Conan the Barbarian Reviews

The 2011 "Conan the Barbarian" is testament to why John Milius had every right to change the source material so much when he first brought the character to the big screen back in 1982 under the same title. Milius has long been lambasted by Conan loyalists for making a survivalist's version of Conan, more concerned with mirroring people and cultures our past than the sword and sorcery action morsels that Robert E. Howard wrote at spitfire rates.

Little they they consider that in doing so Milius imbued Conan with a personality that, if we're going to be honest, was severely lacking from the Cimmerian brute on paper. While the Conan adventures were fine piecemeal, if one were to read them back to back they suffered from repetitiveness and an over-dependence on action and tropes that Howard not only brought to the forefront but, at times, created himself.

Make no mistake, I'm a huge Conan fan and was delighted when the full versions of Howard's work became accessible not so long ago. Admittedly, I always wondered what a faithful version of Conan (or at least one extremely loyal to the spirit of the tales) would look like. That being said, I also have an undying love for Milius take on the character and world of Hyborea. So much so, that it remains one of my favorite movies to date.

I was very excited when I first heard that a new Conan movie was being made and that intentions were to make it more akin to the stories of old. Finally, a world were i could have my cake and eat it too! Alas, the red flags began going up relatively quick soon after it was announced.

Warning number one: It was being produced by notorious penny pincher Avi Lerner, a man renown for b-grade, low effort movies and a penchant for trying to get big names for bargain prices. Warning number two: He went through several directors (seemingly settling on Brett Ratner for a while which would of been a red flag of its own) until finally settling on Marcus Nispel. Nispel is basically known for failed originals and several remakes. Were it not for the success of his debut feature (also a remake) he would of long ago vanished.

However, stranger things have happened and my hopes weren't entirely dashed. Was it worth the wait?

In short, no. Not one bit.

I wish i could say the movie is a car crash in motion but that would give the impression that it could, at the very least, be remotely interesting in an alternative fashion. If i had to give a single praise to the movie it's that it does capture the relentless action, muscles and blood, damsel in distress being the target of some ancient evil, over the top locations and other tropes of Howard's work quite well but in doing so shows why the glaring faults in that selfsame work. Most glaring among those, substantial characters. Everyone in this movie is as razor thin an archetype as they could conjure up.

As it stands "Conan the Barbarian" is a paint by numbers version of the character. Everything a Howard reader would expect is there but it fails to feel relevant even when the story (anemic though it is) tells you it is. What's worse is that, in a bid to inject some life into this husk of a movie, the screenwriters just cribbed from the Milius classic and it served as a constant reminder of why that version was great and this one falls grossly short of the goal.

Someone not familiar with Howard's writing could easily say that the movie tries to make up for what it's lacking by pumping it full of action but Howard was guilty of the same. That being said, Howard was adept at creating vivid imagery. Nispel creates visual noise that's boring to look at.

It's not even worth getting into the badly staged scenes, the almost video game level effects, the horrendous props, and the lackluster score because it would suggest there is a coffin to slam nails into. No, there was no need for a coffin, this thing was not only dead on arrival, it was dust in the wind.

1.5/10

Even though I didn’t expect much from this flick, since I really loved the older Conan movies as a kid, I still wanted to check this one out. To be honest, it was not that bad after all. Indeed, Marcus Nispel has become a remake expert and it was already his 3rd one (after ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ and ‘Friday the 13th’) but I have to admit it, the whole thing looked pretty good. Then, the biggest obstacle was to replace Arnold Schwarzenegger and, honestly, I thought that Jason Momoa did a decent job. Unfortunately, the 2nd half was really weak and I was seriously almost falling asleep. Indeed, Conan keeps meeting his nemesis but, instead of finishing it, they kept postponing their final showdown. I mean, the main character even gets to his stronghold with his sidekick, battles a huge monster, to finally discover that the guy has already left the place… Before that, the movie was not really great either but it faithfully followed the formula and Conan was definitely a merciless warrior but they just couldn’t keep up and messed up the 2nd half. Eventually, it became another failed attempt to revive an old franchise and, now, since good old Arnold is back in the game, they are talking about bringing an new installment with the original Conan this time. Anyway, even though it was better than I expected, it was still really average and I don’t think it is really worth, except maybe if you are a die-hard fan of the genre.

"When a Cimmerian feels thirst, it is a thirst for blood. When he feels cold, it is the cold edge of steel. For the courage of a Cimmerian is tempered: he neither fears death... nor rushes foolishly to meet it. To be a Cimmerian warrior, you must have both cunning and balance as well as speed and strength."

It would be erroneous for you to approach 2011's Conan the Barbarian believing it to be a remake of the 1982 Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle of the same name. The 1982 picture was pure camp; a cheesy, not-to-be-taken-seriously fantasy romp with Arnie playing his usual screen persona rather than the character of Conan as originally envisioned. Disposing of campy '80s instincts, director Marcus Nispel and writers Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer and Sean Hood went back to the source for this 2011 flick to produce something closer to Robert E. Howard's original Conan stories. Lavish, violent and vicious, this Conan the Barbarian is the movie that Howard's followers have been waiting for.

