Conan the Barbarian

Conan (Jason Momoa) seeks revenge on the cruel warlord who destroyed his village and killed his father.

I like the brutality and the blood splattering violence. But this suffers two major problems. The first is the length of this movie. At almost 2 hours, it is way too long. There is no reason for a 2 hour Conan movie. It feels stretched out, and too slow in many parts of the movie. Too much of the story is a meandering mess.

The second is the comparison between Jason Mamoa and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Jason is no Schwarzenegger. He has half the charm and half the presence. I still like Jason Mamoa, but he's no Arnold.

I do appreciate the attempt. They try their best with a big scale production. The stunts are good. The battles gets pretty big. Stephen Lang is a good bad guy. And Rose McGowan is great as the creepy weird Marique. If only they scale back the running time to a more manageable length. This could have been just good enough to recommend.

Unlike many other thirty-somethings I wasn't that enamoured by the Conan franchise in the 80s. I mean I saw them all and only a few years later was converted to a full Arnie-Fan with Predator, Commando and The Terminator, but his leather loin-cloth and gleaming weapon never did that much for me.

So saying I looked at the reboot with some trepidation is a bit of an understatement. Well here is the almost apologetic square up: Now that I have seen Conan 2011 I wish I caught it in its (extremely limited) cinema run.

Forget Centurion and The Eagle (though The Eagle is perhaps a better film), THIS is what big screen dumb bare-chested action is all about. Put another way; anyone who enjoyed the Arnie originals – or anyone who spends too much time staring at heavy metal album covers – will find much to enjoy here.

Conan was born in the same place he lived – on a battlefield – in a hasty poor man's caesarean amid a huge ongoing bloodbath. As he aged and matured Conan was similarly premature in his battle readiness, beheading his first four savage assailants and proudly displaying them to his proud chieftain Father (Ron Perlman) before his barbarian-balls dropped.

Then on the same day Conan's life changed. Jay Leno announced he wanted his old gig back and… wait, wrong Conan.

On his fateful day Conan's Father died, and the final piece of an ancient mask with supernatural powers was gathered by a vicious murderer named Khalar Zym (Stephen Land), a man with a rapidly growing army of heavily armed followers and aspirations of global domination. With the mask in hand all Khalar Zym needed to fulfil his prophecy was the blood of a 'pure woman', and he, his army and his young witch daughter Marique (Rose McGowan) set off to search for it.

But Khalar Zym didn't tie up one very important loose end. He left young Coney alive to swear vengeance with his final words before his mighty voice broke… What follows is everything you expect from a film with Barbarian in the title. And more. Conan 2011 is violent, blood-soaked and action packed on a suitably large scale, with tough mono-syllabic talk, furrowed brows and heaving bosoms of all kinds.

Along the journey Conan must face a myriad of faceless minions, fanciful monsters and magical creations, all seemingly desperate to leap athletically upon his huge sword. Speaking of huge swords, Conan must also escort the damsel with the afore-mentioned pure blood, a young woman named Tamara (Rachel Nichols), with who Conan shares a 300 style sex scene that sets him apart as the most giving barbarian lover on record.

Jason Momoa does his best as he can as Conan in a role that practically demands that he be wooden and dumb, Stephen Lang is suitably villainous as Khalar Zym and benefits from being surrounded by a menacing menagerie of minions (Hey I love alliteration), and Rose McGowan chews the scenery as the evil witch who is quite possibly 'Daddy's little girl' in a most inappropriate sense.

Final Rating – 6 / 10. I watch too many movies. I now look for reasons not to revisit films and subsequent sequels. I cannot extol Conan as one of the films of 2011 – far from it – but if they decide to make a sequel to this reboot I will watch it, this time at the cinema.

Conan the Barbarian is born in war, a product of blood and steel. Thus the film should be a visceral, violent portrayal of a warrior set against the fantasy backdrop of Robert E. Howard's Hyboria. What emerges on screen is a set of one dimensional characters placed in a world that feels half heatedly brought to life.

The film has been accused of being like viewing a video game. I would disagree. The nature of video games, particularly those of the fantasy and RPG genres, is immersion. There is no immersion here. We flit from place to place in a lame attempt to show the vastness of the world through a mediocre CGI backdrop of a castle or slave camp or pirate city. None are ever fully realised before Conan jaunts off somewhere else. The violence itself is the most disappointing. Nispel manages to create fight scenes that lack the kinetic quality of a dance. The camera is misplaced, the editing focusing on the wrong points. You never feel the hits, the power of the blows or Conan's qualities as a warrior. It feels clumsy.

There are more grunts and warcries than lines of dialogue and those spoken feel like the actors are running them in rehearsal for the first time. There is no commitment to the lines so again the audience fails to immerse in their characters. McGowen in contrast overly plays the sorcerer.

Given this is a reboot, the film does not feel fresh, but instead feels dated. It's almost as though Nispel wanted it to feel like the 1982 version, but taking only the worst qualities and none of the charm. Conan reinforces the assertion of refraining from producing reboots where there is nothing original the writers or director bring to the table. Conan is a stale rehash that will offer no reward to its audience.

Completely flopped at the cinemas and the release on Blu Ray over here was straight to the sale bin. So i could catch it for a few Euros in real 3D, big deal? Yes, because I was surprised by this flick. Don't get me wrong it isn't a masterpiece but it was quit enjoyable. sadly it was released before the main lead done by Jason Momoa was to become a big hit in Games Of Thrones as Khal Drogo.

There are so many well known names to see, Rose McGowan (Grindhouse (2007), Ron Perlman, Stephen Lang that it is strange that this flopped.

Nevertheless, we are stuck with it but the main problem is that many compare it to the original Conan (1982) with Arnold Schwarzenegger a thing I wont do.

I liked the settings and the CGI used, in fact it all reminded me a bit of Games Of Thrones. It also has a bit of nudity here and there and the use of red stuff flying around made it even more interesting.

Don't expect a flick like Immortals (2011) or 300 (2006) or effect flicks like that. If you like good old westerns with the hero riding towards sunset at the end than this is a thing for you.

Gore 1/5 Nudity 1/5 Effects 3/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

Although the set-up of "Conan the Barbarian" (2011) is the same as the 1982 version (raiders destroy Conan's village in Cimmeria and thus the barbarian seeks revenge) the story is otherwise completely different. The villains here are Khalar Zym and his witchy daughter, Marique, who seek to resurrect Zym's sorcerous wife, but they need to acquire the pure blood necessary for their Acheron magic.

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 with convincing swordplay (unlike the contrived '82 version).

• 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 cartoony, over-the-top last act.

• Rose McGowan as the witchy daughter is ee-vil and creepy.

• Ron Perlman as Conan's father.

• 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:

• The film deviates 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 clichéd 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" (1984). This score definitely won't be celebrated 30 years later like Basil's. Why didn't they just update Polerdouris' piece?

• There's 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 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 a sense of 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.

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 a case of violence for the sake of violence, which gets dull by the 90-minute mark, plus the last act is just comic booky overload. The focus on wall-to-wall action limits the film's effectiveness. It lacks the confidence to chill and allow the characters to breathe. Still, it's a somewhat worthy Conan movie. It's serious and brutal; and, thankfully, lacks "cute" characters. It's arguably on par with "Conan the Destroyer" and superior in ways, not to mention leagues better than "Red Sonja" (1985) and "Kull the Conqueror."

The film runs 1 hour, 53 minutes.

GRADE: B-/C+