Free Conan the Barbarian
Genres: ActionAdventureFant
Starring: Stephen Lang, Rose McGowan, Ron Perlman, Bob Sapp, Nonso Anozie, Nathan Jones, Raad Rawi
Available Quality: DivX, Hi Def, Hi Def
Director(s): Marcus Nispel
Country: USA
Year: 2011
IMDB Rating: 5.2
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.
 |
Conan the Barbarian (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1920x800 px | Total Size: 7820 Mb |
|
|
 |
Conan the Barbarian (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1280x528 px | Total Size: 4464 Mb |
|
|
 |
1 | Conan the Barbarian (DivX) | Resolution: 624x256 px | Total Size: 702 Mb |
|
|
|
2 | Conan the Barbarian (DivX) | Resolution: 624x256 px | Total Size: 699 Mb |
|
Movie Photos:
We have taken some photos of "Conan the Barbarian". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitors Review
Tony Heck (16 May 2012)
Another remake that wasn't needed. While this movie isn't that bad it makes you appreciate the original a lot more. I say B-
"Run from me... and I will tear apart the mountains to find you! I willfollow you to Hell!" After the invasion on his village and the death ofhis father, young Conan is left alone with only one thing on hismind...revenge. All grown up and battle tested, Conan (Momoa) grabs hissword and begins his quest to find and kill Khalar Zim. I will begin bysaying that I have never really been a fan of these huge epic battleoriented movies. Also unlike most people my age who grew up and watchedthe original over and over I never really "got it". Lately with all theremakes coming out I have been trying to watch the originals eitheragain or for the first time. What I have found by watching the original"Arthur" and "Fright Night" is that I thought they were OK. Afterwatching the new ones I realized how much better they were then the newones. This version of Conan is a lot like that. Remembering scenes fromthe original and comparing them really made me appreciate the originalmore and more. By the end (much like the other ones I mentioned) Iviewed the originals in a different and better light. All that said,again I am not really a fan of these movies so a huge fan may like thismuch more then I did. Overall, unless you are a fan of this type ofgenre I would stick with the original. I give it a B-.*Also try - Eagle & Troy
tj_director (15 May 2012)
Halfway through I actually forgot what I was doing.
I'd seen the original a long time ago.. but I still knew the generalidea of what to expect before going into this reboot.. an R-Ratedwarrior action film with slight elements of the supernatural that wasmore about entertainment value than high art, suffice it to say,suffice is probably too complicated a word for the audience this remakeis aimed at. I liked Momoa from Game of Thrones, he had the perfect physical qualityto portray a warrior, and despite being a character of few words hereally sold it for me, and as a result I really could see how he wasideal casting for Conan, he's a more rugged Dwayne Johnson.. but Istill feel Johnson has a lot of untapped potential to be one of thereal action stars of the decade along with Diesel and Statham.. butit's good to know Momoa is in line to join these guys.Back to the film... from the very first scene, you are basically toldthis movie is going to be over the top in a bad and very lazy way..apparently Conan is "battle born", in other words his father RonPerlman is surrounded by countless merciless foes, of which he takesdown a couple while screaming, and then he tends to his pregnant wife,akin to a scene from the recent Cowboys & Aliens, we are taught thatduring Hollywood battles you are allowed respite from the enemy if youenter an emotional two shot close up with a loved or cherished one, noone will dare attack you, it simply wouldn't be fair.. so yes amidstthe carnage Perlman and wife share some tender and distraught words,she wishes to see her son before she dies, and without even reallylooking he takes a nasty looking knife and performs the fastestC-section known to mankind, and voila.. he brings up a CGI baby.. themother looks on, smiles, then dies, Hellboy is highly moved by theseevents, so decides to perform a Lion King and holds the child aloft andscreams out loud, the camera pulls in beckoning the film's title toforce itself upon us.. this scene literally lasts 3-4 minutes.. andnone of the attacking savages notices it happening, or pays anyattention to the angry barbarian king screaming and holding a newbornbaby above his head.. As i said i came into this film willing to holdmy disbelief.. but seriously.. could this scene not have taken place ina hut or some other hidden shelter? Conan would still have been"battle-born", the first thing he tasted (like every child) would stillhave been his mother's blood, yet it would have been ten times moreintimate and moving, and hundred times more believable. I completelyunderstand this isn't meant to be highbrow, but there's no harm inadding just a slight bit of realism and genuine emotion to afundamental scene, It will only involve the audience more and at littleexpense to any of the tone. As a result of this scene, I never caredfor any character for any moment.. the film failed from its veryinception. If Lord of The Rings was Peter Jackson making love to the audience,Conan is him self pleasuring himself in a dirty motel room. From theMorgan Freeman LOTR rip off introductory montage, the whole film isdumb and completely forgettable, apart from the occasional cool move ina fight, every single action moment is a blurry fast motion mediumshot.. the failsafe of every director since Nolan decided to publiclyshowcase such laziness in Batman Begins.. it's pure laziness on everycount, move the camera fast, add some crunchy sound design and BOOM,you have an action scene.. what's the best fight scene of the lastdecade? Old Boy and the Hammer, and there isn't a single cut in that,or any fast camera move, it's just good old fashioned choreography andstunt acting.. the only good or partly original part in the whole filmis the sand soldier fight.. but even that is ultimately deemed moronicand pornographic, why doesn't the witch daughter use such powers orsummon up similar creatures at any other point in the film? like youknow.. say during the finale when all magic powers should have beenused, at all times. But obviously the film-makers realised that wouldhave put Conan at a big disadvantage, and caused too much of a headachefor them to solve.. I know just move the camera around a lot, and makeloads of quick edits and CGI blood splashes, it's the modern dayequivalent of a shiny object for rednecks. Even the DBOX programming was dumb and nonsensical. The film even hadan expert thief that could pick a lock with a custom made device,called a key!! oh i wish i didn't have a limit of 1000 words.. i'd do areal Conan on this film and rip it to shreds. Yet again a film withgreat production value ruined by moronic film-makers that think guiltypleasure means no need for creativity, and yet another film permitted astupid budget simply because the Conan name has brand recognition.
