Remember me
Forgot password?

Movies: 18470 | TV Series: 3282 | Added Today: 0 | Storage: 65898 GB
REGISTER | SUPPORT | FAQ |
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Search:

Genres Movie

Most Popular

Conan the Barbarian Movie

Genres are ActionAdventureFant Produced in 2011, USA

Conan the Barbarian

Actors
Stephen Lang
Rose McGowan
Ron Perlman
Bob Sapp
Nonso Anozie
Nathan Jones
Raad Rawi
 

Director

IMDB Rating
Marcus Nispel 5.2 out of 10 (30990 votes)
 

Year

2011
 

Available Quality

DivX, Hi Def, Hi Def
 
1920x800 7820 MiB
1280x528 4464 MiB
1 624x256 702 MiB
2 624x256 699 MiB

Storyline

Plot Summary:

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.

Movie Photo

More Movies of this Genre

The Avengers
The Avengers

Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi

The Hunger Games
The Hunger Games

Action, Thriller, Drama

This Means War
This Means War

Action, Comedy, Romance

Battleship
Battleship

Action, Thriller, Sci-Fi

21 Jump Street
21 Jump Street

Action, Comedy

Tim McNeil

22 May 2012

Some good, some bad, lots of influences


It has been a while since I've read any Robert E. Howard or L. Spraguede Camp Conan stories. Author-I've-met-and-had-conversations-withRichard A. Knaak has been contracted to write some very recent Conannovels, but I haven't bothered to pick them up. I like the character ofConan, but there is something very immature about rooting for abarbarian-type to strike out against the "civilized" world; that is onetype of fantasy story.Another is the revenge fantasy, and that is what director Marcus Nispelgives audiences with his 2011 version of Conan the Barbarian. WhereJohn Milius' 1982 version was a pitch-perfect example of how to tell anepic story – perhaps in a more subdued and grounded manner than canwork today – Nispel blends the imagery and pacing from several morerecent films (some of them good), making this effort feel a little likea high budget mash-up. Milius's Conan was a conflicted soul driven inequal parts by his own greed, his loyalty to his companions, and a needto come to terms with his father's death. In contrast, Nispel has aConan who spends the first 22 minutes as a little boy – an extendedsequence that did not work for me – then another 15 or so as arampaging pirate for freedom before he gets on track to seek revenge.Visually, the film is parts Russell Mulcahy's Highlander (1986), TV'sXena (1995-2001; largely in the costuming, but also in some of theaction sequences and Conan as a freedom loving pirate), Nispel's ownPathfinder (2004), Mel Gibson's Braveheart (1995), Stephen Sommers' TheMummy (1999), and a fine helping of scenic vistas reminiscent ofsomeone trying to ape Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy(2001-03). The comic book style blood added to the otherwiseserviceable action sequences didn't help, but that was still muchbetter than the acrobatic (Xena?) sand spawned creatures (The Mummy?)and a fight sequence that does nothing for the movie. A fair amount ofwhat Nispel cobble together works, even in the hodge-podge style headopts, but enough of it was jarring to me to keep me from getting intothe story. Not that there is much to Conan's part of the story. Much of the filmis dedicated to Stephen Lang's Kalar Zym (if his dress wasn't enough tolet me view Lang as a stand-in for an '80s Clancy Brown, they went andnamed his character Zym) and his daughter with an Electra Complex. Noneof it is interesting – not in terms of plot or action. Rachel Nicholsappears to be in a completely different movie – and I am just going toassume there was a body double for a certain scene so that it remainslike she isn't really in the movie – her character a maguffin and afoil to show that Conan isn't just a murderous, brooding thug.There will be people who will really like this movie. I guess, likewith the relaunch of Star Trek (2009), it helps to not have much vestedin the canon of the characters and their universe. However, I didn'tthink there was much in the way of fun to be had with this Conan theBarbarian. Nispel stretched scenes longer than they need to be, andadopts a Peter Jackson approach – from King Kong (2005) – if some isgood, the more is more, and much more must then, finally, be better. Itdidn't work then, and it doesn't now. This is how Conan should look, sokudos for that.Jason Momoa occasionally looks very much like Conan (more thanSchwarzenegger ever did), and he may evolve into a pretty good actionstar. He isn't what is wrong with the movie. Treating Picts as thoughthey are some type of human-goblin hybrid is what's wrong with it. Notfinding a proper balance between cartoonish, camp, and gritty action iswhat's wrong with it. And not trimming about 15 minutes worth of fillerbecause somebody thought the filler looked good is what's wrong withit.If I were unfamiliar with the original Conan the Barbarian (1982), Imight view this as a C+ effort. Compared to Kull the Conqueror (1997),I would rate it a B-. But when viewed in the entirety of Howard's (andvarious other authors) material and how well it had been handled in thepast, I have to put this at the C/C- level. I didn't enjoy it, andthere were parts that really grated on me (like having a secondexpository voice over to start the second act), but I can't view it asa disaster. This is one I think most viewers can wait for onDVD/Blu-ray or to come to premium cable.

