:asterisk_symbol::asterisk_symbol:Random Thoughts on A F’n Random Film:asterisk_symbol::asterisk_symbol:

It’s a shame this version has none of the charm or wit of the Arnie original.
I blame Khal Momoa - he hasn’t the charisma at this point in his career to be other than a one-dimensional muscle-freak.
And even Arnie managed to raise a laugh - Jason didn’t even punch a camel!

[spoiler]Spudgun from Bottom gets his nose chopped off by a child and then is torn limb from limb by an angry mob! [/spoiler]
(So pretty much what he was used to with Ritchie & Eddie then?)

Conan clotheslined a mounted man... with a battleship chain! :open_mouth:

I fully expected the coach to explode during the horsey chasing sequence. Very exciting - but quite ludicrous.

In an age before Oil of Ulay and Botox, the skin of the (many) stunning women looks incredible - must be those ancient heathen gods they worship and no artificial sweeteners.

Nathan Jones was a crap pro wrestler, a crapper MMA fighter, but at least an adequate monster-goon in fight scenes. Ditto Bob Sapp.

Queen Amidala really needs to lay off the hard drugs and emo music. But she is hot, in a worrying, Freddie-Krueger-style way... :rolling_eyes:

Arnold forever when it comes to Conan. That being said it wasn't completely awful. It was ok. I lvoed how he was born. That was an excellent addition. NO ONE's voice could beat James Earl Jones for narration and for that of my villain. Mr. Freeman did try though but I did not feel the story in my heart when I heard the words. Transition from a boy to a man ...here the original is exponentially better. There was a lot of fighting and it was cool. There was a lot of talking that was in my opinion a little too much. Conan's characater in this one seemed a bit underdeveloped some how. You don't get the sense that he was learned all that he needed to to be the man that avenge his father. His father appeared to be mentally and physically strong. Conan seems like he is physically strong but still a little boy mentally. I lacked the presence that would convince me of it. I loved this actor as Draka in "Game of Thrones" though. The romance was a little too mushy for me. I perfer Conan to be strong, smart and a masked sensitivity; who loves HARD. If I had I never seen the first one this would have been great. Soceress daughter was cool. Action was cool. Zim was disappointing. He did not at all seem anywhere near super human even with his mask. All in all it was good for a one time watch.

This is terrible, poorly executed, story makes no sense. Costume design is nice but it's not enough to sanction just under 2 hours of my life. Unless you are a child or an easily impressed adult, Avoid!

Looks great, nice action, but needed more depth

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+

Everytime I hear the term "remake" I cringe a little... More often than not, the so-called "remake" does not do the original movie justice. With that being said however, I was blown away by this revisited title. Although I was not familiar with the actor cast to play Conan, I was quite pleased by his rendition of the role. Excellent action and plenty of adventure, and not too bad in the looks department either! A most enjoyable movie, that I am pleased to have in my collection.