argaelgr (13 May 2012)
Hyboria Humilated
I am a enthusiast of Howards work , founding Hyboria's mysterious,savage and sexy world intriguing , a place where Conan the Barbariancarves his legendary tales with brutal cuts from his sword vanquishinghorrific monsters and saving the beautiful maiden from the altar justbefore the evil sorcerer claims the maiden's blood in the name of darkof gods ,leaving us all in awe and of course winning the girl ;) .This movie fails to capture all and any of the above ,it turned theworld of hyboria to a ridiculous and funny place , where every killraises more laughters than the Friends(TV-Series) overplayed backgroundlaughing whenever Chandler made a joke.The costumes ,acting and dialogs are beyond awful as well i fail tofind the words required to describe just how awful .It will suffice tosay that if this movie had a budget of 70 million $$ the next time thedirector wants costumes ,might as well visit a toy store on sales heought to find better.As for consistency this movie has none as well ,an endless parade ofplaces appear like someone connected the pieces of a jigsaw puzzlerandomly ,at one scene you see a forest in an instant the forest givesits place to a desert and then desert to sea ..All in all , it gave me the filling that crew from Hercules and Zena,the notorious TV-series assembled their worst crew ,to do their worst,savaging the savage world of Hyboria .Avoid this movie ,dont even view it in DVD or TV they say time is money, and however little that can be it ought to worth more than a pennyfor 2 hours.
oneguyrambling (12 May 2012)
Not great. But the best kind of big, dumb, bare-chested action.
Unlike many other thirty-somethings I wasn't that enamoured by theConan franchise in the 80s. I mean I saw them all and only a few yearslater was converted to a full Arnie-Fan with Predator, Commando and TheTerminator, but his leather loin-cloth and gleaming weapon never didthat much for me.So saying I looked at the reboot with some trepidation is a bit of anunderstatement. Well here is the almost apologetic square up: Now thatI 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 betterfilm), THIS is what big screen dumb bare-chested action is all about.Put another way; anyone who enjoyed the Arnie originals  or anyone whospends too much time staring at heavy metal album covers  will findmuch to enjoy here.Conan was born in the same place he lived  on a battlefield  in ahasty poor man's caesarean amid a huge ongoing bloodbath. As he agedand matured Conan was similarly premature in his battle readiness,beheading his first four savage assailants and proudly displaying themto his proud chieftain Father (Ron Perlman) before his barbarian-ballsdropped.Then on the same day Conan's life changed. Jay Leno announced he wantedhis old gig back and wait, wrong Conan.On his fateful day Conan's Father died, and the final piece of anancient mask with supernatural powers was gathered by a viciousmurderer named Khalar Zym (Stephen Land), a man with a rapidly growingarmy of heavily armed followers and aspirations of global domination.With the mask in hand all Khalar Zym needed to fulfil his prophecy wasthe blood of a 'pure woman', and he, his army and his young witchdaughter Marique (Rose McGowan) set off to search for it.But Khalar Zym didn't tie up one very important loose end. He leftyoung Coney alive to swear vengeance with his final words before hismighty voice broke What follows is everything you expect from a filmwith Barbarian in the title. And more. Conan 2011 is violent,blood-soaked and action packed on a suitably large scale, with toughmono-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 toleap athletically upon his huge sword. Speaking of huge swords, Conanmust also escort the damsel with the afore-mentioned pure blood, ayoung woman named Tamara (Rachel Nichols), with who Conan shares a 300style sex scene that sets him apart as the most giving barbarian loveron record.Jason Momoa does his best as he can as Conan in a role that practicallydemands that he be wooden and dumb, Stephen Lang is suitably villainousas Khalar Zym and benefits from being surrounded by a menacingmenagerie of minions (Hey I love alliteration), and Rose McGowan chewsthe scenery as the evil witch who is quite possibly 'Daddy's littlegirl' in a most inappropriate sense.Final Rating  6 / 10. I watch too many movies. I now look for reasonsnot to revisit films and subsequent sequels. I cannot extol Conan asone of the films of 2011  far from it  but if they decide to make asequel to this reboot I will watch it, this time at the cinema.
