I didn't see the original Conan of 1982 yet, but i can say this film is terrible. A total waste of time.
There is only one Conan – ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER! This attempted reboot is a pathetic interloper that isn’t fit to bear the name “Conan.”
Had good special effects, was lightly entertaining, and had a bad story line. Despite the latter two of the three, I have seen worst films then this. I only gave it an extra star because of the lead actor from Stargate Atlantis and for the bad story line this movie had I was a little shocked that the special effects were at least decent (not great, but decent).
: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!
Spudgun from Bottom gets his nose chopped off by a child and then is torn limb from limb by an angry mob!
(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:
Conan the O'Brienbarian would have been better
Was a bit boring and yes very much over the top and typical story line.
I love Rachel Nichols, but the real star of the movie is Nonso Anozie. Every scene he is in, he has the best presence.
While Jason Mamoa is no Arnold. Watching this movie again after 2 decades. I realize it's a real spagetti recipe of Mongolian, Thai, Arthur-ian, Sahara costumes and castles. Action sequences are less than there should be. Still descent, to watch though.
Jason Momoa is a worthy successor to Arnold the Barbarian. The weakness was in the story and the failure to remain faithful to Howard's vision. This movie failed to explain how the Warrior Conan became so exceptional; no formal training, no battles in the ring, no training in the philosophies...just blind vengeance and that just doesn't account for living his life as long as it did. Rose McGowan was just a freak-show distraction. Tamara was a poor replacement for Valeria. No wizard (Mako) and no Subotai (Gerry Lopez). Parts of the movie were "borrowed" from The Mummy (1999). Not worthy to be included in the cannon of Conan.
This is a far far cry from either the original movie or the books. Sometimes that is fine, in this case they took a cult classic and remade it poorly.
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.
What a wast of 2 hours of my life. Felt more like a TV episode than a movie.
I couldn't even finish the movie. The gore was not realistic and quite excessive. The acting was bad and the story was slow. Too bad for Jason Momoa as he was a great action actor in Stargate Atlantis and I had hoped this movie would kick-start his action career.
what a waste of time ...
The Original Movie (Conan the Barbarian [1982]) was Great and a Classic.
This movie at MINIMUM is as Good or better than the Original.
Shout by MajorMercyFlushVIP OG 14BlockedParent2012-08-28T05:25:32Z
If this had have been half an hour shorter it would have just been a bad film, instead it powered through two hours and reached tedium.
The story was trite, the script a bit lame and mostly the acting was only passable. I found only two of the characters to be engaging; Young Conan (Leo Howard) and Marique (Rose McGowan).
As young Conan Leo Howard had something to work with in terms of Conan and I thought he did well with it; once Conan is an adult any kind development stops so Momoa just has to flex and speak at the same time.
Rose McGowan in that costume, that make up and those claws... speaks volumes about me but there was some drool.
Stephen Lang played Stephen Lang so tick that box if you need to.
Could have done with a little more Ron Perlman, but I think that with anything I see with him it (except Drive - see shout)
Overall it's pretty forgettable.
Weak Cimmerian Sauce!
[that sounds awful]