Customer Reviews

Conan the Barbarian [Blu-ray]

5 star:		(39)
4 star:		(36)
3 star:		(41)
2 star:		(36)
1 star:		(55)

 

 

Since this 2011 film is a remake/reboot of the '82 version of Conan the Barbarian I'll draw comparisons throughout this review.

Although the film's set-up is the same as the '82 version -- raiders destroy Conan's Cimmerian village and thus the barbarian seeks revenge -- the story is completely different. The villains here are Khalar Zym and his witchy daughter, Marique, who seek to resurrect Zym's sorcerous wife, once they attain the needed pure blood necessary for their Acheron magic (or something like that).

WHAT WORKS:

- Jason Momoa, as Conan, is excellent. Far better than Arnie. It's hard to conceive of a better Conan.
- The Bulgarian locations are outstanding.
- The Costuming is more convincing than the '82 version. Conan's apparel, for instance, is more faithful to REH than Arnie's fur loincloth.
- Better acting than the '82 version, excluding James Earl Jones, of course.
- Brutal, thrilling action throughout.
- Convincing swordplay.
- Corsairs, highlighted by Conan's comrade Artus, effectively played by likable Nonso Anozie.
- Excellent sets/props. It definitely looks like the Hyborian Age.
- Good serious vibe, despite the cartooney, over-the-top last act.
- Rose McGowan as the witchy daughter is ee-vil and creepy.
- Ron Perlman as Conan's father is outstanding.
- The whole opening sequence.
- I liked how the film stressed the closeness and love of Conan and his father. There's a correlation between true greatness and a close relationship with a strong father-figure and his example of excellence.
- You have to give credit to the filmmakers for effectively illustrating Conan's youthful days and life in a Cimmerian village in general, something Conan's creator never delved into in any detail.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK:

- Deviated too much from Robert E. Howard, like the '82 version, although it certainly adhered to REH's overall pulp vibe. I'd prefer to see one of REH's originals put to film, like "A Witch Shall be Born" or "Beyond the Black River."
- Stephan Lang as Zym makes a worthy enough villain for Conan, but he comes off too clichéd and cartooney, especially in the final act. James Earl Jones' Thulsa Doom worked better, likely because he was so unique.
- Rachel Nichols' Tamara is okay, but she doesn't hold a candle to Sandahl Bergman's Valeria.
- The score is serviceable but pales in comparison with Basil Poledouris' score from the '82 version (or even "Conan The Destroyer"). This score defintely won't be celebrated 30 years later like Basil's. Why didn't they just update Polerdouris' score?
- Too much "Modern Blockbuster Syndrome" that appeals to those with ADHD.
- Especially the over-the-top final act, which is way too comic booky. It's cartooney overKILL, pure and simple. But, then again, it did bring to mind REH's "Jewels of Gwahlur," so maybe it's not so far off the mark.
- The 3D format was interesting but unnecessary. Why do theaters burden films with this needless expense?
- The biggest flaw was that there wasn't enough depth. The film needed more 'downtime' to contrast the wall-to-wall action, like campfire scenes (which would better indicate distances), more camaraderie on the ship, more development of Conan & Tamara's relationship, etc. Although it had some of this, it wasn't enough. Action sequences naturally hold more weight when the audience cares about the characters.
- Along with lack of depth was the lack of epic-ness or moving moments. The '82 film deviated from REH but at least it made up for it with depth and epic-ness. For instance, when Conan & Subotai make their stand against the riders of doom or Conan's moving victory salute, not to mention the potent love & death/funeral scenes, etc. This 2011 version had glimpses of this, like when Conan is birthed on the battlefield then raised to the sky and when Conan's father expresses his love with his final act, but -- again -- it needed more.

The film runs 113 minutes.

THE DVD: I have to admit that I enjoyed the movie slightly more on non-3D DVD. Need I point out that the cover of the DVD is Conan to a 't'? The extras include a director's commentary (Marcus Nispel), a commentary with Momoa and McGowan, a 12-minute feature on REH, a slightly longer one on the character of Conan, and a couple of features on the action scenes.