mrw01 (12 May 2012)
Full of Rage, Lacking Plot
Remaking a cult classic like Conan is a difficult thing to do,admittedly. You're talking about a major iconic figure, both in bookform and Arnold Schwarzenegger form, who has an incredible and loyalfanbase. And there doesn't seem much reason to touch the franchiseunless you're going to do it justice.Suffice it to say, casting Jason Momoa is the only thing that the newConan the Barbarian film gets right. The plot, the pacing, and thedirecting all leave little to be desired. Even the dialog is flat andlifeless. But Jason Momoa brings such a level of intensity and charismato the part that Conan fans will at least be happy with this aspect ofthe film. He's not Schwarzenegger, but that's a good thing.Schwarzenegger owned the role forty years ago, but here Momoa has donethe same. You can tell that he loves the part, loves the character, andis thrilled to be in the movie.The movie begins with the death of Conan's mother. As she dies in thearms of her husband (Ron Pearlman), she begs to see her child beforeshe passes. Pearlman literally cuts the baby out of her stomach, andshe names him Conan with her last breath. From the onset, it is clear that this Conan film will be more thanbarbaric in nature. The movie serves as an origin tale, focusing thefirst half of the movie on Conan and his life experiences with hisfather. Like many similar tales, Pearlman is disappointed in his son,who is full of rage and courage but lacks focus. There's a very odd plot involving a sacred skull mask, which ends withKhalar Zym (Stephen Lang) killing Pearlman in front of a young Conan.Years later, Conan still seeks to kill the man who murdered his father(though it's unclear why he didn't spend any time hunting down thepeople who murdered his mother) and travels the world with friendlycompanion Artus (Nonso Anozie). From there things get complicated, as Zym has yet to conquer the worldwith the skull mask, apparently needing the blood of an ancientbloodline to resurrect his dead wife. It doesn't make a whole lot ofsense, but it gives Conan plenty of killing to do while also sendinghim to exotic locals filled with half-naked women to charm. There's alove story too, if you're in to that kind of thing.The movie is really somewhat of a garbled mess, with no real time lineor plan ever being established. Conan is certainly full of rage and hetravels the globe on many different adventures throughout the film, butall of it seems too easy. There's no depth to any of the battles, allof which were shot very quickly and without much sense of reason. Weget why Conan is full of rage, but there's no understanding of how he'sgetting from one plot point to another. It just happens.Slowing the film down, making it more grand in nature, would certainlygive it a more completed sense of style. Instead, it moves briskly andat times feels like it forgot its own way. A longer and slightly morededicated film would serve the story, and Momoa's work as Conan, muchbetter.Truly, Momoa is the best thing about the film. He's in nearly everyscene, and while many scenes don't add up to a whole heck of a lot,watching Momoa kill and be barbaric is more than entertaining. For thatthe film gets a bit of a pass, because it does accomplish what it setout to do. At its core, it understands that Conan is a barbarian andmust act like one throughout the film. Momoa does that very well. But the movie never slows down enough for the audience to get a senseof why they should care about anything other than Conan. There's noreal depth and certainly no real structure to what you're watching onscreen. The battles are timely placed, as is the massive amounts ofblood and nudity, but none of that really matters. It's all part of afilm that lacks any true heart.Those that enjoyed the previous Conan films will be torn here; Conanhimself is done right by everything else feels so lackluster. The storyis worthless, as is the dialog, and those are very key ingredients to aConan story. Without them you're left with a muscular guy who travelsthe world, conquering those in his path, and absolutely nothing else.That's not what makes Conan iconic. Nor legendary.Whether or not you should pay to see Conan is simply based on what youwant out of the film. If you don't mind having a mindless adventurethat doesn't add up to anything in the end, and features an incrediblycharismatic Momoa, then you'll love Conan. But if things like dialog,plot, and character development matter to you, then stay as far awayfrom this as you can.