silverdragon4

22 May 2012

Far surpassed my expectations


OK, finished Conan the Barbarian (2011) I so hoped that this wasn'tgoing to be a bad remake. And it wasn't. The only two similarities tothe original is the name and the way it began. Everything else was justlike a new film.Stephen Lang (Avatar, Terra Nova etc) as Khalar Zym. He played thatpart perfect. He had the look of evil and used it well. I was wellimpressed by his acting in this. His Armour looked brilliant The main role of Conan was played by Jason Momoa. Not known for hisfilm acting, but mostly for TV series such as Stargate Atlantis andGame of Thrones. Even with only being in a couple of TV films, hisacting was great pulling off a superb role of a Barbarian. Khalar Zyms' daughter Marique was played by Rose McGowan, best know forher role as Paige in Charmed. A nasty piece of work in this film, ANecromancer. The makeup made her look real nasty looking too. Sheplayed a great role. Tamara was played by Rachel Nichols. I don't remember seeing her inmuch, but apparently she had a bit part in Star Trek (2009) and hasbeen in the series Criminal Minds. Now, I have to mention the part played by Ron Perlman. One of myfavourite actors know for his role as Hellboy Also his role in Sons ofAnarchy. And his voice to multiple computer games including theNarrator for every Fallout game, Halo 2&3 and many more. He plays therole of Conans' father Corin. Fantastic actor, fantastic role, even ifit was a short one.The action in this is great. The sword fights will make any fan of suchfilms happy. Lots of blood, some sexual content, great acting, greatstory. All in all a great film. Anyone who liked films like theoriginal Conan the Barbarian, The Scorpion King, Red Sonya...you WILLlove this.

scythempress

22 May 2012

This sucketh


First off who is this guy playing Conan? All I have seen him do isStargate Atlantis. He is too small and too soft to play the mightyConan. R.E. Howar must be spinning in his grave. If you had read, as Idid, all the Conan books years before a Conan movie was ever made, youwould agree. Conan was the largest, meanest, non-god on earth. This guyis like Conan Lite. Just one calorie, not Conan enough. I realize thatacting is a big part and he does that well, but when you look at himyou think, maybe one of the many guys who gets his ass kicked by Conan,but not Conan himself. The story was weak at best. It was like Conan IIwithout the hot babe, or maybe starring Wilt Chamberlain who was also asoft and weak enemy for the mighty Conan. This is another stinkerrating about 10 turds.

fatt1988

21 May 2012

Conan The Retard


I had some doubt on this movie long before watching it. Most movieslike this one always give me disappointment rather than an enjoymentmoment in my life. Anyway I thought about giving it a go and that's it.The prologue of this movie looks promising. However, as the movie goesfurther the story is getting boring and all the actions just lame. Youjust won't be able to catch the action and all of a sudden you only seesomeone died. The storyline is too typical. Conan lost his family andhis tribe, Conan seek for vengeance, Conan meets a girl, Conan saves agirl, Conan 'sleep' with the girl, Conan lose the girl to bad people,Conan saves the girl one more time and they live happily ever after. Ijust wish to see more twist in this movie, not some crappy old-schoolstoryline. Even a remake doesn't has to be the same as the originalsince there is no point in making a new movie with same or similartitle and similar plot. The daughter of Khalar Zym, Marique was shownto possess a great magical power as she summons the sand men (warriorsmade of sand) to attack Conan and his girlfriend but later she nevershows any other magic that she has when she fights Conan and the pureblood at the end of the movie. What kind of sorcerer is that if shecould only use her power once? And Khalar Zym himself, the mask shouldgive him some kind of power but what I see was just a lame swordfighting. Then it would be ridiculous for him to search the mask formany years as it only gives him nothing more than a stupid lookingmask. Never watch this movie if you are expecting more from it.