CONCLUSION: The filmmakers got a lot of things right, like Momoa as Conan and the authentic look/feel of the Hyborian Age. The film's not bad at all and pulsates with energy, but it needed more depth, epic-ness and uniqueness to pull it out of its "blockbuster" mediocrity. It's violence for the sake of violence, which gets dull by the 90-minute mark, plus the last act is just cartooney overkill. Here's hoping that there will be a future Director's Cut DVD with important character-defining moments that were needlessly cut for the theatrical release ("Daredevil (Director's Cut)" comes to mind).

GRADE: Visually, this is a Grade A adaption of Conan all the way, but storywise I'd give it a C, even though it has a couple glimpses of greatness. Overall Grade: C+ or B-

Despite it's mammothly disappointing box office take and lukewarm reviews, I still looked forward to seeing this remake/reboot/re-whatever of Conan the Barbarian. In all honesty, the film has a lot going for it, with some brilliant visual set pieces and set designs that wonderfully bring pulp writer Robert E. Howard's savage world to life, but other than that, the film itself feels oh so empty. Jason Momoa (Game of Thrones) stars as Conan, the Cimmerian warrior seeking vengeance for the destruction of his people at the hands of warlord Khalar Zym (a scene-chewing Stephen Lang), and in turn embarks on a quest to save all of Hyboria as Zym's master plan begins to come to fruition. Along for the ride are Rose McGowan as Zym's witchy daughter, and hottie Rachel Nichols as the pawn in Zym's plot; granted neither of them have all that much to work with. In fact, nearly the entire cast of Conan the Barbarian do little to make things memorable, other than Stephen Lang. The film's story is plenty predictable, and despite all the swordplay and blood and carnage on the screen, you never get that same sense of excitement or wonder from the proceedings like you did in the original 1982 Arnold Schwarzenegger film. All in all, this new take on Conan the Barbarian isn't absolutely horrible, but it doesn't have the same heart and soul to it that the original film had.

I am a great fan of the 1982 Conan film with 'Arnuld'. Sure it was not exactly true to the original Robert E. Howard stories but that was not necessarily a bad thing. Robert E. Howard was not exactly accessible to mass audiences. But John Milius's 1982 script captured the essence of the mythical Hyborian Age in which Conan's adventures are set. Supported by a superb cast, an intelligent script, and great direction, the original 'Conan the Barbarian' is an enjoyable film with just enough violence, just enough humor, and a surprising good job of acting by the then young Schwarzenegger to make it a fun motion picture diversion after repeated viewings. Even the sequel, 'Conan the Destroyer' wasn't half bad although it was a disappointment following the much better original. So now we have the 2011 remake.

The new Conan may actually be more faithful the Robert E. Howard but that is not a good thing. The CGI work is ok, the art direction is interesting but with too obviously painted backdrops; The acting is bad, and the script is almost non-existant. Fast and impossible to follow editing takes the place of thoughtful action sequences. The darkness of the lighting, especially on a home TV, makes the action even more difficult to follow.

After a very good introduction, the film degenerates from one poorly staged action sequence after another. The violence is so numbing that it is easy to turn away from the whole enterprise, and you won't miss anything if you take a 10 minute break while the film continues to run on and on. Any viewer empathy for the young Conan is quickly lost after watching one confusing action scene after another.

It is not that Jason Momoa was not a good choice for the title role. He has the right look and the correct stance and the images of him swinging a sword as if it were made of plastic are staged well in the visually stunning sets. I swear that there is one sequence that has him traipsing through King Kong's home cave on Skull Island. As long as Momoa struts his stuff he looks the part ... but then he opens his mouth. Sorry Momoa fans but his voice is not as compelling as Schwarzenegger's deep Austrian accent. This may be the reason why he speaks very little throughout the entire film.

This version of Conan is not worth repeated viewing. The original created a prehistoric world that was fleshed out with character development and great plotting. This version relies on art design and fails miserably.