tundrawolf2000-1 (11 May 2012)
I had to give it a chance...EPIC FAIL
This movie would have been okay if they had called it "Clash of theBarbarians" or "Rise of the Barbarians" but not "Conan the Barbarian"!.I'll admit I hated Jason Momoa as a choice for the part the minute Istarted seeing stills for this movie,( and YES I saw his performance inGame of Thrones -if anything it made me dread going to this movie evenmore). But being a fan of the original movie I had to give it a shot.With the opening narration done by Morgan Freedman (couldn't they findan unknown?) and then the first shot of Ron Perlman as Conan's fatherlooking like he just walked off the set of Quest for Fire, I almostwalked out. But I couldn't justify letting go of my $13 bucks thateasily and I sat there shaking my head in disbelief for the next hourand a half.For the 1st half of the movie I actually thought the leadvillain was the guy from the Beastmaster TV series (lol) As a fantasymovie like "Krull", or "Beastmaster" or even "Willow" it would betolerable, because it has every sword and sorcery cliché in the book(from side kicks to the mandatory cliff jump into the ocean). But thiswas not the Conan I grew up reading about. I read all the novels as akid and still own all the Marvel comic books and black and whitemagazines, and in them Conan was a Brute force to be reckoned with, hisstrength and skill with a sword second to none.This Conan for all hisscars and snarls was a pussy by true Cimmerian standards, even hissword ( and the one made by his father) sucked! I really went into thismovie with an open mind hoping the critics were wrong, but plot playedout like a 1980's Dungeon and Dragon's Module and had the look of an Rrated Xena episode. It has been said about some movies that they are"so bad they're actually good" and eventually become Cult Classics,this movie is bad and just stays bad all the way through and you shouldbe able to find the Bluray DVD in the Walmart bin of discount moviesfor $5 by Xmas.
kromaethius (11 May 2012)
Robert E, Howard would be turning over in his grave...
Like the original two movies, this one really misses the mark. As a fanof Conan based upon the originating author of the book which lead to aseries of novels later by two additional authors after his death wasexcellent in a word.It's a darn shame that Hollywood can screw the pooch on this one sodarn bad. You see, "People of the Black Circle" and "The ConanChronicles" both says that Conan's father died in a battlefield thesame day and moment that Conan was born...I agree, the child actor was superb, the adult Conan, terribly actedand portrayed. No thanks Hollywood, you blew it.
Evgeni Petrov (11 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.
micahbosarge (10 May 2012)
Just as thrilling and fun as it is gory and violent
I got a chance to see a advanced screening of Conan last night andgoing in to the theater i had some doubts because for the past 10 yearswe have seen so many classic movie's rebooted and 80% of those movie'swere the same as the original's just more violent or added specialeffects so naturally I thought Conan was going to make 81% but i wasjoyfully wrong. Director (Marcus Nispel) did a nice job putting his ownstamp into the movie and not making a carbon copy of the original.#1. The acting- the acting in this is far better than the original,Jason Momoa is great as our favorite Barbarian and to think 4 moths agoi had never even heard his name before.Now Rose Mcgowan just bugged thehell out of me with that silly make up and wooden acting so there wasno tears dropped then she came to her demise.But the 2 actors who stolethe picture was Ron Pearlman as Conan's father and the always greatStephen Lang, as the bloodthirsty Khalar Zym. and the rest of the castwas wonderful as well.#2. The action- the action in this move is from start to finish and itis in your face , blood gushing,and oozing, all over the place, headsand other human remains are flying through the air and it is awesome.all in all this is a wonderful movie to site back and eat some pop cornand forget about the rest of the world, well for at least 2hr
njb7977 (09 May 2012)
Hyborian Bliss
OK, look. It's a movie about a crude guy out to avenge people that wereimportant to him. If you reduce it that far, of course it's going tosound empty and trite. Casablanca was about some people trying to getout of a city. That totally doesn't do the movie justice, but it'strue.If you're looking for deep drama and eyes that are a window to ayearning woman's heart, then this isn't the movie for you. If you'relooking for a summer blockbuster'd faithful rendition of a belovedfantasy book series, then you're in the right place! Conan TheBarbarian 2011 delivers all the black sorcery, gratuitous cleavage,swashbuckling barfights, and tear-the-meat-off-the-bone barbarism thatanyone could want who actually read the books or loved the originalmovies in spite of themselves.I thought the camera work was fine. Was it FANTASTIC (a la The Lord ofthe Rings)? No. There's a reason that movie took all sorts of awards.Did it pull you into the action, and give you an idea of where themovie took place? Yes, absolutely! Was the acting poor? NO. I thoughtthe main character was played admirably, and the supporting cast wasgreat! I especially liked the inclusion of a heroine who could takecare of herself in a fight. Very Hyborian.Expecting a movie involving a plot such as this to be MysticRiver-esque is unfair to the genre. Go forth and enjoy the movie forwhat it is: a brief foray into a land of high adventure, where themagic is black, the creatures are always hungry, and there is alwayssomeone out there willing to kill for the answer to the riddle ofsteel.
jviramontez (08 May 2012)
Robert E Howared would be proud...
