.jpg)
Promising at the beginning 3/10
To be honest, it is quite disappointing. Just by itself the movie looks simple and rushed. Perhaps a lot of effort was put for the beginning of the movie and the rest of it was hurried in order to meet the date line.
If you compared to the 1982's Conan, it's true that people back in those days are more barbaric than the one we have now. I'm much prefer to watch the old one even when they don't have much technologal enhancement.
... I quite liked the film for what it supplied: as in action, sorcery and quite exciting visuals. It didn't appeal much to my intelligence, but the inner teenager in me was fairly content with what it offered. Just throw your expectations out the door, and you won't feel too let down once you delve into this world of barbary and poor dialogue. Mediocre, sure, but it could easily have been a lot worse.-Mike S
Overall, it is still an entertaining gore movie with sorcerer and sword fight (tho not much of it is impressive). Rachel Nichols and Rose McGowan is hot :D
Until next time, see you around my friend =)
Yours only:
Daniel Chiam from room8five
I havent watch the old one yet though I heard it was quite famous then... so the original one is better?
ReplyDeleteYup. Personally I much prefer the 1982's one.
ReplyDeletesa paling suka part di gua.. :-p
ReplyDeleteApa lagi kalau uncensored punya kan :D Haha, rugi yang tingu di cinema xD
ReplyDeleteI liked the first movie but reading your comments, I should not go to the second one.
ReplyDeleteGreetings,
Filip
Still can go for it, but just don't keep your expectation too high =)
ReplyDeleteYou watched this already? (downloaded aah? out already meh the clear version?). Arnold was the best Conan, right? even Kevin Sorbo couldnt hold a candle to him, altho i've yet to watch this version.
ReplyDelete