Yeah, and the producers/writers/director/whomever clearly do not understand the character or stories of Conan hence they do not wield it effectively. As a Sword & Sorcery film it was okay, at best. As a Conan story it was terrible. As with the Milius version we get yet another sentimental version of the character. Conan was many things in his fictional career, indeed he has been a thief, pirate, military and mercenary Captain, even a desert chieftain and finally King. But sentimental? Nope, sorry. Given my experience of reading the character I feel Conan would view sentimentality as a weakness.

I knew something was wrong during the narrative intro by an oddly misplaced Morgan Freeman voiceover (the first time I didn't like him in something). The voice over started off correctly but then deviated wildly from the history of Hyborea. Conan is made to stand out as something special, unique and somehow important. This time he is gifted with near superhuman skills and abilities which takes away from the excitement as you never feel like Conan is ever in danger of actually losing (even though you know he won't) let alone getting injured or suffering. The written character of Conan was not unique, different or special. He actually was an outsider and his father and exile. At fifteen he (for the most part) ran away and eventually sought his fortunes farther south. Conan, at its heart is an everyman tale (if an arrogant everyman). He is not heroic, although his actions could surely often be interpreted as such but more often than not was seeking to better his lot while furthering his ambitions. Mostly he was just a man that kept growing, surviving and gaining skill all though his life until he achieved his goals in Aquilonia and even then had some more adventures. This, to me anyway, makes for a much more identifiable and interesting character.

A note on comparisons versus the 1982 Milius version: Neither of the films are very good Conan films but Milius' worked so much better as a Sword & Sorcery film for various reasons. One being that Conan in that film actually suffered more than once and was in no way superhuman. This one seemed to lack a sense of continuity and I felt like I was simply being dragged from one set piece to the next with little time to reflect on anything. Heck, even the sex scene seemed like a set piece.

A note regarding Jason Momoa: I do think he COULD make a good Conan but I do not think he made a very good one here. Not sure if this was his or the director's fault but running through a film constantly looking angry really makes for a bland hero. Even Arnie got to show a wide range of facial emotions in the Milius version. It may seem like a small detail but it does go a long way to humanizing the character.

Cast notes: Stephen Lang was good as a bad guy. Much more complete a character than Avatar (where he played a pretty one dimensional soldier) and overlooked by Hollywood for too long.

Ron Perlman: Please, I would watch Ron Perlman sitting alone in a room for two hours. He makes EVERYTHING he is in, better.

Rose McGowan, initially, I didn't like her in this, she was weird, creepy and disturbing. But then I realized that is EXACTLY the kind of bad guy witch woman I would want in a Sword & Sorcery flick. I have changed my stance on her and liked her in this film.

Rachel Nichols: Not really needed here. Not that I disliked her, just didn't care for her character and she seemed little more than the "love interest contrivance" for the script. Still, with that bit of a part, I admit she did exude charisma.

A few more notes: The filmmakers apparently pulled from the eight decades of comics and stories as well as the Frank Frazetta images rather than the hugely popular 1982 movie. Yet, the story is VERY similar both in plot and theme to the 1982 one. What the what? Comics and images? There seems to be this major disconnect between what a comic is and how it is interpreted by Hollywood in general. A comic does NOT show the moments in-between, this is something our brains do and it is called closure. Movies rarely have that luxury as they are moving pictures and the in-between (at least within those moments) is laid out for us. Hollywood, in general, clearly does NOT understand what a comic book is. Also, many of the SSoC were based off of L. Sprague DeCamp and Lin Carter stories. What about the guy that created Conan? Remember him? Robert E. Howard. Does his original work have so little merit or influence despite being the actual creator!?! I would argue that the original literary work from Howard (or DeCamp or Carter for that matter) had much influence at all.

Final note: Ultimately I was bored watching this film. So much so I had trouble even watching the third act, compounded by the fact that it was the worst of the three. (Stephen Lang did make a great villain though) What did that mask actually do for Khalar Zym anyway? It sure didn't help him fight any better or survive.