I started reading Conan stories (and comics) in the early 70's. I sawthe Arnold movies, but just couldn't see Arnold as Conan (came acrossas far too nice). I was somewhat surprised to see so many reviewsstating how great the Arnold movies were as compared to this mostrecent release, and somewhat concerned I'd be wasting my money...Again, this proves you can't always trust what you read, or the frameof reference of the critic(s). In my opinion, this was a great movieand I think Mr. Howard would have thought this story and portrayal muchmore along the lines of his original imagination.Don't pay attention to the skeptics, if you like the Conan stories byRobert E Howard, you'd be hard pressed not to at least enjoy theride...Myself, I'm looking forward to the next story, and hope there will bemany more on the way towards Conan the King!!!
theycallmemrglass (08 May 2012)
Fun for a short while but gets tiresome very quickly,
Saw this at a preview screening in London This being a fantasy filmwith the most basic of plots imaginable, its fair to say that we shouldat least expect a menu of sex, gore and mindless fun with a film likethis. To some extent, we do but there is a lack of invention to it alland I cant help feel that this is being processed by a computer programthat's ticking boxes. Its a film that simply goes with the motion.Momoa's lingering ass shot, check. Bare breasts check. Magicallyconjured monster soldiers, check. Sword fighting (of course), check.Beautiful damsel in distress, check. Sex scene, check. Limbdecapitation, check. Multiply violent elements by 10, check.Originality...oh sorry that was not on the list. Also missing from thecheck list were Tongue in Cheek or Sufficient Level of Humour.Jason Momoa is however, a charming lead as Conan. Perhaps more so thanSchwartzenegger of the original though less iconic. Perlman makes yetanother small appearance as a mentor. But as I said, originality wasnot on the list, so I leave you to guess his fate. Not a spoiler asthis is part of the movie's synopsis.The action is pretty relentless but lacks excitement. It got verytiresome from early on, I am afraid. While Momoa valiantly carries themovie with his anti-hero charm the rest of the cast are not given muchto do but to exhibit basic expressions and cheesy dialogue.Stephen Lang gets a little more to do as the main villain. I suspectthe poor fellow may perhaps be forever type-casted since Avatar but hedoes it well.I am not sure if this film is a disappointment because I wasn'tconvinced by its trailer in the first place.Finally, the soundtrack was relentlessly bombastic without any subtletyor sense of identity. It was just very loud background noise.Lower your expectations, I mean really bring it down. If you likeMomoa, you may enjoy this but don't look out for too much else.
mandelmanden (06 May 2012)
Lighthearted but fun.
I went to see Conan the Barbarian in 2D (naturally) after a few beersat the end of a long day. I had seen a couple of reviews, heard a fewopinions, and it was apparently the worst garbage to come out ofHollywood since forever. So, I was very pleasantly surprised when thismovie turned out to be quite a lot more fun and probably pretty coolfor a handful of kids in their early teens. But we had good fun,despite being rather a lot older than our early teens. At the end of the day, you don't get much more than you could'veexpected to get from a movie that's basically only about a guy growingup to kill the guy who killed his father. The plot starts out flat andremains flat. In between the start and the end we see a bunch of coollocations, a lot of fighting, a couple of fun moments, a random sexscene, and it sticks pretty true to Conan lore.I wonder if it's at all feasible to make this movie. You have acharacter that is basically only from a couple of handfuls of pulpshort stories from the 30's. A teenage boy's hero, exciting adventures.It's not for the mainstream cinema, at all. It's something for kids intheir room, playing Dungeons & Dragons or Descent: Journeys in theDark, or a sword & sorcery video games.To adults, it's either horrible, or something fun to remind us of atime where we were more easily impressed by the world and its sights.But then, as a person who very much enjoys movies that are so badthey're good, a movie in that category that's also nicely made ingeneral, is a rarity. For those points, I'll give it a 7/10. If you'rethe nerdy type and dip into a couple of beers, you'll probably enjoythis. Your 13-15 year old son and his mates will also love it no doubt.
isa-51-503890 (06 May 2012)
Finally Mamoa hits the big screen!
I've never seen the original, nor read the books. I went to this moviesimply because of Jason Mamoa. Sadly, he was just about the only reasonI stayed.I agree with many of the other reviewers; the cinematography is onlyslightly better than the editing and both are pretty pathetic. Even theCGI left me feeling gypped.The 3D effects were totally disappointing and a total waste of money.Though I keep hoping for another Avatar moment - where I'm totallyblown away by something new and thrilling - This is NOT it! The young Conan had the best fight sequence but it was over the topgory and slightly ridiculous.The plot - was a total SNORE! The damsel in distress is getting sotiresome I can't help but want to fire bomb Hollywood on principal.When will they discover something new? Probably when we stop payingmoney for the same old crap I suppose.Rose McGowan left me chuckling and feeling a bit sorry for her immobileface. Stephen Lang didn't inspire either. Both were anything but scaryor compelling.In the end... it was only Jason that held my interest. Not just becausehe is flawlessly beautiful or because he personifies male sexual energy- well, okay that is all very true and compelling on its own - butbecause he really is a superb actor.A man's man (the best kind in my book), Mamoa acts with his whole body.He acts from the roots of his hair to the tips of his toes and at timesI can almost see him channeling some of the greats - Gary Cooper, ClintEastwood, maybe even the Duke. Sadly though, this story didn't give himmuch to work with.All in all, it was a typical summer movie with nothing new or excitingto offer.
