Amazon.com: Conan The Barbarian (2011): Jason Momoa, Rachel Nichols, Stephen Lang, Rose McGowan: Amazon Instant Video

Conan The Barbarian (2011)

The tale of Conan the Cimmerian and his adventures across the continent of Hyboria on a quest to avenge the murder of his father and the slaughter of his village.

Starring: Jason Momoa, Rachel Nichols
Directed by: Marcus Nispel
Runtime: 1 hour 53 minutes
Release year: 2011
Studio: Lionsgate

Play trailer


	Amazon Prime now includes unlimited, commercial-free, instant streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows at no additional cost.

Synopsis: The tale of Conan the Cimmerian and his adventures across the continent of Hyboria on a quest to avenge the murder of his father and the slaughter of his village.

Starring: Jason Momoa, Rachel Nichols

Supporting actors: Stephen Lang, Rose McGowan, Sa�d Taghmaoui, Leo Howard, Ron Perlman

Directed by: Marcus Nispel

Genre: Action, Adventure, Fantasy

Runtime: 1 hour 53 minutes

Captions and Subtitles: Details

Release year: 2011

Studio: Lionsgate

MPAA Rating: Rated R for strong bloody violence, some sexuality and nudity

ASIN: B005ZO6NRA

Rights & Requirements

Purchase rights: Stream instantly and download to 2 locations. Details

Format: Amazon Instant Video (streaming online video and digital download)

Customer Reviews

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.... Read more ›

25 Comments |

Was this review helpful to you?

Yes

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.

1 Comment |

Was this review helpful to you?

Yes

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 ›

3 Comments |

Was this review helpful to you?

Yes

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.

Comment |

Was this review helpful to you?

Yes

› See all 422 customer reviews (newest first)

Write a customer review

Most Recent Customer Reviews

5.0 out of 5 stars Loved it!!!

I don't remember much about the original movies, but this was awesome!! Acting was good, storyline was great, and there were not any slow or boring parts. Read more

Published 16 hours ago by melissa

2.0 out of 5 stars Has Nothing On The Original

I'm a movie buff, so I had to watch it and it was kinda entertaining. But overall nothing like the original and he didn't even really seem like a barbarian. More like a Pirate.

Published 4 days ago by Nicholas J. Wright