Born in the middle of a battle and raised by his Cimmerian warrior father Corin (Perlman), Conan (Momoa) grows up to be the fiercest, most skilled fighter in his tribe. During Conan's childhood, an evil overlord known as Khalar Zym (Lang) and his sorceress daughter (McGowan) raid Conan's village seeking the final piece of an enchanted headdress. In the process, Zym kills Conan's father and destroys everything the boy knows and loves. Years later, Conan still looks to exact revenge on Zym, and traverses the lands developing his skills as a barbarian. During his travels, he winds up defending a young female monk of pure blood named Tamara (Nichols), who's being pursued by Zym.

With its standard-issue revenge plotline and no twists or surprises, there's nothing much in Conan the Barbarian that you haven't seen before. In fairness, though, Howard's first Conan stories were released in 1932, so it would be virtually impossible to be original when dealing with such ancient source material. Plus, the character of Conan has never been associated with complex stories; he's known as a barbarian, after all, and thus he spends his time slaughtering people. To the credit of the writers, 2011's Conan the Barbarian does a great job of for the most part keeping Conan Conan. Admittedly, however, some of the dialogue is pretty terrible and at least a bit of innovation would have been nice.

At the helm of Conan the Barbarian was Marcus Nispel, who directed the unforgivably bad 2007 Viking film Pathfinder. Nispel's presence behind the camera here did not inspire a great deal of confidence, but it seems that the director is improving in the art of creating cinematic junk food. Conan the Barbarian has tonnes of action, most of which was handled well by Nispel. There's a lot of gloriously violent carnage to behold, on top of epic battles involving sand creatures and sea serpents. The picture was produced on a bold budget of around $90 million, and therefore it's aesthetically pleasing - solid CGI permeates the film, bringing this swords-and-sorcery world to vivid life with extravagant results. On the other hand, though, Nispel still has a bit to learn. A number of action beats are marred by shaky-cam, close-ups and rapid-fire editing, while pacing issues do arise from time to time. Most critically, the tone is uneven - some battles are delightfully violent and satisfying, but other instances of violence feel sadistic and uncomfortable.

At least in this reviewer's mind, a lot of scepticism surrounded the choice of Jason Momoa as the titular badass. However, against all odds, Momoa is an excellent Conan; intense, convincing and always in-the-moment. He matches the role physically, and he has that gleam in his eye whenever the character is in his barbaric element. While his screen presence is not quite as strong as Schwarzenegger's, Momoa is a better actor than the Austrian Oak ever was. Leo Howard also deserves a mention for playing baby Conan; he inhabits a good 20 minutes of screen-time, and makes a good impression. Meanwhile, Avatar's Stephen Lang is effectively sinister and scene-stealing as Khalar Zym. Indeed, Lang demonstrates here yet again that he's a reliably badass antagonist. Alongside Lang is Rose McGowan, who's at her scenery-chewing best playing Zym's sorceress daughter. Rounding out the cast is a strong Ron Perlman as Conan's father, and Rachel Nichols who's rather forgettable as the token love interest. Morgan Freeman is also on-hand as the narrator; a job he fulfilled magnificently.

Those who've based their affection for Conan on Arnie's linguistically-challenged version probably shouldn't bother with 2011's Conan the Barbarian. And those without a taste for action who enjoy something subtler should not go anywhere near this production. However, if you're seeking an enjoyable action romp, this picture will serve your needs nicely in spite of its flaws. It has been criticised for being overly violent, but hey - it has the word "barbarian" in its fucking title, so tasteless barbarianism comes with the territory and toning this shit down would be stupid. Considering its strengths, it's a true shame that this Conan the Barbarian failed at the box office; it could've been the start of a new big-budget Conan franchise. Instead, what we have is just a strong origins tale that's unlikely to lead anywhere.

Note: This reviewer did not view the film in 3-D, but by all accounts the extra-dimensional effects are utter bollocks.

6.5/10

I personally think that the Arnold's Connan the Barbarian was better movie. This new movie is Jason Momoa's quest that begins as a personal vendetta. Jason Momoa as Connan on the quest to avenge his father's death and as the movie progress things got intertwined and he end up saving the Royal Blood from the clutches of Khalar Zym.

While this movie had all the items of a good Conan story, scenery, fighting, sorcery, it was flawed in its telling of it. Rose McGowan (Marque) did a horrible job, jerky, uninterestingly dull acting. Bob Sapp (Ukafa) was a sterotypical backup actor. I could go on about acting and the directing ... horrible. Jason Momoa (Conan) actually did a good job, and Ron Perlman (Corin) did as well. The scenery was amazing, I just wish I hadn't seen it in 3D, it was a waste of the technology; making everything darker and less vibrant.

In all the storytelling was a jerky, discombobulated mess of a what should have been an epic. I'm sure the writers are as horrified as I am.