jfwhelan (06 May 2012)
I was entertained
I am not going to spend time discussing what is or is not a good film;in other reviews, I have owned that, on the face of it, a less thanperfect film can prove very entertaining and that some acknowledgedlygood films can prove a chore to watch. It's a wet Sunday afternoon:which would you rather crack a beer and watch, 'The English Patient' or'Gold Finger'?This film entertained me; the time passed and I found that for thescales weighing enjoyment against annoyance, enjoyment had won out.Yes, the first twenty-five minutes were in a different class to therest of the film and it is a pity that this good start was not carriedthrough to the end. There were things wrong with this film. Script,emotion and tight direction were often lacking, yet there was generallygood pacing and cinematography.At the end the main redeeming feature was that there was some coherenceto the story and that it did follow from beginning to end. The use ofthe sword as link throughout the film was under used and at timesalmost forgotten, yet it still helped maintain a story line with basicclosure. I have no real problem with the absence of dialogue; there aremany ways to tell a story and the visual method can work well. That itwas not wholly successful here is down to the lack of emotion andatmosphere that was needed to colour the picture in the absence of thevocal interplay.What this film needed was more finish, better thematic and emotionalpacing and an overall 'style'. It is not sufficient for just the scenesand the story to be set in some age; life has to be breathed into thatage; one needs to feel that one is watching a Cimerian and that hisland and culture are real. This is, I believe, where this film failedand the root cause for the disappointment and poor reviews. We oftenfail to notice how good or bad something really is, when our firstthough is that it is not as good as we had hoped!
mkhiii (05 May 2012)
Slay Day
Any discussion of Conan the barbarian, outside of the confines ofesoteric conversation with fantasy-fiction purists or aficionados ofthe works of Robert E. Howard, inevitably result in an eye roll or asnicker on the part of the party who didn't broach the topic. ArnoldSwartzenegger's bastardization of the character in two movies in the1980's is the unfortunate hallmark of the Cimmerian warrior for most.Well, by Crom, something new has arrived from the Hyborian Age thatgenuinely cleanses the palate of that last course of bad Austrian fare.Conan The Barbarian, directed by Marcus Nisper (Texas ChainsawMassacre), is a 2011 re-adaptation of the 1982 debacle that stillsurfaces from time to time on late night television. The newinstallment is well-made, features a promising new eponymous lead, andis true to the roots of the early 1930's fiction from which Conanarose.The origins of Conan were born of the mind of Robert E. Howard, aneccentric writer from Cross Plains, Texas, who dreamt up the darkswordsman in a series of stories in 1932. The barbarian was one ofseveral Howard subjects that earned the author the status as aforefather in the literary field of Swords & Sorcery, a genre that hasbecome a pillar in popular fiction and movies. He was indeed apredecessor, if not an equal, of J.R.R. Tolkien, creator of The Lord ofthe Rings trilogy. Conan became a character in the world of MarvelComics in 1970, spawning several different comic titles and actualnovels. In 1982, the future governor of California played the lead rolein a poorly-made motion picture titled Conan The Barbarian, repeatingthe role in a sequel two years later. Neither was true to Howard'sbarbarian, a result of subpar writing and the future Governator's lackof acting chops, and it became a sad truth that most people's knowledgeof Conan came from these movies.As a literary conventionalist and someone who grew up reading Conan, Ialmost cringed when I heard the Cimmerian was born again. Like a victimof ptomaine not wanting to hit the buffet again, I was apprehensive asto what Hollywood might do with Robert E. Howard's (and Marvel's StanLee's) noble savage. A smart plot, shrewd casting, and a breakthroughperformance by the lead role put my concerns to rest. Conan ridesagain, and he rides well. Don't roll your eyes or snicker at this one.The story emanates from the Hyborian Era, where power-mad leader KhalarZym, played by Stephen Lang (Avatar, Public Enemies), seeks the piecesof a lost and scattered relic that will give him god-like abilities. Inhis quest, he pillages a Cimmerian village whose chieftain is Corin,portrayed by Ron Perlman (Hellboy, Sons Of Anarchy), earning the enmityof Corin's young son, Conan (the adult Conan is played by Jason Mamoa,of Game Of Thrones). Conan makes revenge his life mission, andaccompanied by a monk named Tamara (G.I. Joe's Rachel Nichols), hepursues the trail of Khalar Zym, who is partnered in evil by hisdaughter Monique (Rose Macgowan of Grindhouse). A classic fantasy taleof good versus evil ensues.The movie contains narration by Academy Award winner Morgan Freeman(Million Dollar Baby), which lends a nice, classical touch (whocouldn't love that grizzled voice?). Character actor heavyweightPerlman, a Golden Globe winner who has more than earned his stripes inmyriad dark and quirky roles, seems weighted down by his leather andfurs as Corin, never really connecting with the audience. Lang's KhalarZym is sufficiently evil, but almost tired in his own performance.Rachel Nichols' Tamara is capable, but doesn't stand out one way or theother. Conan The Barbarian's finest performances are