nnguyen0297

21 May 2012

It's one bloody mess


This film is horrible. As you can tell from my summary, it's far tobloody. We haven't had a film this bloody since Rambo 4! Plus, theaction is to bland, and you don't see anything going on. All thecharacters names are changed except for Conan. And I find James EarlJones character(Thulsa Doom) to be more menacing than StephenLang(Kalar Zym). If someone watched this film without knowing what it'scalled, they wouldn't know it's Conan the Barbarian. It shares verylittle similarities from the original. Plus, they excluded makoImawatsu's character Akiro! He was my favorite Conan the Barbariancharacter. Trust me, you'll prefer the original over this garbage. Igive it 1/5 stars.

stacey_redhead

21 May 2012

Blood Thirsty and kick Ass


Jason Mamoa goes from Game of Thrones to the blood Thirsty Conan TheBarbarian. I found this film had all the key elements to a good motionpicture. Entertainment, Blood, Gore, Violence, Action.. and of courseNudity. Jason Mamoa keeps the women happy being well built, moody,sexily dangerous warrior.. and for the men.. well, there are plenty ofscantily clad women littering the film.I for one thought this film was a good all rounder.. but gave a fewextra points as well... Afterall, I am quite happy just to drool overMamoa :P For the extreme film critics, maybe on some levels this filmwill disappoint, but to be fair.. the film is set on vengeance forConan after being born in a brutal war where his mother was taken andthen his beloved father slain at the hands Khalar Zym who is intent ofmanifesting the powers that be to become a God and claim his belovedback from the dead..at any cost.Conan sheds bloodshed in all that claim allegiance to Zym and setsabout searching for revenge.

stormphire1

20 May 2012

very very underrated action movie


Alright this movie isn't nearly as bad as everyone is making it out tobe. Its CONAN I mean seriously what were you expecting. It haseverything a Conan movie needs. It has Conan, it has boobs, it has asmoking hot chick for him to save, (rachel nichols) it has a smokinghot villain (rose hot ass mcgowan). Did I mention boobs?!?! Oh yea Idid! OK so the story isn't EPIC it ain't Lord of the Rings people itsConan! Aside from him being able to break chains with naught but acasual swipe of his sword its what an action fantasy movie should be. Ifeel like I got my 9 bucks worth. An action movie is supposed toentertain and this movie never failed to do that from the first sceneto the last! However 70 million dollar budget to remake Conan...Hollywood.. Follywood is more like it.. yall didn't really think thiswould do THAT well... did ya? omg... you did!...SMH!!..better luck nexttime!

Shakor77

19 May 2012

Tripe, utter tripe


I can't say that I am a Conan fan but I watched and enjoyed theoriginal movie (and the terrible sequel) and I have read a lot of Conancomics and some books and I like them all, the Arnold original moviethe most.So it was with great excitement that I waited to see this movie as itseemed to have an impressive line of actors but how I was disappointed.Without getting into much details I can just say that this movie makeszero sense and it seems to have been put together to sell only for thename and gore because it has little else.The original movie on the other hand made a lot of sense. Boy see hisparents killed, his mother beheaded and his village destroyed. He wassent to die a slave but his burning feeling of vengeance kept him aliveand made him strong and as a gladiator, trained by the best, and thenlater mercenary he became the mighty Conan.But the movie also showed that he is not strong so to stand alone so hegets help both from lovers and friends as they help him get hisvengeance. An awesome movie which was made even better with Arnoldsbody builder muscles, embodying the "invincibility" of Conan.This movie on the other hand explains very little. Why is Conan thisfeared warrior? He was born (literally) on the battle field but howdoes that make him a great swordsman? Where did he get the skills, evenas as a young boy, to kill adults? What is the secret of steel whichthe original movie answered but here is left un-answered.None of this is explained but rather the movie seems to assume thatConan is what he is because he is well... Conan. Stupid. Which is whatthis movie is.

karnasaur

19 May 2012

Never has a film angered me so. CROM! (very slight spoilers)


