Buy Conan the Barbarian Movie. Watch online or Download
Genres: ActionAdventureFant
Starring: Stephen Lang, Rose McGowan, Ron Perlman, Bob Sapp, Nonso Anozie, Nathan Jones, Raad Rawi
Director(s): Marcus Nispel
Available Quality: Hi Def
Country: USA
Year: 2011
Available Quality: DivX, Hi Def, Hi Def
IMDB Rating: 5.2 out of 10 (30990 votes)
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
isa-51-503890 (24 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.
StevenNcl (24 May 2012)
Conan the Rubbish!
Given the hype and press of this movie, and the look of Jason Momoa Ihad quite high expectations, I didn't expect it to reach the heights ofthe original Conan the Barbarian with the guttural Arnie in his seminalrole, fantastic direction by John Milius and an Oliver Stone screenplaybut I thought it would be decent. The opening 30 minutes surpassed thatexpectation with great childhood sequences and the ever reliable (evenmade Season of the Witch almost watchable) Ron Perlman.The film then just turn into really poor, studio executive driven,careful treading, directing by committee rubbish. The reason the Lordof the Rings trilogy was so believable and so watchable was becausePeter Jackson owned those movies - he was the auteur and thankfully,he's back on The Hob bit and I believe him not working on it, was aploy to get his own way. The original Star Wars without CGI were ableto suspect dis-believe because George Lucas believed in it and evenHarry Potter, as much as some didn't like it, JK Rowling had final sayon the script so if the execs who thought they knew best tried to makethe Weasley twin live or Harry to hook up with Hermione, she could tellthem to bugger off.This reminded me of The Eagle. At least it didn't pretend to be based.The shame is, had they brought in a good director, Conan could havebeen great - it needed a re-write and a re-think but the potentialelements were in place. Had they decided to build the character ofConan (didn't they want a franchise? That's unlikely now) had theydeveloped the sub-characters further and HAD THEY LET THE GIRL DIE INTHE END then at least there would have been a movie closer to it'sroots. Does anybody know why Morgan Freeman was ever brought in tonarrate when he didn't even close out the film? Conan the Barbarian?Conan the Rubbish. 3/10 (but above the last Indiana Jones abomination).
MoBiUG (23 May 2012)
Pulpy Action Goodness!
I'll make no secret of it, I've been rooting for this film for a while.I like the first Conan, the sequel was pretty horrible. Aside from thePrincess. She was MAJOR hotness! Having read a lot of Conan though,including the original stories and the more recent Dark Horse comics, Idon't think that John Milius got it right.This isn't a remake and I think that Jason Momoa embodies the characterof Conan far better than Arnie did. It is, however, an origin story andit does, sadly, straddle the same material as the 1982 film. It's thelack of originality that, I feel, works against the film more thananything. The script couldn't be any more generic if it tried.That said, as a pulpy piece of action/adventure goodness, I think itsucceeds. As I said, Momoa embodies the character well but where hereally sells it is in making swordplay look awesome. He nails the fightscenes, giving Conan great versatility when it comes to a scrap, andthere are a lot of them. That's one of the reasons I found this so muchfun to watch. It moves at such a pace that I found it impossible to getbored. Most of the dialogue is either foreboding an action scene orduring an action scene.The action really is great though. Shot well, nice choreography andplenty of high impact violence. This is full blooded stuff.Momoa is supported well. Stephen Lang is effortlessly great as thevillain, Khalar Zym, and Rose McGowen seems to be having fun as hisfreaky, witch daughter, Marique. Neither gets that much screen timethough and their creepy relationship could have been better explored.Ron Perlman is... well... Ron Perlman. Not much to work with, but heworks it like a pro.The weakest link here is Rachel Nichols as Tamara. She's integral toZym's evil scheme but her burgeoning love of Conan feels forced and onesided. Conan nails her (of course, she's a babe), but doesn't seem tocare that much for the most part. Which sort of made me chuckle. Don'tknow if it was supposed to.The first 15-20 minutes show Conan in his mid teens, and here he'splayed by Leo Howard. Screw Momoa having to fill Arnie's shoes, Momoahas to fill this kids shoes too. He's quality in this with two standout action scenes to boot. Same kid played young Snake Eyes in 2009'sGI Joe.If there's one other thing I didn't like about this film it was therandom globe trotting. By the end, I sort of stopped caring wherethings were occurring because I never got a sense that any realdistance was being travelled. Even though it was. I felt the samedisconnection in the The Mummy Returns, if that's any indication ofwhat I'm talking about.All told, I think this is a lean, satisfying action flick. I'd love tosee a sequel that riffs off the source material more, bringing in someestablished characters. What's here really worked for me and... I'mprobably damning this with faint praise in saying it is, hands down,the best thing Macus Nispel has ever made. I feel like he really gotbehind this.
