Alright, so last Sunday I watched the original 1982 Conan the Barbarian. I also recently watched the remake with Kahl Drogo. There were things that were great in both and things that, well, really feel like this as well. So lets break both of them down into parts and categories and take a look at what each did well and others that...well, I think I made my point.
The original movie starts with a narrator telling you the setting of the story, "Between the time when the oceans drank Atlantis and the rise of the sons of Arius..." What a fantastic intro! Especially if you know what he's talking about. The new Movie, if I recall correctly, lacks a narrator. Which is okay, since the original narrator talks with what sounds like a forced Asian Accent, even though as it turns out, its just a young General/Uncle Iroh from the Avatar: The Last Airbender series. Winner: The Original
The new movie gives some insight into the birth of Conan, by showing his tribe/people/father in a fierce and bloody battle while is mother is screaming due to contractions. The father, bad ass extraordinaire Ron Perlman, then is forced to kill his wife to save the son and perform a C-section type operation. He then raises his newborn into the sky and Walla! Barbarian prince. The movie then explains more about his childhood and gives Ron Perlman more than a decent amount of screen time. The Original just kinda jumps into his youth with his father, B-movie pro William Smith (this is the only movie I've seen him in...just look at his IMDB). Although the lines given to Ron vary both in length, deliverance, and everything else, I found myself attaching myself closer to William. The original scene simply has Conan's father telling him the legend of Crom and introducing "The Riddle/Secret of Steel!" Don't get me wrong, Ron Perlman's sacrifice in the remake is much more endearing and powerful than William's death by dog in the original, but I feel like the intro in the remake takes away too much focus from Conan and his exploits and it ultimately doesn't add too much to his character as I'll explain later. Winner: The Original
I already mentioned the deaths of Conan's fathers in both films and the death of his mother in the remake, but the original keeps the mother alive until the end of the Riders of Doom attack. So lets talk about the film up to that point. The action in the remake is better all around. Its better choreographed, better lit, and better acted (Which we should expect from Kahl Drogo and not Arnold since this was one of his first films). The riders look of about the same caliber. Their armor is freakishly cool and black as doom. There is one character in the original that I thought was going to play a bigger part that doesn't. He's this red-haired scout whose scream is the battle horn. He just kinda disappears as the battle starts. I wasn't sure how I felt about the Rider's leader having a daughter that, not only took the father's sword, but also was a diviner. It worked out in the end, and I'll talk about that later, but when I first saw it I was confused. Now, in the original there is tons of hacking and smashing, since one of the main bad guys wields a maul and the sounds effects were pretty good. At the end of the battle stands only Conan and his mother, instead of him and his father as in the remake. At this point Thulsa Doom (James Earl Jones) comes and stares into his mother. Its an interesting scene. I have to admit that the Legenday J.E.J seemed out of place here and he looks kinda goofy. At one point he even looks like a black Elrond. Now, I have to talk about writing for a moment. There is a saying in writing that goes along the lines of "show don't tell" (I'm going to mention this a lot in the future). This scene where Thulsa kills Conan's mother is very much a "show don't tell" moment. He simply stares at her and she lowers her sword. It takes what feels like forever (so 30 secs) and then he hacks her head off and you see her head fall while young Conan still holds her hand while her body falls over in slow-mo. Its a better ending scene, but The death of Ron is better done. Winner: The Remake
While were talking about the Voice of Vader, lets review villains. Like I said, James seems slightly out of place. He's a wonderful actor and performs wonderfully in the movie. I might say that because he's the only black guy in the movie. The villain in the remake, Khalar Zym (played by criminal villain Stephan Lang), is a very different villain than Thulsa Doom. He is more like Conan, a warrior, a fighter. He even wields two swords at one point if I'm not mistaken. Thulsa Doom is more a spiritual leader and spell caster than fighter. The man shoots arrow snakes for crying our loud! I like both villains very much and since the two are so different from each other, I can safely say its a draw. No Winner.