Crom! I cannot get how bad this new Conan movie was out of my head! Howbad was it? It was a Conan movie made by people who have never seen aConan movie or TV show, or read one of the numerous Conan novels orcomic books. It's like someone described them, generally, to thefilmmakers instead. Conan says "Crom" exactly zero times in the film.Cimmeria looks like Hobbiton, and the "barbarians" there have ametallurgy industry that would have shamed the 18th century. JasonMomoa, Conan here, can play an excellent barbarian, I've seen him do itin Game of Thrones. Rachel Nichols is good in everything she's in...why oh why does she only appear in garbage? Please, some director whoisn't completely awful, give this woman a role! Why was Rose McGowan,not an ugly woman, IMHO, turned into a hideous freak here? Why not justhire a hideous freak? Stephen Lang can be an effective baddie when anot completely incompetent director like James Cameron is calling theshots. Crom! And why did adult Conan, in his first scene, free those slaves? Was hea Hyborean Age anti-slavery crusader or something? The scene baffledme. He didn't even rob anybody! It would have taken 2 seconds toexplain that a friend of his or a girl he liked was captive there, butno. Conan's just a good 'ol 21st century hero here! Oh! And Morgan Freedman as narrator? What on earth were these peoplethinking? Yes, when I hear Mr. Freedman's honey-soft southern accent, Ithink of the Hyborean Age, whither came Conan. Was he hired as somesort of meta joke? They should show this film in film schools as an example of a filmwhere every single thing, every single shot, is done wrong.And Maestro Bates, who did the music, what the hell? Is he somebody'scousin or something? And Jason Momoa kills a guy with molten metal... again! Who'd havebelieved that that kind of thing can happen to the same guy twice?(Sort of, you know what I mean. If you've seen it, that is.) And thanks for all the little homages to the real Conan movie (Conanthe Barbarian, 1982, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, directed by JohnMilius. I love this film.). Being reminded of how similar scenes canwork when the filmmakers aren't complete morons improved the film somuch for me! Gosh darn that Arnold was good! Wish he was here! ThatMilius guy sure could film a battle! Was he busy or something? (checksIMDb...) No.At least it had lots of blood and lots of naked chicks running around,like a Conan movie should (making this, improbably, a better film thanConan the Destroyer). But even that was done wrong. Rachel Nicholsshows the world her lovely lady nickels, but the troglodyte filmingthis thing films them in such a way that it looked like they were usinga body double! Body Double, by Brian dePalma, is an excellent film,BTW. Was Brian busy? (checks IMDb...) No. Apparently they spent 90 million dollars on this failure. Not a merefiasco, no, a failure. This is the biggest waste of money since theIraq war. You know what would have been a better film? They could havemade a stack of 90 million dollars they spent on this abortion, in 20dollar bills, and set it on fire. In front of this burning stack youcould have had Rachel Nichols read the script for the atrocity that isConan the Barbarian (2011) while Jason Momoa ran around said pyre in aloincloth, waving a sword and shouting "Crom!" occasionally. And everytime something incredibly stupid happened in the script, Rachel wouldremove an article of clothing. She'd be naked within 30 minutes. Iwould watch the heck out of this movie. Oh! And, at the end, MarcusNispel, Danny Dimbort (his real name? Sorry!), George Furla, Eda Kowan,Trevor Short, and Henry Winterstern, the director and producers of theunfortunately real Conan the Barbarian (2011), would be driven forth inchains and murdered by Jason Momoa with molten lead. Hurray! The hopelessly inappropriate soundtrack would still be done by TylerBates, but right at the very end, as a stinger maybe, he would bemurdered by the axe-wielding ghost of Basil Poledouris.In summary, I did not like this film.Please, Arnold and John, make King Conan! You're not busy and the worldneeds it!

george.schmidt

18 May 2012

Better-than-expected and brutally violent bloodletting origin story of the pulp fiction/Marvel Comics' warrior hero


