Conan, el destructor

I have been captivated by Conan's heroic fantasy world for many years. For this reason alone I am rating this film as 6/10. Do not expect a continuation of the first Conan film. 'Conan The Destroyer' is too light in its scope and Conan is not the same man anymore. The villains are also not as menacing.

Having said that it was good to see Grace Jones and Sarah Douglas and also Conan's companions had good lines and were very funny at times.

As a side note I found the adjective 'Destroyer' in the title quite misleading and unfortunate. For those of us that read the Conan novels we see Conan driven by his own motivations, and fighting his battles only if he had to and not for the sake of destroying. The film distributors could have picked something else to promote the movie.

For fantasy-geeks like myself, this 1984 outing of the legendary swordsman is an interesting mix of highs and lows. The cinematography, costumes and settings are a high-point, remaining loyal to Frazetta's incredible illustrations.

Gone, unfortunately, is the first film's solid, adult screenplay. Howard's original, "Nietzschean" Conan is watered-down here, the director deciding to play for laughs (but Conan and his world just is'nt comedic).

Like the dialogue, the casting is sometimes hit and miss. Although Grace Jones (as the wild warrioress Zula) has been criticized as "over the top", she puts in a solid, believable performance. Sarah Douglas also shines as Queen Taramis, although we don't see enough of her! Arnie is adequate, as is Mako (who reprises his role here as a helpful wizard).

The film suffers most from poor special effects (an unforgivable crime for fantasy lovers)! It looks like they spent most of the budget on actors and settings, but even by 1980s standards, the monsters Conan faces were absurd.

Lessons were not learned, ending with the debacle of "Red Sonja" a year later. Arnie admitted that film to be "the worst he ever made". "Destroyer" amounts to harmless entertainment, lacking conviction, but watchable all the same.

This film even though is the second part of Conan the barbarian but it is a damn good film. My kids love it and even I have seen it so many times with them. Arnold is fantastic and so is Grace Jones and Sara Douglass. I wish director Richard Fleischer makes more of this type of films like Conan 3,4,etc., before Arnold gets too old.

The plot moves on at a fair old pace from one big set piece to another and it is clear the film had a decent budget. In fact, I would say that this is excellent bubblegum sword and sorcery fodder except for a few minor, but annoying quirks. For one thing the comedy sidekick Malak is phenomenally irritating, badly acted, and takes any tension, interest etc out of any scene. Clearly they were going for a wider 'family' appeal with this film, but this was also clearly a decision made some time down the filming process. Most obviously this hits home during the fight scenes with some very choppy cutting as some of the more gruesome bits have been removed. And Conan's second encounter with the camel suffers from this too! That aside the cast carry off their roles with aplomb, Grace Jones in particular really getting across her character's zest for and love of combat. One of the better hack and slash films out there.

Oh, I can understand why "Conan the Destroyer" is the way it is. The original, classic "Conan the Barbarian" was a hit, but the Hollywood bigwigs decided they could get x-amount more money if they made a more family-friendly sequel, thereby opening the franchise to the lucrative kid's market (never mind that, for as long as there have been "restrictive" movie ratings, kids have known how to get to see the movies they want). Take out the sex, tone down the violence, crank up the humor, and... out comes this movie.

It's like "Destroyer" is stuck in a state of half-development. The basic storyline would be okay, but the script gives Conan a coterie of unneccessary sidekicks (as if Conan were not a strong enough character to carry a movie by himself). Grace Jones is interesting to look at but gets tiresome VERY fast; the cowardly sidekick gets more irritating by the second; Mako wears this expression like he's only in this one for the money. Olivia d'Abo is just plain miscast: it's like she's a marker that should read "Insert More Interesting Character in Second Draft." Arnold Schwarzenegger does a competent job as Conan, but we don't see the raw power and brute force of the first movie. There is a thin line between competence and complacency, between an actor and a star; it took Roger Moore six years to get to that point in the James Bond series, while Schwarzenegger reaches the same point with Conan in two.

I think part of the problem is whether or not the Conan concept is flexible enough to become family fare, and my answer is "no." Fans of Robert E. Howard's Conan work know his Cimmerian is a very rough-edged hero, a cunning, hard-drinking, hard-fighting man, and the first Conan movie captured that essence. To change him into the simple-minded do-gooder of "Conan the Destroyer" is to destroy what Conan is all about, and the movie suffers for it.

Is "Conan the Destroyer" worth watching? Yes. For someone who knows absolutely nothing about Conan, I suppose it can be a harmless sword-and-sorcery popcorn flick. For Conan fans, it's kind of like "Legend of the Lone Ranger" for Lone Ranger fans: an irresistible example of just how badly Hollywood can treat your favorite character.

I just hope that if there is ever another Conan movie (not likely, thanks to "Destroyer"), the producers will concentrate on following the style of "Conan the Barbarian" and just ignore this one.