Now at this point in the movies, there are some major differences. The original goes through the troubles of explaining what happens to Conan up until he gets freed while the remake just kinda jumps right into Conan freeing slaves. There are pros and cons to both. It goes back to "showing and not telling". There are some scenes in the original that show us some interesting things while telling us the broad strokes. For Example, while Conan is a slave and being trained by "The War Masters", they bring him a woman and strip her and the narrator pretty much says that he had a lot of sex. Conan then grabs a cloak and covers her. The on lookers are disappointed (cause they're pervs) and Conan leads her away from them. I mean, he still has sex with her, but he makes her feels safe first. In the remake, after freeing slaves, Conan just kinda takes one and they have a wham, bam, thank you ma'am kinda deal. Those scenes in the original, as long and descriptive as they are, build my relationship with Conan and make me want him to succeed. The remake tried to do that with a longer scene before the Riders but it wasn't as successful. Winner: The Original
So, like Salt and Pepper, lets talk about sex for half a moment. There are quite a few sex scenes in both movies. The newer one is better filmed and acted, the original was better written. Better written you say? Yes, I do. The sex in the original, with the exception of one, are more meaningful then the remake. But they're not fun to watch. Winner: Remake
Okay, here comes a long paragraph. A comparison between Conans in necessary at this point. So Conan is freed and you meet his first companion. In the Original its the thief and archer Subotai and the remake Pirate and raider Ukafa. In the original, on the first night Conan and Subotai spend together, Conan asks him who he worships. They then have a talk about religion. I find it interesting that one of the first questions he asks Subotai is about his spirituality. The Original Conan is much more spiritual than the remake. His villain is the leader of a cult (which was just like any other snake cult apparently). He even dies and is brought back to life after his friends fight off what look like fire elementals (or fire men). One of my favorite scenes is when Conan prays for the first time. You should watch it! The remake Conan never really has a good sit down conversation about his spirituality, and if he does, I missed it. Lets head back to sex for a second. As I said before, the original Conan has an interesting view on sex. He semi-protects the first girl we see have sex with him. Then when he and Subotai reach their first city, he calls a bunch of prostitutes sluts and the punches a camel. Its pretty rad. Then the rest of the movie, he's only ever with one woman and the conversations they have before expressing their feelings toward one another are wonderfully written. In fact, the whole love story between Conan and Valeria makes the characters more memorable, likable, and endearing. So when (spoilers ahead) Valeria dies Conan has that much more reason to complete his quest for revenge. Now, the remake Conan acts better, its true. He does some pretty cool things too. Like when he frees a bunch of slaves from the no-nose guy, he takes the key to their chains and shoves it down the slavers throat and makes him swallow it then throws him to the slaves and is like "The key to your chains is in his stomach, have fun :)". The other is the manner in which he gets his dilemma. I have to jump back a bit to explain this. So what happens during the Riders scene where Ron dies, is that Khalar Zym places Conan and his Father in a SAW type trap. Their both chained to a vat of molten steel and should their strength fail them they get gobbed. So Ron gobs himself to save Conan. The ending gives a full circle dilemma for Conan. He has the priestess/princess in one hand and his other hand is holding something too, I forget what but it was cool. He's all like "I have the Strength!!" and lifts both his hands up, solving the dilemma. Its pretty cool, but not quite as cool as the Originals Spiritual journey. Now, the scenes where they fail. The original Conan fails because he tries to take Thulsa Doom by himself. Infiltrating, sneaky sneaky style and all that. Doesn't work for him at all. He gets beat up, lectured by Thulsa Doom, and then Crucified. Yup hung up on a tree to die! and he does actually, which I think I mentioned before. Part of the point I think they tried to make was, don't do crazy stuff by yourself. He goes back later with Valeria and Subotai and murders nearly everyone and they escape with the princess (a hot brunette that needed more screen time). In the remake, Conan gets poisoned but nothing really deep happens. Jason Momoa does a great job, but Arnold became a legend due to this movie and its easy to see why...I mean...here. Winner: The Original
Okay, the next and last important issue are the endings. They're happy-ish. The original ends with Conan burning the temple of Thulsa Doom down and the narrator kinda just saying "So he kept doing stuff like this and eventually got a throne". It was lack luster at best. Even when he burns the temple down, its...unimpressive. He's swinging this torch thing like a weight with chain and then he throws it...and it more or less misses and you get this climatic *thunk* and he moves on. The remake ends better. He drops off the priestess/princess at her destined city and then returns to Ukafa's ship to continue raiding and freeing slaves. It wasn't too much better, but it doesn't have him missing! I mean its like, a dude carrying the Olympic torch trips and the fire goes out...it killed me. Winner: The remake
So lets tally up the score...on second thought, lets not. Go and watch both. Their both good movies I didn't feel like either was a waste of time The original is longer and the remake is shorter, but only by a few minutes. I like them both, but the dice roll differently for both. The dice give the original 8/10 while the remake is about 7/10 (yes there are 10-sided dice, google it).
I hoped you enjoyed this compare and contrast between the two. Stay tuned for more reviews on the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment