The few reviews I have seen (from fans) seem to indicate the new Conan film is not good.  Marcus Nispel has been compared to Uwe Boll (which is never a good thing).  Comments such as Nispel should go on a film course, actually direct his actors , stick to pop videos are among the sort of comments I didn't want to see.  One person gave the movie 2 stars, the second for unintentional hiiarity.

If the film is this bad (I have yet to see it) I can't see it being the saving grace of AOC as a lot of people imagined. If anything a bad film, may have a negative impact.

Looks like Funcom is not having a good weekend there beta launch for TSW did not go to well either.

The film is indeed poor but it never was going to be the saving grace for AoC. F2P was and is the saviour of the game and all the movie would have done even if great is bring a few more extra players, the game is already thriving from F2P.

Frankly not a lot of people know about Conan - despite what most fanbois think. I personally am a massive Conan fanboy. Even with its excellent advertising scheme...let alone the MMO. If they do, I don't think a film and an expansion pack would bring them to it.

That said, I have watched the film (2 days ago). I have to say what a lot of people are saying.

Its all visuals, little depth. It felt incredibly predictable, but thats probably due to me knowing the story.

This is problem with the industry nowadays. They think amazing visuals, artstyle = success. But nothing can replace poor dialogue, acting and character building.

Also, most films Ron Perlman is in never make it that far :p.

People need to just move away from the Origin of Conan and start focusing on his life. Conan 2 has been announced, so hopefully they can do that in that film.

The movie was very poorly done indeed, myself and all my friends who went to see it during the opening weekend were all disappointed by it.  Main problem was the poor acting and terrible cliche's that plagued the entire film.  Seriously whoever wrote the screenplay should be stood up against a wall and shot.  With all the years of books, graphic novels and movies that have been made over the years, for them to come out with this steaming pile of crap is a real let down.  The only highlights in the movie were some of the fightscenes (some were good, others just dragged on too long or were overdone), and the amount of topless women for the first bit of the movie.   Also the 3D experience falls completely flat, don't waste your money on it.

Originally posted by Kabaal

The film is indeed poor but it never was going to be the saving grace for AoC. F2P was and is the saviour of the game and all the movie would have done even if great is bring a few more extra players, the game is already thriving from F2P.

You are probably right, I check back now and then to see how AOC is doing and it does appear to be doing very well at the moment.  But we are in a bit of no-mans-land at the moment, waiting for a lot of major titles to come out.   Is everybody loving AOC or is everybody killing time on a free game until their game of choice is available?

The movie were everything you expected from a Conan movie 2011.

It is the equal of what you could expect from a barbarian movie in 1982! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViofEsfR3ZE&

So i liked it a lot : )

Originally posted by Razephon

People need to just move away from the Origin of Conan and start focusing on his life. Conan 2 has been announced, so hopefully they can do that in that film.

I must admit this got to me a little, why re-tell the story? Just jump into an adventure and leave people to find out the back story themselves.  If they are interested they will do it.  These sort of reboots never seem to push things forward, it like the franchise just treads water until hopefully the next film.  But of course Conan 2 will be dependant on box office figures. The film has grossed about 20 million at the moment with an estimated production budget of 90 million.  So I would keep an eye on those figures to see if Conan 2 will ever become a reality.

I like Ron Pearlman but his choice of roles doesn't always seem that great.   He makes a good Hellboy and some of his past films are quite note worthy.  Quest for Fire - is an excellent example, still worth seeing if you have never caught it.

Originally posted by Elsabolts

Looks like Funcom is not having a good weekend there beta launch for TSW did not go to well either.

 Maybe that is what they want you to think??? Part of the game?

http://www.darkdemonscrygaia.com/showthread.php?t=20587

And OP: I expect nothing less from you. If it was a raving success you'd still find a negative relation to AoC. Nothing new here.

I'm ingoring film. Seriously, no Arnold = no Conan.

I think it was an awesome movie.

