Evengyny Thanks for the memories!
Holstra Boring, long, and too preachy.
Iseerphia All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.
Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.
blrnani Things got off to a poor start with Morgan Freeman's unconvincing audio introduction and the pause for Conan's father to perform a lightning C-section on his dying mother in the midst of a violent battle. Then it started looking up, as we see the young Conan as an impetuous anger-filled youth who is already skillful enough to take down a group of marauders all on his own. He is then given good reason to be angry, as a new invader destroys his village and leaves him in an impossible situation trying to save his father's life. the father has the wisdom to end it himself, to assuage any guilt. But there's always revenge as a motive. Then the youth has grown into a hulk (better explained in the Arny version), yet the rage seems to have evaporated, even if the desire for revenge still drives him. Nonso Anozie is a fun character who leaves all too soon (and will be disappointed the flop is unlikely to generate the equel he deserved). Then we meet the ambiguous Rachel Nichols, who one moment is an irable self-sufficient match for Conan and the next is behaving like a helpless screamy slasher movie victim. Stephen Lang's villain is of Shakespearean roots, more prone to explaining his villainy than actually inspiring terror. And as for Rose McGowan's witch, it must make even the most ardent appreciators of her denunciation wonder what Weinstein saw in her in the first place (perhaps weirdness inspires weirdness). The combined result is that, for all the action, one finds oneself not really caring much about the outcome, especially as it is clearly established that good will overcome evil (ok, so Bond always wins, but at least there are convincing obstacles in his way). The whole thing makes me wonder what we reasonably expect from a Conan film. The Arny original is a classic, but despite nice touches and humour the three weren't exactly great movies, let's be honest. I suppose the closest to the ideal was Vin Diesel in The Chronicles of Riddick, with a great warrior who is also clever and whose qualities attract followers to the cause. If he has to be muscle bound then I suppose one thinks of Dwayne Johnson in The Scorpion King. The key is a good story that is convincingly acted (room for humour and romance optional).
lawrenceconwayvulcan Jason Momoa has eked out a career in playing Alpha Males such as Khal Drogo and very soon as Aquaman. In 2011 he gave us his take on Robert E Howard's creation, a certainly more witty take than many would expect. That is not to say this one does not racks up a body count on a quest of revenge against those whose who wiped out his village. Director Marcus Nispel keeps the film to a brisk pace with a succession of fast moving action set pieces. Stephen Lang makes for a hissable bad guy while Rose McGowan plays his creepy daughter who are on a quest to bring their witch wife/mother back from the dead. Rachel Nichols plays a character who might have been played as the typical damsel in distress if were not for the fact that she can handle herself in a fight. 2011's Conan the Barbarian may not be high art but it is more than entertaining.
rdoyle29 Well ... on the good side, this is a suitably R-rated Conan, with quite a bit of gore and a bit of mild nudity. That's all appropriate to Robert E. Howard's vision. On the bad side, this in an intensely, crushingly dull film, and that's probably not what Howard had in mind. This film is a blur of action, quick edits, CGI and cardboard characters. It had numbed my brain into abandoning all attempts at attention after about 20 minutes. Some interesting actors like Ron Perlman and Stephen Lang get lost in the brouhaha. Jason Momoa is on the other hand resoundingly forgettable.
TreeOfWolf I couldn't watch the whole movie, but I doubt it got better.I watched the 1982 version before watching it. Conan became a slave who was forced to be barbaric to survive, but then had the chance to discover the value of his own freedom, friendship... and love. Falling for a woman who helped him fight, as an equal, for revenge and everyone's justice at the same time. She ends up sacrificing herself to save him when he was helpless.The new version is completely different. It shows an arrogant guy who uses the word "woman" in a derogatory way, calling her his property and bossing her around. When she says that she doesn't have to obey him just because he's a man... he freaking gags her! That's where I stopped watching the movie. She had the dignity and courage to stand up for herself, and he wouldn't even listen, forcefully, with no respect whatsoever. That's a horrible message to give the new generation of women and men.I am ashamed that the women rights actually got worse 30 years later! Women are born to live their life, not to serve a man's life. Men shouldn't stay helpless babies needing a mommy to serve them all their lives.No amount of amusing gore can make up for this disaster. I like slasher movies with psychopaths killing sluts and I laugh while they scream. But I couldn't stand watching this respectable woman be degraded. The psychological violence was so nasty that it felt worse than murder. Weird but true. I can understand a psychopath's madness... but trying to make abusing women seem like a normal manly thing to do... it repulsed me.The story is so different that it shouldn't be called the same way, but the film makers probably tried to use the old one's fame to seem more interesting than they tried to be. Lame trick. The old movie had more depth in silent stares than anything that came out of the new Conan's mouth.Stick with the Arnold version. Terminate this horrible remake.Old crap is way better than this new crap.I guess that if you're a misogynist, you won't see anything wrong with this movie.Otherwise, don't bother.