CONAN THE BARBARIAN (2011) *** Jason Momoa, Stephen Lang, RachelNichols, Ron Perlman, Rose McGowan, Leo Howard. Better-than-expectedand brutally violent bloodletting origin story of the pulpfiction/Marvel Comics' warrior hero cum remake with Momoa fitting intoAh-nold's sandals nicely as the beefcake barbarian out to vanquish themurderer of his father (respectively Lang having a field day & Perlmanat his burliest) and saving a virginal princess (the lush Nichols) inthe process . Director Marcus Nispel gets all the graphic but none ofthe novel thanks to the flat-footed screenplay by Thomas Dean Donnelly,Joshua Oppenheimer and Sean Hood. But the film's saving grace (and no,not the hit-miss 3-D) is McGowan as Lang's sexily evil witchy offspringwith her delish Lady Ga-Ga homage if you will; bewitching indeed

Evgeni Petrov

16 May 2012

Bad on 3D good on DVD


Launching this film on 3D was it's biggest mistake. The 3D is poorlymade, it just makes the film dark and gloomy. From what I read this isthe main reason the movie is getting so many poor reviews. Renting iton DVD however would prove a much better choice. The visuals and thefight scenes are decently done (except for some parts). The scriptisn't original, but I wouldn't expect more from a mainstream movie inthis genre. The fighting is what this movie is all about - it's brutaland it doesn't stop until the end. On the bad side - the movie ispredictable and very simple. 6/10 for the DVD version.

Lord_Fecal_Matter

16 May 2012

If only they made movies for kids like these more often...


I'll be honest, it grabbed me like no other film, other than maybe ET.Which I saw as a young man, and still like it a lot. It's anoutstanding, though occasionally boring, film. The plot and unfoldingstory is much better than other fantasy adventure type films. In fact,I'll say it's up there with Lord Of The Rings. Yeah I said it! Though Ireserve the right to bequeath the Lord Of The Rings one and half stars.If you have a kid (7-9), they'll love it for sure. But it's not a Grated kids movie. There are brief PG13 related scenes (harmless), and alittle violence (almost all justifiable, except, OK most of it isn't),and maybe a kid or two being thrown into a pit of flames (sets a tone).But there is nothing truly inappropriate for a kid in the movie, and nokids get their limbs ripped off. it really is an incredible story. Rentit once it becomes available. This, along with ET, Final Destination 5,The Change-Up, and Transformers: Dark of the Moon, truly made my summermovie experience.

radoscvetic

16 May 2012

Was that Conan?


The first series created good characters, and epic action scenes forthat time. Honestly watching this movie I had certain expectation andhopes that this will be something similar boosted with good CGI! Boy,was I wrong!First of all, I am not sure why the youth of Conan has been completelyrewritten. Not to mention the poor result of it. I was reallydisappointed with that bold intention of the movie that failed tomaterialize properly. Dynamics of the action scenes is poorly executed and what is presentedto the viewers is just a guy wielding a sword and hitting what ever isin his way without a concrete purpose. Conan does not look like afierce and merciless warrior. He is presented as an overly righteousand a good boy. Script has many flaws that I don't know where to begin. Some scenesjust made me laugh! i.e. first encounter with the evil king (forgot hisname) where he actually comes alone with his daughter to get thepure-blooded from Conan. Also when pure-blooded is sent to give the mapto Conan that he somehow managed to leave behind. Random andunnecessary scene of a ship invasion by the evil king forces and so on. CGI was sad. The monster scene consisted of Conan ducking the tentaclesnot moving an inch. Fog rather seemed as an ice cream. When movie ended I was glad it was over. Even having almost 30 year inbetween I would still recommend original movie rather than this poorpoor new flick! (sorry for my bad English!)

poisoncupcake74

15 May 2012

Excellent movie!!!


I don't know why this has so many bad reviews unless its because peoplegenerally do not like remakes.This however is WAY better than the 1982 version and its a shame morepeople aren't going to see it if they are swayed by the bad reviews.Jason Mamoa is actually a good actor, way better than ArnoldSchwarzenegger and there are NOT ridiculous one liners thatSchwarzenegger is famous for. The story is awesome and there is actionthroughout the entire film, it has fantastic Gore as well as comedicmoments, and it wasn't boring at any time.The ONLY part I didn't like, which is why I gave it 9 out of 10 starsis because of the way he leaves his beloved. Everyone in the roomwatching it with me was like "Really?" They shared a lot in the filmand he leaves her with nothing more than have a nice life? That was theonly flaw.I recommend this film, it is very entertaining, funny, action-packed,romantic, nice Gore, and a couple parts are frightening and sad.Everything you want in a movie, with Jason Mamoa's gorgeous bodyincluded.