Full of cliches, one-liners, very bloody and violent, nice women. Some of it was funny as hell, for example the scene where Conan's father rips out baby Conan from Conan's mother's womb by first opening her womb with a knife, then pulling Conan out, showing him to his mother and saying "NAME YOUR SON!". Haha.. Me and my friends laughed so hard. There are many super lame moments like this that just makes the movie very funny. It has some awesome fight scenes too, and it's nice to see well done sword/random object fights these days instead of movies with meaningless shooting/explosion scenes. They are so overdone, and this was very refreshing.

How good the movie is depends on what you expect when you go to watch it. If you expect a movie like The Dark Knight with well-known excellent actors, a very good story, etc. you will be dissappointed. But if you go see it with the expectation that it will be a movie full of good cliches, one-liners (there are MANY!), lots of violence that isn't like the usual arbitrary shooter movie, and scenes that are so overdone it's actually funny, you will be in for a blast. I don't usually enjoy movies that don't have a well written story, but this movie was the exception. But be sure to make up your expectations before you watch it so you won't get dissappointed. For what it was and what it intented to be I think it was very well done. 3D was nothing special though, so better save the money and watch it in 2D.

Originally posted by Elsabolts

Looks like Funcom is not having a good weekend there beta launch for TSW did not go to well either.

 Its just a minor detail, but it was just a sign up event. Not the beta.

The film was terrible, it was worse than conan the destroyer and that's saying a lot. 

The story was very poor, the acting wasn't great (this was expected though), and the worst part was the action scenes were done very poorly also.

I don't see the correlation between the movie and the game, but to me this game died 3 months after launch. 

Well I was not going to see the film,  due to who they casted.  However I read the op's title and it did not equal what he said.

I went to fandago.com just to see the reviews.

375 folks ranked the film so far, and the average was so-so.  I asked a good friend of my who went and he said he asked for a refund. However saying that they had 10 million in sales, and are the 4th on the chart so somebody is watching it.

In fact here is what the critics say

Critic scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more favorable reviews.

• 60
  Time Out New York | Keith Uhlich

  The film's secret weapon proves to be Freddy Krueger?fingernailed witch Marique, whom Rose McGowan plays with the kind of fuck-it-all brio - imagine a cross between Madeline Kahn in "History of the World: Part I" and Lady Gaga - that should garner her a Razzie and an Oscar

• 60
  Los Angeles Times | Betsy Sharkey

  Brutal, bloody beyond belief, and has no socially redeeming value. So it is with a certain amount of guilt that I say it's kind of a wicked blast to watch, especially if you're in the mood for some righteous revenge.

• 50
  Chicago Tribune | Michael Phillips

  It's mostly noise and splurch and, as I mentioned, aaaaarrrrggggghhhhh!

• 50
  Orlando Sentinel | Roger Moore

  Take away much of the myth, most of the sorcery and all of the humor of the 1982 John Milius-Arnold Schwarzenegger version of the sword and sorcery epic "Conan the Barbarian" and you've got an idea what the new "Conan" is like.

• 50
  Entertainment Weekly | Lisa Schwarzbaum

  There's something and nothing for everyone in Conan the Barbarian 3D.

• 50
  Variety |

  The well-executed picture solves the biggest challenge facing those hoping to breathe new life -- however nasty, brutish and short -- into the 79-year-old franchise by finding an actor capable of filling Ah-nuld's shoes.

• 50
  The New York Times | Manohla Dargis

  Mr. Momoa has some awfully big biceps to fill. He rises to that task with a pumped physique made for ogling. Thankfully, he also shows glints of self-awareness that can make hypermasculine blowouts like these more watchable and were largely missing from Mr. Schwarzenegger's wide-eyed turn in the first "Conan the Barbarian" (1982).

• 45
  Movieline | Stephanie Zacharek

  The movie's look is artificially grainy, and most of the scenes are encrusted with CGI - you'd have to chip it away with a chisel to get to anything human or interesting or even remotely fantastical.