moviexclusive (23 May 2012)
Loud, violent, shallow and dumb- this 'Conan' is content to be no more than a glorified B-action movie
Forget the literary origins of this sword-and-sorcery epic- sinceArnold Schwarzenegger immortalised the character on the big screen inJohn Milius' cult classic back in 1982, the warrior from the ancientland of Cimmeria has secured its place in pop culture as a symbol ofpure unfettered masculinity. But while Milius at least made an attemptto give the muscle-bound warrior gravity with some back story andpurpose with a narrative quest, music video director Marcus Nispel inthis latest reincarnation is simply content to let the character slayand slay some more.Indeed, whatever dignity the voice of Morgan Freeman may have imbued inthe film with his opening narration is quickly lost when the movieopens in the heat of battle and a grizzled Corin (Ron Perlman) slittingthe womb of his wife to deliver his son who would be Conan. Nispel issingle-minded- and unapologetically so- in making his film pulpy anddownright trashy, so you'd be wasting your time trying to criticise itfor the laughable dialogue, the simplistic plot, and the nonexistentcharacter development. These are none of his concern, and neithershould they be yours if you're determined to enjoy this movie.Instead, sit back and let your brains have a rest as screenwritersThomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer and Sean Hood take you throughan extended prologue that follows the 1982 film by setting Conan up toavenge the death of his father and proving himself worthy of the swordhe wields. There is some other plot about said murderer Khalar Zym(Stephen Lang) who is looking to restore the parts of a powerfulancient mask in order to resurrect his dead wife and gain control overthe universe, but really it's no more of an excuse to get Conan frompoint A to B and start his beheading all over again.Speaking of action, there's no doubt that the film is packed wall towall with it. Yes, Nispel doesn't allow more than five minutes inbetween each action sequence- and why not, Conan is after all acharacter who speaks with his actions, not with his words.Unfortunately, besides one halfway through the movie that sees Conanfighting against a band of shape-shifting sand warriors and theclimactic sequence set within an underground fortress, there is littlethat impresses along the way.Notwithstanding the uninspired fight choreography and Nispel'sinability to sustain excitement through extended action sequences,what's most disappointing here is in fact Thomas Kloss' cinematographywhose messy shot composition throughout the film is an unmitigateddistraction to the action on display- and we'd shudder to think of howour fellow audiences in the United States would watch it post-convertedin 3D. Kloss also doesn't do justice to the magnificent CGI vistaswhich production designer Chris August has created for the film,glossing over them with no more than an opening wide shot of each ofthe beautiful landscapes.Still, it is likely that female audiences will be satisfied with thenumber of lingering shots over Jason Momoa's rippling bod. UnlikeSchwarzenegger, Momoa comes off less of a brute than a cunning deadlypredator, and the change is a welcome improvement for a more savvygeneration of viewers. Nonetheless, the script doesn't trust him or hischaracter with much dialogue or depth, and his Conan doesn't go deeperthan the archetype of a fearless warrior. Other characters don't faremuch better- whether go-to villain Stephen Lang's badass warlord, RoseMcGowan's evil witch or Rachel Nichols' princess maiden- so don'tbother looking for any of the other actors and actresses to do anyserious acting.But as we've said, that really was never the point of Marcus Nispel'sfilm, one which celebrates unabashedly its B-movie pedigree by stickingreligiously to it. Sure, it is violent (yes, be prepared for multipledecapitations), loud, shallow, and quite probably dumb- but you can'tfault a movie for being all these things when it wanted to be all thatand engage its audience purely on a visceral level. If you're preparedfor all that, and some brainless numbing gory action entertainment,then 'Conan' will satisfy your bloodlust for action- less so the lustthough since a key sexual scene between Conan and Nichols' PrincessTamara has been snipped off very obviously from this edited M18version.- www.moviexclusive.com
Achyuta Ghosh (22 May 2012)
How not to make a remake
Back when i was a kid, a certain Mr.World with his rippling body, andstone faced persona inspired both shock and awe. When he brandished hishumongous sword and swung, nothing else really stood a chance, and allyou remembered at the end of each scene were those mesmerizing muscles.The choice then was pretty simple- you either worshipped SylvesterRocky Stallone, or Arnold Conan Schwarzenegger, and i proudly belongedto the latter club. So when the movie that made him endured a remake in2011, it naturally made me curious, and more than a tad expectant. Acult classic sword and sorcery remade with a rising action star, bigbudget effects instead of the campy, and of course, a million pounds offan- expectations.But then remakes suck, right? And so did this disgrace of a movie whichstarted to suck right from the first scene where they show Conan beingbirthed right in the middle of a battle. And in this genre of movies,the plot is of little consequence as they always follow the revengetheory. Conan's father and tribe is slaughtered blah blah blah...Conanwants revenge blah blah blah....lots of people die in his quest forrevenge blah blah blah. What made the 1982 version a classic was,besides Arnold, the portrayal of a dark and desolate world, completewith savagery and sorcery. This one just moves from one action setpiece to the other. Coming to the good part- is the action, no longer ponderous but fast,no longer basic parry and thrusts, but much more stylized and pleasingto the eye, more like a dance most fight sequences were. The violenceis gruesome, but after a while, even those without a taste for bloodwill start to appreciate it, because frankly, this is all the movie hasgot. Jason Momoa played Khal Drogo with panache in Game of Thrones, andhere he takes it a couple of notches higher. Arnold, for all hisphysical perfection never really was a natural to action, Momoa, on theother hand takes to it as a fish takes to water. There is thisperennial bloodlust in his eyes, as also in the little guy who playsjunior Conan in the early part of the movie. But then what maketh a star? Charisma! And since Arnold had oodles ofthat, Momoa had big shoes to fill in, and he turns up short. If a greathero makes an action movie enjoyable, a kickass villain makes theconfrontation, and hence the movie, memorable. Sadly, Conan theBarbarian has an incompetent villain, one who couldn't even scare acat, let alone enslave the world. Can all of us movie fans sign petitions to stop remakes? Remakes taintchildhood memories. My memories are dear to me. Watch Conan theBarbarian without too much expectation, maybe you will come out withonly a wince.
