- Amazon Originals Now Playing, For Free: Watch hilarious comedies and lovable children's pilots from top creators, featuring stars you love, only at Amazon Instant Video. See all the shows and let us know what you think.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Special Features
None.
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.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
193 of 229 people found the following review helpful
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
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
36 of 41 people found the following review helpful
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.
17 of 20 people found the following review helpful
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.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
4.0 out of 5 stars
Great Movie.
If you like action packed movies this is the movie to watch. Although, I liked the older version of Conan the newer version is much better in my opinion. Read more
Published 4 days ago by penny
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent remake of a classic!
This remake takes you on a journey from Conan the child to Conan the man. What shaped him and made him the great Barbarian that he was in legend!
Published 4 days ago by Elena Piscitello-Storer
5.0 out of 5 stars
True to Story
This Conan looks like the one Frazetta drew on the covers of the books, great casting.
I love the barbarian brutishness of Conan, the look in his eye is fearsome, and playfull... Read more
I love the barbarian brutishness of Conan, the look in his eye is fearsome, and playfull... Read more
Published 6 days ago by Eric
1.0 out of 5 stars
WORST MOVIE EVER
Sorry but comparisons to Arnold's version are unavoidable. This guy has no charisma and the tale is extremely dark for my taste. Read more
Published 8 days ago by Hermsky
1.0 out of 5 stars
Barbacoa
This movie could have been much with the $40 million budget it had to work with, instead, bad script, poor acting, and even worse CGI.
Published 8 days ago by Q-bert
1.0 out of 5 stars
Poor production
This film had none of the mystic feel that the original movies had. It was a sorry attempt at creating a world which was both believable and magically and the acting was aweful.
Published 12 days ago by Tom the Bomb
4.0 out of 5 stars
Not As Bad As the Original
I remember when the original came out and thinking how great it was, but, by comparison, this version makes the original look like a steaming pile of turds. Read more
Published 12 days ago by Thomas Lhamon
1.0 out of 5 stars
Worse than my crippled expectations!
Though I expected this to be bad, I thought it might be amusing trashy late-night fun. Ridiculously inept filmmaking. Read more
Published 13 days ago by Pep Streebek
2.0 out of 5 stars
Just not CONAN!
Sorry but you just can't remake a GREAT movie in my opinion. This Conan looks like he would've fit in better with Pirates at Disneyland
Published 15 days ago by Ryan Bracamontes
1.0 out of 5 stars
Bad
This was a terrible movie. If you are a fan of the books, or of the Arnie films, just don't do it.
Published 15 days ago by Denver D
Look for Similar Items by Category
|