Ultimately a let down and Conan the Destroyer (for ALL of it's faults) still remains the closest to an actual Conan film (if seemingly based on a later Carpenter or Jordan novel) despite its campy tone.

Ok, here's some perspective on where I come from with this whole Conan thing. The 1982 film has a special place in my heart. Always has and always will. It's slow and artsy, also powerful. Growing up a young angry man, Arnold's Conan helped mold my character. I'm not joking, I loved that movie. The Destroyer was bad. Familiar faces were nice but it was ultimately a joke. I had read some paperbacks-none of the original works so my understanding of the source material is limited. But the original movie you could tell was made with so much love and dedication, it was a beautiful film. The revenge story, the evolution from a boy to a man, it was all so inspiring to me as a kid. When the new movie was announced I was reserved in my excitement, although my inner child was screaming with anticipation. This was despite the consistent warnings of childhood friends who panned the new re-imagining as a cash grab. I waited, heard some awful reviews, but then again the original had some bad reviews as well. Then I saw the Conan O'brian interview with the lead (momoa)and thought to myself what a likable chap. And he kind of looks like REH's Conan to boot. The other day I almost bought the blue-ray at Target but fortunately passed on it. I ended up ordering it ondemand. All I can say is I'm glad I didn't buy it. It's sooo bad. The birth of Conan on the battlefield was so unintentionally funny, I actually can say that it was my favorite part of the movie but for the wrong reasons. The rest was forgettable and I fell asleep before the end. It's like an episode of Xena on roids. Shame. The lead wasn't bad, but he wasn't good enough to save this hunk of crap movie. I think I'll be buying the original on blue-ray, my respect for that movie has been resurrected.

I had seen a couple of trailers before going to see this movie and I knew that Jason Momoa from Stargate Atlantis was cast as the lead. I wasn't expecting much. All I have to say is that it delivered everything that I could hope for in a Conan movie. This movie isn't getting enough hype. Jason Momoa does a great job portraying everything that I know about Conan (...I've read about 10 comics and have seen the 80's movies a few times). In my opinion, the acting, the filming, the directing, the scenery and the story were all superb. Five stars... what can I say?.. I'm a big fan of the comic-to-movie adaptations (they're my favorites).

You won't want to take your kids to this... it's a Barbarian movie (a considerable amount of brutal Violence, some nudity). All good stuff :)

There was only one reference to Crom which I found peculiar, though they did mention "the Gods" several times.

This movie was awful... Really, I wish I could say something good about it, I saw it twice to try and find something redeeming, but the cold fact is there isn't anything. Begrudgingly, I must list what's wrong with it.

1. Who is Conan and why do we care?

The movie starts out with some stupid action scene where we're shown how awesome little kid Conan is, after being shown that he is the classic runt of the group. This is conflicting storytelling, but I won't split hairs. We then go into a training sequence where we are shown Conan's one character flaw: his temper. This isn't really important because it's never really brought up as a problem in the rest of the movie. The nice thing about Character flaws is that it not only gives the main character something to overcome, but it also gives the audience a way of connecting with the character. If this element is absent, it makes the story foreign a real audience, and ultimately uninteresting.

After the village no one in the audience cares about is attacked, this bad guy gets the final piece of a mask that's powerful, I guess. The father sacrifices his life for Conan, which is as close to touching as you can get in this movie. After that Conan is basically a grown up. He has a group of people with him and he hates slave traders for some reason that's never explained. We, the audience have no idea why adult Conan is who he is. He's just some guy who fights people.

2. Booooooobs

There are a lot of boobs in this movie, and the actors they belong to have the acting integrity of bad porn stars. The most notable boobs.... I mean actress of this bunch is our leading lady, Ms. Idontcareabouthername shewontbefamousanyway. Playing Conan's romantic opposite, they're romantic element to the movie goes like this: Conan kidnaps her, kills people in front of her, tells her she looks like a whore, and suddenly she loves him. You may be thinking that I'm skipping over a huge element of their relationship, but the sad thing is I'm really not; that's as deep as it goes.