Wuchak

14 May 2012

Looks good, nice action, but needed more depth


Since this 2011 film is a remake/reboot of the '82 version of Conan theBarbarian I'll draw comparisons throughout this review.Although the film's set-up is the same as the '82 version -- raidersdestroy Conan's Cimmerian village and thus the barbarian seeks revenge-- the story is completely different. The villains here are Khalar Zymand his witchy daughter, Marique, who seek to resurrect Zym's sorcerouswife, once they attain the needed pure blood necessary for theirAcheron magic (or something like that). WHAT WORKS: - Jason Momoa, as Conan, is excellent. Far better than Arnie. It's hardto conceive of a better Conan.- The Bulgarian locations are outstanding.- The Costuming is more convincing than the '82 version. Conan'sapparel, for instance, is more faithful to REH than Arnie's furloincloth.- Better acting than the '82 version, excluding James Earl Jones, ofcourse.- Brutal, thrilling action throughout. - Convincing swordplay.- Corsairs, highlighted by Conan's comrade Artus, effectively played bylikable 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 hisfather. There's a correlation between true greatness and a closerelationship with a strong father-figure and his example of excellence.- You have to give credit to the filmmakers for effectivelyillustrating Conan's youthful days and life in a Cimmerian village ingeneral, 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 tosee 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 hecomes off too clichéd and cartooney, especially in the final act. JamesEarl Jones' Thulsa Doom worked better, likely because he was so unique.- Rachel Nichols' Tamara is okay, but she doesn't hold a candle toSandahl Bergman's Valeria.- The score is serviceable but pales in comparison with BasilPoledouris' score from the '82 version (or even "Conan The Destroyer").This score definitely 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 withADHD.- 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 bringto mind REH's "Jewels of Gwahlur," so maybe it's not so far off themark.- The 3D format was interesting but unnecessary. Why do theaters burdenfilms with this needless expense?- The biggest flaw was that there wasn't enough depth. The film neededmore 'downtime' to contrast the wall-to-wall action, like campfirescenes (which would better indicate distances), more camaraderie on theship, more development of Conan & Tamara's relationship, etc. Althoughit had some of this, it wasn't enough. Action sequences naturally holdmore 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 withdepth and epic-ness. For instance, when Conan & Subotai make theirstand against the riders of doom or Conan's moving victory salute, notto mention the potent love & death/funeral scenes, etc. This 2011version had glimpses of this, like when Conan is birthed on thebattlefield then raised to the sky and when Conan's father expresseshis 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 onnon-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), acommentary with Momoa and McGowan, a 12-minute feature on REH, aslightly longer one on the character of Conan, and a couple of featureson the action scenes. CONCLUSION: The filmmakers got a lot of things right, like Momoa asConan and the authentic look/feel of the Hyborian Age. The film's notbad 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 bythe 90-minute mark, plus the last act is just cartooney overkill.Here's hoping that there will be a future Director's Cut DVD withimportant character-defining moments that were needlessly cut for thetheatrical release ("Daredevil Director's Cut)" comes to mind).GRADE: Visually, this is a Grade A adaption of Conan all the way, butstorywise I'd only give it a C (for Cartooney), even though it has acouple glimpses of greatness. Overall Grade: C+ or B-

punisher5150

14 May 2012

Not Arnold's Conan!


This Conan is different. The movie itself will ultimately be comparedto the 80s version. How does it stand? They are very differententities. However does that make it bad? No it does not. Jason Momoacaptures Robert E Howard's Conan pretty well! There will be somenitpicking (no blue eyes, straight black hair, etc), but his Conan wassavage and could be brutal. I was disappointed with the revengestoryline (Arnold's movie did that better), but the rest of the moviewas a great set of action pieces. The Hyborian Age was depicted muchcloser to REH's description than the 80s movie. The villain was good,the villainess (daughter of the villain) was interesting. Ironicallythe villain's motivation was to resurrect the with-queen of Acheron tobecome immortal, which was a plot of the previous Kull the Conquerormovie from 1997. There was some weakness with the plot itself anddirecting by Marcus Nispel. He is no John Milius. But the movieentertained and there was glimmer of what could be an awesome cinematicinterpretation of REH's character if the franchise is allowed tocontinue. My biggest complaint is the soundtrack. One thing Arnold'sConan movie had was the best barbaric fantasy soundtrack any moviecould ever muster. When Millennium bought the rights to the franchise,they should have gotten Basil Polidouris's thundering music to boot. Ifyou're a fan of sword/sorcery and fantasy, don't pass this one up justbecause you have fond memories of the 80s Conan. This film is betterthan the second movie in that series and other REH adaptations (exceptpossibly Solomon Kane, which needs to get some kind of U.S. release!)