in the hero andhis sorceress-nemesis Monique.Macgowan seethes as the dastardly daughter of the upwardly mobile badguy. Good looks and fine acting, in a role that could have turned tocheese, give her portrayal gravitas and emotion. She IS the FreddyKreuger-ish antagonista with a side of Mommy envy and Elektra Complex.Conan, absolutely owned by relatively unknown Mamoa, stands over thismovie like a chiseled 6'4 surfer (which Mamoa is) on a beach full ofshort, fat, boring people. Sufficiently flexible to avoid appearing abodybuilder playing a 10,000 B.C. swordsman, subtly charismatic enoughto earn friends and win women, and possessing the intelligence andrestraint to operate within his own bounds, Mamoa stamps his passportto Hollywood staying power with his work. He achieves a greataccomplishment: we don't see him, we see Conan. This is somethingAh-nold definitely couldn't do. Mamoa lends just the right amount ofedginess, physicality, and smarts to the role.Yes, the movie gives us gore. But hey; Hyborian life was hard! It alsoprovides us clear-cut themes of right and wrong, admirable shades ofloyalty and friendship, and the ever relevant concept of self-identity.Conan's philosophical mission statement, uttered when pressed byTamara, is a bone on which we all can chew: "I live, I love, I slay; Iam content." This Conan gets it.As another science-fiction-fantasy guru (Yoda) once told us, we mustunlearn what we have learned about Conan. By going back to the spiritof Robert E. Howard's unforgettable character, with illustrationprovided by Marvel Comics, we can remember who Conan is supposed to be.Within this Cimmerian giant is something tangible that we all canadmire, and the barbarian from this 2011 film helps us find that greatliterary swashbuckler again. And helping us forget Arnold is not a badthing. Go ahead: pick up your sword and have a swing. It'll inspireyou.
panzerhauser (04 May 2012)
Garbage
This movie should be shown to all film making students as a template onhow not to waste 70 million dollars, save your time and money and buythe original on Blu Ray, for it is a long way better and has somethinglike passion involved in the making of a legend. Schwarzenegger hasplenty more ability as an actor than Jason Momoa and delivers the moviein better than two hours of enjoyable fantasy entertainment.Does Rose Macgowan look anything like a witch? She is a capable actressbut sorely wasted and who knows what Stephen Lang was thinking when hesigned up for this rubbish, he is a great modern character actor whohas shone in recent outings but looks ridiculous and has no presence,unlike James Earl Jones in the original who was hypnotic and easilydetestable.Marcus Nispel should go back to directing KFC commercials.
Freemheart (03 May 2012)
Beyond Revenge - What the brainless critics omits
Twenty year ago, just to read something, I bought my first comic of TheSavage Sword of Conan, after that, I watched the John Milius film andspecially the books of Robert E. Howard and many more comics. I beenreading many reviews and almost all the critics seems to know nothingabout Conan except the movie with Schwarzenegger, a very good moviebut...Even when the new Conan The Barbarian has his flaws, a story with a fewthings in commons with "The lord of the rings", not so much referenceto the countries and races of the Hyborian age, and a not so wonderfulsoundtrack like the Basil Poledouris's masterpiece. If you compareJason Momoa with the descriptions of Robert E. Howard, the comics, heis perfect as Conan in every scene: he is rude but not so stupid asseems to be in the Milius film, he is full of anger but knows how touse it and knows how to show other emotions, even his dialog is good.Conan, Khalar Zym, Marique, Tamara almost every character show his ownstory not as pure good or pure evil, every one has an important part.It began like a bad "pastiche" of JRR Tolkien and after a few minutesbecame a true Conan movie, with a lot of action, great sword battles,lot of blood (everyone who had read the tales of Conan knows isimpossible tells his story without blood sequences) but a wonderfulstory not only about revenge, but also the sons and daughters thirst tokeep the legacy of their parentsI love the John Milius I have seen that film more than 30 times, but Ihave to admit, this new adaptation (not remake) is far faithful to thework of Robert E. Howard in every single thing.
quinnox-1 (03 May 2012)
As bad as everyone says it is
I went to see this despite the bad press, thinking maybe it just wasn'tappealing to the mainstream, and that perhaps it might be better thanwhat people were saying.I was wrong. This is a terrible movie, and it deserves all the badreviews and publicity it gets for being a box office bomb.I should have saved my money like just about everyone else did andskipped it. There were only about 4 or 5 other people in the entiretheater I went to see it in so I guess we were the chumps. Abysmalacting, directing, fight scenes, story, and the lead villain seems tobe about 90 years old and might need a walker. I mean seriously, whatwere they thinking? The only good thing about the movie was the kid who played the youngConan during the beginning, he was great in the part and I wish thewhole movie would have been about him instead of the grown up versionof Conan. On the other hand, Jason Momoa had no screen presence at alland it was clear he can't carry this movie as the lead character.This was a massive fail and besides the one bright spot I mentioned(the actor who played kid Conan) everything else was just awful.
