(Note: this post has been a source of much turmoil and torment to me. At one point I wasn’t going to do it at all. However, my intense desire to let my Cromrades know – you can thank Dave the Rage for that fantastic portmanteau- overrode my sense of self-preservation. Perhaps my recent discussion about “knowing too much” will be made a bit clearer today, though there is still more than meets the eye.)

A while ago, I received a review for Conan the Barbarian. I was never sure exactly what I would do in this situation, but I figure coming clean about it is all I can say. I felt that it would be irresponsible of me to release a review of the film that was, well, this vicious, without a counterpoint. Whatever my personal opinion on the film, I feel it necessary to provide context. The last thing I want is to herald bad news when unwarranted – or overly-optimistic news, for that matter. So, I decided against releasing the review, at least until something came along to make me reassess that situation.

Happily, something did: a user on the Internet Movie Database offered their thoughts on the film, and they were positive! Now, they didn’t say this was the second coming of Eisenstein or Kurosawa, but they said it hit all the notes that really matter to the average movie-goer. Howard fans would undoubtedly be disappointed (no kidding), Conan fans might have issues, but the vast majority of cinema patrons would probably enjoy it.

What’s important is that I ran this by some of my sources, and they match up. In addition, the details in both reviews appear to correspond – characterisation, set pieces, whatnot – with each other, with few differences. This may be a result of regional differences (the two reviews may come from different countries, and thus possibly slightly different cuts), or misremembering elements, or any number of things. Thus, with two reviews offering different points of view, I felt comfortable in releasing them.

I should remind that the following post will have spoilers: nothing too drastic, no major plot elements are spoiled, and those parts that might spoil have been rendered in text roughly matching the page background. Highlight those areas to reveal their secrets, as it were. I think the site software has some form of spoiler tag, but I can’t figure it out.

You may click when ready.

Read the rest of this entry »

Thanks to sweetre15, Sean Hood has graciously answered questions from the users at the Robert E. Howard Forums regarding the upcoming film at his personal website. For expediency, I’ll copy it here.

The fans on the Conan.com forum asked me a number of questions about the upcoming movie Conan The Barbarian 3D. Here are my answers:

1. I know that you know the original stories and the Conan character as good as any. Which part of the script would you have loved to change but weren’t allowed/able to because whatever reason? And what would you have changed it to?

When I started the bulk of my work on the film, there were only two weeks until shooting was scheduled to begin. Sets were already built, characters were cast, stunts were choreographed, and special effects were pre-visualized. Although a lot of scene, story and character elements ultimately changed, I had to work within some very tight parameters under intense pressure to deliver pages quickly. Production rewrites are sometimes described as “changing the wheels on a moving car.”

To get an idea of what kind of Conan film I’d make if it were just me writing for myself, check out this answer/link:

What are the best Conan the Barbarian stories written by Robert E Howard and which story would be the best to adapt as a motion picture?

It’s a very lengthy piece, around 3,000 words and with 26 questions overall. The click shall set you free.

Read the rest of this entry »

The fallout from Comic-Con has mostly settled, but there are a few snippets left to go around.

The Sioux City Journal has an interview with Stephen Lang, where his role as Khalar Zym comes up:

LOS ANGELES — You want bad guys? Call Stephen Lang. He’s an expert.

Thanks to an unrelenting role in “Avatar,” Lang has become the go-to bad guy for directors.

“Yeah, I’ve played a few,” he says with a laugh. “But this guy isn’t necessarily one of them.” The character he’s referring to is the explorer who leads others from a ruined Earth to a prehistoric one in “Terra Nova.” “He’s a righteous guy. But he’s not necessarily a bad guy.”

But Khalar Zym, the character he plays in the new “Conan the Barbarian” film? “He’s bad. He’s death — an evil warlord. And it was fun.”

For more, click on, Macduff.

Read the rest of this entry »

In addition to a few reviews, I’ve found a veritable treasure trove of high resolution pictures from various websites. How in blazes did I miss these the first time around? Well, let’s make up for lost time.

First of all, wiki-cine.com has two brand new (to my knowledge) stills. The first is Rachel Nichols’ Tamara tied to the sacrificial wheel seen in the trailers and other shots, with Stephen Lang’s Khalar Zym touching her chest with the Mask of Acheron, collecting the blood flowing in rivulets from the fresh wound under her collarbone. Mola Ram could not be reached for comment.

The second shows Jason Momoa’s Conan and Nonso Anozie’s Artus at the slaver location. Conan is covered in grime and blood, while Artus appears none the worse for wear. While Artus does appear somewhat massive next to Conan here, Nonso Anozie’s only two inches taller than Jason, so I’m assuming Artus is standing on slightly higher ground in this shot: it looks like Artus is stepping down from a gangway. His massive pauldrons might also give the illusion of size. We know, however, from other shots that Conan and Artus are more or less the same size.

For more high resolution pictures, including another new one (sorry ladies, not Momoa) click on, wayward son.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jason Momoa appears to have reassessed his original opinion on who would come out on top in a fight between Conan and Khal Drogo:

When asked who would win: Drogo or Conan (as he had played both), he affected a glower and decided, “They would kill each other!”

