Product Details

• Actors: Jason Momoa, Ron Perlman
• Directors: Marcus Nispel
• Format: AC-3, Color, Dolby, NTSC, Subtitled, Widescreen
• Language: English
• Subtitles: English
• Region: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only. Read more about DVD formats.)
  
• Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Rated: R (Restricted)
• Studio: Lionsgate
• DVD Release Date: November 22, 2011
• Run Time: 113 minutes
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (421 customer reviews)
• ASIN: B004EPYZT4
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #13,500 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
• Learn more about "Conan the Barbarian" on IMDb

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com

You think your childhood was rough? Check out the opening 20 minutes of Conan the Barbarian, a bone-cracking coming-of-age prologue that fully explains the "Barbarian" part of the name. The film gets off to a ripping start, including li'l Conan's lethal dispatching of a crowd of restless natives (it's not every lad that returns from camp with the decapitated heads of his enemies dangling from his shoulders) and a great deal of hoo-hah about the forging of swords. As the character grows into manhood, played by Jason Momoa (Game of Thrones), the cascade of brutality continues: boiling oil, nose trauma, death by metal fingernails--you name it, the movie has it. The "origin story" plot is a workable way into the world of pulp writer Robert E. Howard's hero: Conan seeks vengeance for the death of his father (Ron Perlman) and pursues power-hungry Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang, enjoying the fruits of Avatar), who in turn seeks the final piece of a many-tailed magic mask, which will give him untold power. Rose McGowan is all spooky as Khalar's daughter (she's got the fingernails) and Rachel Nichols is an innocent slated to be sacrificed by the evildoers. Director Marcus Nispel rolls out the tech hardware for this relentless action picture, pumping up every sound with a digital whammy that might make your head feel it has been split in two by Conan's mighty sword (that is, if you didn't already feel that from the chaotic cutting--since the movie was originally released in uninspired 3-D, this visual unpleasantness was enhanced in theaters). The movie's not a complete bust, but it is a fairly punishing experience. As for Momoa, he's got the pectorals, and generally comes across as a likable sort. Of course, Conan isn't supposed to be a likable sort, so his casting will likely trigger an unexpected response in viewers familiar with the 1982 version of the character. You will miss Arnold Schwarzenegger. --Robert Horton

Product Description

A quest that begins as a personal vendetta for the fierce Cimmerian warrior soon turns into an epic battle against hulking rivals, horrific monsters, and impossible odds, as Conan realizes he is the only hope of saving the great nations of Hyboria from an encroaching reign of supernatural evil.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

194 of 230 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars Looks great, nice action, but needed more depth September 2, 2011

By Wuchak

Format:DVD

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 ensuing 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 to this effect).

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 from Robert E. Howard, albeit not as much as the '82 version. Regardless, 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 cliched and cartoony, especially in the final act. James Earl Jones' Thulsa Doom worked better, likely because he was so unique.
- Rachel Nichols' Tamara is solid as the female protagonist, 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 and "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 cartoony 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. As it is, it's clear that the filmmakers wanted to make an action flick above all else and this weakens the film.
- 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).

UPDATE: I just finished my third viewing of the movie and, I have to say, I was entertained from beginning to end. Isn't this the most important factor when viewing a movie, particularly an action-adventure one? Yes, it lacks the epic-ness and magic of the '82 version; and its focus on wall-to-wall action limits the film's effectiveness, but it's still a very worthy Conan movie. It's serious and brutal, and -- thankfully -- lacks "cute" characters. It's certainly better than "Conan the Destroyer" and leagues better than "Red Sonja" and (rolling my eyes) "Kull the Conqueror."

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

36 of 41 people found the following review helpful

2.0 out of 5 stars A missed opportunity November 23, 2011

By N. Durham HALL OF FAMETOP 1000 REVIEWERVINE™ VOICE

Format:Blu-ray

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.

14 of 16 people found the following review helpful

1.0 out of 5 stars ...to wield it you must first understand it. December 16, 2011

By Adam B. Krenn

Format:DVD

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. Read more ›

17 of 20 people found the following review helpful

1.0 out of 5 stars Ugh December 1, 2011

By J. A.

Format:Amazon Instant Video

The movie had the potential to be good. It had reasonable actors and a budget that allowed for good costumes, location,sets and fx. However the acting was stiff, the script was...bad...beyond bad. it was anti climactic and predicable.There was no twist, there was no imagination. I can say the only good thing here is the fan service on Jason Momoa's posterior. That's it...and it lasts like .9 seconds. I was disappointed. I don't see a sequel.