• 38
  Chicago Sun-Times | Roger Ebert

  A brutal, crude, witless high-tech CGI contrivance, in which no artificial technique has been overlooked, including 3-D.

• 38
  USA Today | Scott Bowles

  Conan the Barbarian lives

Originally posted by erictlewis

Well I was not going to see the film,  due to who they casted.  However I read the op's title and it did not equal what he said.

I went to fandago.com just to see the reviews.

375 folks ranked the film so far, and the average was so-so.  I asked a good friend of my who went and he said he asked for a refund. However saying that they had 10 million in sales, and are the 4th on the chart so somebody is watching it.

In fact here is what the critics say

Critic scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more favorable reviews.

You can't trust critics at all when it comes to films, I am convinced half of them don't even watch the films.  They churn out the same old blurb and critics scores can be highly dependant on what other business the studio is doing with the people concerned.    Which is why I always look at fan reviews and for the most part this has worked for all films apart from The Dark Knight - never saw what others see in that at all.

Some people are scoring the film highly, but debatable as to whether they are fans or not - perhaps they are now.   But when I read  things like 'I went to see it because Momoa is HOT 5/5' I kind of didn't get the impression they were so much rating the content, as the actor and not so much for his acting talent.

Movie got awful reviews. I trust IMDB more than any source for movie ratings and the users gave it a 5.4. That's awful.

I won't rent a physical disc unless it gets a 7.0 and won't even bother streaming it over Netflix unless it gets a minimum 6.0.

Originally posted by SlothnChunk

Movie got awful reviews. I trust IMDB more than any source for movie ratings and the users gave it a 5.4. That's awful.

I won't rent a physical disc unless it gets a 7.0 and won't even bother streaming it over Netflix unless it gets a minimum 6.0.

5.4 is an average rating at IMDB not an awful one. If you're limiting yourself to only movies with ratings of 6 or over then you are missing some good and even great movies for no good reason by being a sheep.

I can't see the film hurting the game at all. Some will like it, some may hate it. But if nothing else it gets the name out there. The game is doing quite well now on it's own. Will it suffer a drop when the next wave of new MMO's hit? Sure it will, as will all the others out there, but there will still always be a lot of people unable or unwilling to pay a sub, or buy a new game. I was amazed recently when I installed Call of Duty Modern Warfare just to have a shooter going other than TF2, and saw the community is still huge.

What really surprised me is the fact that they haven't done better advertising the MMO, along with the film. Really, how hard would it have been to have a mini trailer just before the film began?

"If you Love Conan and the World he lives in, check out the now Free to Play MMO today at........"

Well I wasn't  going to say anything about the movie. But if you look at it like a movie based on Conan and not some CGI flick it was really good I enjoyed it my whole family did. The thing most people do is go to see a movie and then bash it. Me I personally like any movie but that comes from working in Video stores for a long time and watching all the movies as they came to VHS or DVD but no movie is truely bad its got bad acting or bad this or that is all I ever hear from ost people. To me this movie would be a 8/10 just because I am a fan of Conan and Robert E., Howards writings and he would of liked it.

Originally posted by Kabaal

Originally posted by SlothnChunk

Movie got awful reviews. I trust IMDB more than any source for movie ratings and the users gave it a 5.4. That's awful.

I won't rent a physical disc unless it gets a 7.0 and won't even bother streaming it over Netflix unless it gets a minimum 6.0.

5.4 is an average rating at IMDB not an awful one. If you're limiting yourself to only movies with ratings of 6 or over then you are missing some good and even great movies for no good reason by being a sheep.

5.4 maybe an average of all movies but 5.4 is also an awful movie. That's like saying in a 5 star system the average is around a 2.5, and therefore a 2.5 is a good score. That's false.

And what 'good' movie has below a 6.0 according to IMDB?

EDIT: 6.9 is the current average on IMDB.