3. Oh Jesus.... The tower....

So of all of the plot holes in this train wreck they call a movie, by far the most obvious and horrible is the tower scene. In order to save his lady love, Conan the horrible actor... I mean Barbarian... must break into the tower of the evil guy. So with the help of a pointless character, he finds a pretty exposed door leading into a dungeon, for some reason. Suddenly the find themselves wading through water that seems to be about 4 feet deep. Despite this, this shallow water holds an octopus monster that is huge. The two are dragged underwater at one point and the 4 feet suddenly are 20... I don't think I can make the problem any more obvious than that. So after kind of fighting this monster(Conan just kinda swings his sword a little) they suddenly find themselves at the top of this tower. That's right, the octopus was the only thing guarding the place. At the top of the tower Conan and the other guy look down to see Conan's lady being dragged across an extremely exposed area, right next to the sea. Then he says that he'd better get down there... Okay, so climbing the tower was pointless? Not only was it unnecessary, but apparently he can get to the bottom just like that?! I was pretty much done with this movie right about at the tower of pointlessness.

But I continued to watch...

4. The mask that does.... Um... Something....

The mask of terrible power turns out to be a mask of terribly boring power. The bad guy puts it on and runs around going "Yarg!" until Conan kills him. That's about all I need to say.

5. The ending.

Literary study lesson for any idiot who liked this movie: When a writer forms a story, he/she is engaging in a contract with their audience. In order to have a satisfying story, you must tie up the loose ends, and give a conclusion that is of an equal value to the struggle your main character has been put through. Ask a professor of literature if you don't believe me. In the end, Conan, doesn't get the girl, no longer has a gang of rag tag rapscallions, and hasn't really learned anything. There isn't really any reason for this, either. He chooses to be alone, and the movie ends with him standing in the ruins of his village. If I didn't think the movie had a point before seeing this scene, the ending confirms how pointless the plot is. I would say this is a spoiler, but I think the movie spoils itself well enough on its own.

"But Blair, I'm only going to this movie for the action..."

Sorry, little Jimmy. The action is just as mindnumbingly pointless as the rest of the film.

There is really nothing good about this movie.

Acting = 1
Special effects = 1.5
Dialog = 1
Action = 1
Plot = "What plot?"
Camera shots = Linear and static
3D = -20


I do owe Conan something though. From now on, whenever I go to a bad movie I can always say: "Well, it wasn't as bad as Conan..."

POST-PRODUCTION 3D (converted from 2D to 3D)

My ratings are based mainly on the QUALITY OF THE 3D, not the video content.

There are about 12 out of screen effects that extend about 10% of the way, from the screen to the viewer. During the opening dialog and title there are 7+ CG effects near 25%. Also, the ending credits have glowing embers floating to a maximum of 25%.

The cardboard cutout syndrome is fairly obvious in this title. Many scenes appear to have only 1 to 3 depths with the background or sides starkly flat. Usually when the syndrome wasn't apparent, the 3D lacked depth and crispness. I don't believe this movie was ever intended to be converted into 3D but if it was, they should not admit it.

On a positive note, there were zero of the single instance 3D flaws normally seen in a conversion (that I noticed). The sandmen scenes were great even though the 3D was about the same as in the rest of the movie. Even with its flaws, the 3D adds to the viewing experience of this film.

MY 3D RATING = GOOD (poor, fair, good, very good, excellent)

Note: As far as the percentages go, everyone's eyes are different. What I see at 25% you may see at 15% or 35%. To fully realize how far something is out of the screen for you, pause on an effect and direct a partner with an extended finger to the tip of what you are seeing. You may be surprised.

Click on `See all my reviews' for the lowdown on other 3Ds

not good, worst movie i have seen in some years. don't send your money on this total lackluster production. it cost 70 million to make and looks like a syfy channel movie.

Oh geez, what can I say but meh. I just say that because I had my hopes set way too high. It was entertaining but I am glad I did not spend $20 to see it in the theater. $2.00 to watch at home is worth it.