Login
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
