding more humour to make it more of an adventure. Arnold's performance in this film rises above the one of the 'mono-syllabic musclebound hero' of the first film. Nice touches with some of the material lifted directly from Howard, though not sure why it didn't maintain direction. The whole borderline comical fightscene with the apeman creature was just bizarre... The 2 Arnold movies were my introduction and definition of "Conan" for years, so my perspective is probably biased, but even now having read a dozen or so Howard stories I still don't see Arnold's portrayal being too far off? I think Arnold as an actor comes across "silly/goofy" in some scenes, but I don't think his portrayal of Conan was written as being dumb/stupid in either movie. |
|
|
|
Post by theironshadow on May 5, 2020 14:02:31 GMT -5
This was actually the film that i discovered Conan with, a film i thought was so bad that any interest in the character was shelved for quite a few years until the Dark Horse adaptations came along. You can see that they are trying to portray Conan as closer to Howard's creation and adding more humour to make it more of an adventure. Arnold's performance in this film rises above the one of the 'mono-syllabic musclebound hero' of the first film. Nice touches with some of the material lifted directly from Howard, though not sure why it didn't maintain direction. The whole borderline comical fightscene with the apeman creature was just bizarre... The 2 Arnold movies were my introduction and definition of "Conan" for years, so my perspective is probably biased, but even now having read a dozen or so Howard stories I still don't see Arnold's portrayal being too far off? I think Arnold as an actor comes across "silly/goofy" in some scenes, but I don't think his portrayal of Conan was written as being dumb/stupid in either movie. My feeling since Day 1 was that Arnold looked and moved great, but back in '81 his limited acting ability and ultra-thick accent was an issue, so Milius got Arnold-Conan to keep dialogue to a minimum and concentrate on his action hero abilities. Shame we couldn't have had the real Toth Amon in it rather than an impersonator. Always bugged me in Barbarian that the main villain was from the pantheon of a totally different Howard character, namely King Kull! |
|
|
|
Post by themirrorthief on May 5, 2020 22:07:04 GMT -5
I liked Destroyer first time around but it seemed weak second time around...the girl was pretty hot tho...the novel by Jordan was enjoyable IMO
The Red Sonja film was better than destroyer....IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by theironshadow on May 6, 2020 5:05:18 GMT -5
I liked Destroyer first time around but it seemed weak second time around...the girl was pretty hot tho...the novel by Jordan was enjoyable IMO The Red Sonja film was better than destroyer....IMO Nooo, Red Sonja is an absolutely terrible film, from Arnold's Conan stand-in character to Bridgette Neilsen's utter lack of acting ability. Most definitely one to be consigned to the dumpster... |
|
|
|
Post by Lonewolf on May 6, 2020 9:23:47 GMT -5
I liked Destroyer first time around but it seemed weak second time around...the girl was pretty hot tho...the novel by Jordan was enjoyable IMO The Red Sonja film was better than destroyer....IMO Nooo, Red Sonja is an absolutely terrible film, from Arnold's Conan stand-in character to Bridgette Neilsen's utter lack of acting ability. Most definitely one to be consigned to the dumpster... Despite being a big fan of the Arnold/Conan movies (and "Sword & Sorcery" movies in general), I avoided Red Sonja up until 3 or 4 years ago due to the negative reviews/poor ratings. After finally seeing it, it's not that bad and IMO close overall quality to Destroyer. |
|
|
|
Post by Grim Wanderer on May 6, 2020 12:34:14 GMT -5
Maybe age has mellowed me, but I don't think as poorly of Destroyer as I once did. Sure it's a bit of a let down, but I find I can watch it now without the distaste I once had.
|
|
|
|
Post by boot on May 6, 2020 20:17:20 GMT -5
Maybe age has mellowed me, but I don't think as poorly of Destroyer as I once did. Sure it's a bit of a let down, but I find I can watch it now without the distaste I once had. I am like that about a lot of films. From the time that I saw it in Jr. High, Star Trek The Motion Picture was a lost opportunity. Today, it's become a favorite. |
|
kele
Wanderer
Posts: 7
|
Post by kele on May 9, 2020 16:09:44 GMT -5
At least Destroyer has some monsters in it. A snake and some kind of cartoon spirits just don't impress.
I can't remember which film has the bridge made of dinosaur bones--Conan the Destroyer or Red Sonja?
The original slated director of Destroyer, William Dear, wanted to have the creature at the end done by Industrial Light and Magic.
I liked Red Sonja for what it was, but Hundra was a more lively woman warrior action film.
|
|