It’s actually kind of a stroke of genius, since saying Conan & Drogo would kill each other is not mutually exclusive with saying Drogo would kick Conan’s ass, so he hasn’t really reassessed his position at all. He just hasn’t said Conan would kick Drogo’s ass yet to round it all up, and… well, let’s be frank, we don’t need him to say that, do we? It isn’t as if Jason needed to save face or anything in this non-controversy, but hey, diplomacy without backtracking’s pretty impressive.

Still, I really think this whole Conan vs Khal Drogo shebang should be a thing, just for the fun of it. Hmm, I wonder if Soul Calibur V has its guest stars nailed down yet…

Not just a few more scraps of Comic-Con news, but from around the ‘Net in general. Lots of videos in this post, such as this 15-second* tv-spot shown on TrailerAddict called “His Price”:

First, though, here’s an interview with Jason Momoa and Rachel Nichols with Rebecca Murray of About.com:

How does this movie reinvent or reinvigorate the franchise?

Rachel Nichols: “You know, I think whenever you sort of run into retelling…there are many Conan stories, first of all, so I think when you do a retelling of the story or reinvigorating of it, you need to maintain a certain integrity when it comes to the old version of the franchise. You have to update it and make it modern. You have to make it flashy and new for people, especially with the 3D and the action. It’s still the battle of good versus evil. It’s still a great story of revenge and love and friendship. But there’s the added level of modern-day technology, which I think they did a really good of blending the two.”

Jason Momoa: “You did a really good job [answering that].”

Rachel Nichols: “Thank you.”

Jason Momoa: “You’re fantastic.”

To continue, your must answer me these questions three… or alternatively just click “read more,” whatever, I’m flexible.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tons of stuff today!

Movies.com hosts an interview with Rachel Nichols, where she discusses playing a strong female character, the physicality of the role of Tamara, and how huge Jason Momoa got between her first testing session and shooting:

There was nothing more exciting for Rachel Nichols than to play Tamara, Conan’s accomplice and eventual love interest, in Conan the Barbarian. She jumped at the chance to play a smart, capable woman who breaks the mold of typical fantasy heroines, a character that is not only profound and tough but if given the choice of fight or flight she would absolutely fight.

In an exclusive interview Nichols candidly spoke to us about playing a strong female role, working with co-star Jason Momoa, and her two Hollywood crushes.

Ah, but to find out what she says, good traveller, thou must clicketh the linketh!

Read the rest of this entry »

Jason Momoa & Rachel Nicols, both looking just cute as buttons, as snapped by JoBlo.com

Some more Comic-Con sightings and reports today. First is an 18 minute roundtable interview with Ramascreen, featuring Jason Momoa and Rachel Nichols, which can be heard here:

Special thanks to Lionsgate, at Comic-Con 2011, a few press members and I were lucky enough to chat with Jason Momoa (HBO’s Game Of Thrones) and the sexy Rachel Nichols (G.I. Joe: Rise Of Cobra) about their new movie, CONAN THE BARBARIAN reboot. By the way, Momoa was even more massive in person than he was on screen. That dude entered the interview room while eating heavy sandwich.
I got to ask them about their experiences filming in Bulgaria and about Marcus Nispel‘s directing style.

For more snippets and segments, click after the break.

Read the rest of this entry »

This has been mentioned in other interviews, but I figure it deserves its own post: according to none other than Jason Momoa himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger enjoyed the new Conan film, he thinks Jason did a good job, and he’s proud of him.

“I was excited to find out that he actually watched it and liked it a lot,” Jason Momoa tells NextMovie of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s reaction. “He was proud of me and thought I did a good job.”

So, it’s official: Arnold Schwarzenegger approves of Jason Momoa. The 1982 Conan thinks the 2011 Conan did well. If anyone still has a problem with Jason stepping into Arnold’s shoes*, then who are you to argue with the Governator himself?

*not that he is really stepping into Arnold’s shoes at all, what with this NOT BEING A BLASTED REMAKE WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL SAYING THAT AWAY WITH YOU MEN IN WHITE COATS THE PEOPLE MUST KNOW

Even though Lionsgate and the gang aren’t presenting Conan the Barbarian at Comic-Con, the major cast members were on hand to promote the film. First is this interview Jason Momoa did with with the Vancouver Sun:

SAN DIEGO — At a pop culture convention brimming with superheroes and superpowers, Conan stands alone. No mutant healing factor or radioactive spider bites required: Conan the Barbarian is a hero who has never needed anything more than his wits and a trusty broadsword.

First introduced by pulp fiction writer Robert E. Howard in 1932 and brought to life in the 1982 film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Conan is about get a big-screen reincarnation in the form of the Hawaiian-born Jason Momoa.

Momoa is one of the biggest stars of this year’s annual ComicCon, and he owes it all to embracing his inner savage. Momoa was a highly-anticipated presence on HBO’s panel for Game of Thrones, the acclaimed series in which he played the primal warrior king Khal Drogo. His work on Thrones has paved the way for audiences to accept him as the ultimate barbarian, Conan of Cimmeria.

“Oh, they hate me,” he said of Conan fans’ initial reaction to his casting. “Everyone’s like, ‘Who? Baywatch? Stargate?’ It’s like, ‘I can do more than that.’

“Once Game of Thrones came out, people were like ‘holy sh—’, Conan is going to be badass,” Momoa said in an interview at ComicCon. “After seeing Drogo, they were like ‘all right, this guy can do it.’”

For more, including videos and other bits & pieces, click after the break.

Read the rest of this entry »