digitalbeachbum

14 May 2012

I dislike half assed scripts


I can't say enough bad things about this movie that would make it worthmy time and effort.This movie lacks so much that I will never admit that I watched themovie. After seven years in production they should have written it offand sacked the entire production.The special effects sucked or weren't needed. The script is lousy. Thedirecting is lacking ability. The acting is OK, but ends up being blahin the end.I'll never own the DVD even if it is a gift. I'd resell it or return itfor cash to buy a better movie.

mythago

13 May 2012

By Crom!


Look: it's a mindless, fun, brawny adventure flick. It's not directedby Merchant Ivory. It has a location set at Skull Cave, for crying outloud. If you're looking for a fun sword-and-sorcery movie with likableheroes, evil villains and a basic but serviceable plot, this is it. Theacting is fine for the limited range the characters get, with theexception of Rose McGowan, who does an amazing job with Marique. KhalarZym is a villain who is actually believable as a threat and not simplea hand-wringing evil overlord. And if you're looking for eye candy,there's something for everyone.The opening background sequence withConan as a young boy is particularly well-done and really sets thecharacter. Nobody's going to be able to really transpose Howard'stwo-fisted adventure prose to the screen, but the film does more than ahalf-decent job of capturing the flavor of the setting and the broad,simple lines of the characters. Well worth a Saturday matinée or a DVDat a party.

khalazdad

13 May 2012

Back to Robert e. Howard


If you like the Conan story as developed by Robert E. Howard and thelater novels, you will love this film. It has all the elements of theHoward Conan - he' smart, arrogant, and powerful. I don't know why themakers of this movie created such an awful trailer that misleads youinto taking it for a remake of the Schwarzenegger movie - this isanything but.The 3-D is good enough that I eventually forgot about it, although itmakes some of the action sequences muddy. And some of the drama couldhave been played up more - we never got the sense of the world being inperil that the narrator tried to suggest. Even so, this is anintroduction to the character - a reintroduction that has to undo thework of the Arnold character (not Conan).Overall, a very likable movie with a lot to offer. I hope there will besequels.

hedge-trimmer

12 May 2012

Bunch of good actors set adrift by nonexistent screenplay and directing


Most people expected from this movie "two hour episode of Xena". No, itwas not that bad. As a fan of Howard and first '82 Conan, I went totheater with pretty strict standards. At the end, it was not wastedtime. I enjoyed many things, but not the movie as a whole. First part,with young Conan and a great Ron Pearlman as his father, is pureenjoyment. Unfortunately, that's it. Momoa has the physique and I amsure he is a decent actor, but director does not work with him. At theend he comes off as a weak copy of Schwarzenegger's Conan, who somehowmanaged to put the whole strength of character into one stare into thecamera. It is altogether good, that Momoa portraits the Conan afteroriginal Howard's novels - not just as brutal ball of muscles withsword, but also as bold thief and clever pirate commander. I thank thescreenwriter for that. But he talks like New York's street gangster,and generally, talks too much. The girl -spoiler alert- which becomesConan's love interest, is so generic and weak, that her role could bedone by blow up doll. -end of alert- At the end, it is the villains,who are interesting. Stephen Lang is surefire choice for main villain,but the screenplay allows him not much. Also, the makeup seems toretract much from his impressive looks. Rose McGowan is hot and lovelycrazy, and is also the only actress, who seems to really enjoy herpart. Fights are acceptable, the gore is just right amount of over thetop to be enjoyable, but the visual part of the movie is somehowlacking. Mainly, the large opening scenes looks too much fake. Ihonestly believe, that, similarly to "Sound of thunder" this Conan willactually look much better on DVD, where a lot of inconsistence will behidden.

Copyright MovieThone © 2002-2012 All Rights Reserved.