DICK STEEL (02 May 2012)
A Nutshell Review: Conan the Barbarian
By Crom, Conan the Barbarian actually showed how the recent sword andsorcery films, from Prince of Persia to Clash of the Titans, could havebeen a lot more fun if things were kept a little simpler, and not havetaken itself too seriously, where bloating the film with big name starsdo not necessarily spell success. Created by Robert E. Howard, thisversion of Conan may feel like it's being updated for the modernaudience, and in some ways presents the Cimmerian Barbarian in aphysique that's a lot more nimbler and leaner.Jason Mormoa plays the titular character, and while ArnoldSchwarzenegger may have been Conan's defacto poster boy for his twofilms made in the 80s, complete with little dialogue (since he can'tspeak fluent English then) and plenty of bulk muscle flexing, Mormoa'sversion happens to be a little more charismatic compared toSchwarzenegger's wooden acting, better looking and being able toexecute a lot more niftier moves, being the sole survivor of his tribehell bent in looking for the murderers of his villagers', and fatherCorin (Ron Perlman). Admittedly this Conan is a little less beefy, butmore than made up for it in his arrogance, directness and being thatultimate alpha male chauvinist blessed with superb ability in his DNAand tough training.Being an origin film that possesses potential to kickstart a newfranchise, this one charts Conan's birth in battle, and goes to showhow the young warrior got brought up in a barbaric value system, wherebecoming a fighter is a great honour, only for his training to beinterrupted by the evil Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang) and his sorceressdaughter Marique (Rose McGowan) as they seek out the missing componentof a magical death mask, so that they can summon a dead companion andthen rule the world, as always and typical. The battle between good andevil cannot be more pronounced than that, with Conan's quest forvengeance standing in their way, and we get introduced to a number ofallies that is reminiscent of the old cartoon series Conan theAdventurer.Significant screen time got devoted to the first act when Conan was achild (Leo Howard) and introduced us to the barbarian code, in additionto the myths behind the sword, which was covered in the Schwarzeneggermovie, and painting a picture that this Conan will grow up to be quitethe bad ass for his natural ability honed into violence dished withoutremorse. A big jump in time to fast forward to the adult days wherehe's already quite the adventurer with Artus (Nonso Anozie) the pirate,before the narrative takes the very rote and very routine course ofConan chancing upon quite conveniently with characters from his past,and so begins a joining the dots from one villain to the next. Inbetween he gets to tangle with some romance courtesy of Tamara (RachelNichols) the novitiate of a monastery, also conveniently being thechosen one whose lineage to activate the death mask, making her thetarget that Khalar Zym and Marique seeks. It's an extremely simplestoryline and a singular objective of revenge.Director Marcus Nispel opted to make this film a lot more violent thanwhat we've seen before in the films by John Millius and RobertFleischer. There are 1001 ways characters die in the film, where horsesget hacked down in battle, to elaborate torture scenes that will makeyou squirm when Conan decides to interrogate his enemies, to fancydeath methods inflicted by forces on either side, from dismemberment,beheading and even being thrown against a stone, or repeatedly smackedheadlong against a stone floor. It's no holds barred and takes a strongstomach to sit through it all, at times involving CG-ed enemies thatcome as fancy as sandman type warriors, or an imprisoned mythicalcreature with mean tentacles tossing, squeezing and chomping off itsprey to add to casualty numbers.But in true blue Singapore standards, we get the M18 rated version thatis totally fine with the gratuitous violence on screen, but to save usfrom witnessing Conan turn from warrior to lover, his sex scene withTamara gets the unceremonious snip from the censors scissors, despite apromising start with plenty of gratuitous nudity from the "wenches"(yes that's what they're called in the credits). It's probablyblasphemous to show a more tender side to Conan, so we don't get thatat all, preserving our memory of a brutal warrior who dispatches hisenemies without remorse in Punisher: War Zone attitude and style.Ultimately it's a fun romp, if only you put aside a lacklustre finaleand a story that has glaring loopholes and continuity issues involvingtime and distance that characters can travel, or the usual roteelements such as the grand villain monologue and arrogance. Still,Jason Mormoa embodies the spirit of Conan with a little bit of ametrosexual tendency - check out his fancy battle armour that he adornsin different fight scenes besides the usual cloak and skimpy tunic, andhopefully this film does decent box office business to justify at leastanother film to expand on what's been established here. Recommended,and better than expected, reminiscent of the good old 80s withcountless of swords and sorcery films that never cease to amaze andthrill.
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20