Neil Welch (22 May 2012)
Boobs do not a winner make
There was a lengthy, and promising, opening sequence telling of youngConan's birth, winning his spurs, and then the defining event inturning him into the nomadic warrior we are used to. This section wasgood. Then, early in the adult Conan's activities, we meet a largegroup of attractive bare-breasted cuties, at which point I thought"Hello, this movie looks distinctly promising." Unfortunately, they putin no further appearances. Instead, what happens is that Conan doessome fighting. Then he fights some more. After that, he fights again.And then he does some fighting. I have never seen a film with so muchfighting in it. Unfortunately, this takes the place of little thingslike character development.I think this film is so keen to lay out its credentials as a fresh, andadult, take on Conan after the Schwarzenegger era than it makes itclear early on that there will be gory violence and sex, and thenforgets that a movie needs a bit more than that. The story is adequatebut, if stripped of the fighting, would probably take about 10 minutesto tell.It looks good, if dark (as is the current fashion), Jason Momoa looksthe part (it's a bit difficult to tell if he can act it as he isn'tgiven much opportunity to do anything except fight), and Stephen Langoverdoes the sneering. Rose Magown looks weird without eyebrows. The 3Dwas, to use a technical term, "meh."
capone666 (20 May 2012)
The Vidiot Reviews...
Conan the BarbarianThe best part of wielding a broadsword is that, no matter what the sizeof the envelope, you'll have no problem opening it.And while the savage in this fantasy film doesn't use his blade to openletters, he does use it to open his enemies.Born in battle, Conan (Jason Momoa) is raised by his father (RonPerlman) to be a warrior.But when a warlord (Stephen Lang) looking to resurrect his dead wifeusing a magical mask slays his father, Conan vows revenge.Meanwhile, the despot and his daughter (Rose McGowan) seek out a pureblood to unleash the mask's power. With a splintered storyline that strains under the weight of dreadfulacting, Conan the Barbarian is a slapdash adaptation of Robert E.Howard's anti-hero.Unfortunately, when body-builders see the type of muscle mass that canbe gained from barbarism, they'll likely add rape to their workoutroutine. (Red Light)
Pingo-2 (20 May 2012)
Looks great - is boring.
Extremely well made. Looks wonderful. Child actors in the first 30minutes are super impressive. Actually, ALL actors in the film areimpressive! So are the action, the music, the sound effects, the CGI -everything is impressive! Except one thing and that is Conan thecharacter. He's Superman without cryptonite. Which makes him completelyboring. Which makes the movie boring.Sadly, but the film is so well made that they forgot to make the maincharacter interesting. Well - if you have a billion dollars and don'tcare about what you're doing, this is what you end up with.Schwarzenegger's version was more entertaining - this one looks better.If you're looking for a movie - rent the 1982-version.If you're looking for something visually cool - watch this.5/10
Wuchak (20 May 2012)
Looks good, nice action, but needed more depth
Since this 2011 film is a remake/reboot of the '82 version of Conan theBarbarian I'll draw comparisons throughout this review.Although the film's set-up is the same as the '82 version -- raidersdestroy Conan's Cimmerian village and thus the barbarian seeks revenge-- the story is completely different. The villains here are Khalar Zymand his witchy daughter, Marique, who seek to resurrect Zym's sorcerouswife, once they attain the needed pure blood necessary for theirAcheron magic (or something like that). WHAT WORKS: - Jason Momoa, as Conan, is excellent. Far better than Arnie. It's hardto conceive of a better Conan.- The Bulgarian locations are outstanding.- The Costuming is more convincing than the '82 version. Conan'sapparel, for instance, is more faithful to REH than Arnie's furloincloth.- Better acting than the '82 version, excluding James Earl Jones, ofcourse.- Brutal, thrilling action throughout. - Convincing swordplay.- Corsairs, highlighted by Conan's comrade Artus, effectively played bylikable Nonso Anozie.- Excellent sets/props. It definitely looks like the Hyborian Age.- Good serious vibe, despite the cartooney, over-the-top last act.- Rose McGowan as the witchy daughter is ee-vil and creepy.- Ron Perlman as Conan's father is outstanding.- The whole opening sequence.- I liked how the film stressed the closeness and love of Conan and hisfather. There's a correlation between true greatness and a closerelationship with a strong father-figure and his example of excellence.- You have to give credit to the filmmakers for effectivelyillustrating Conan's youthful days and life in a Cimmerian village ingeneral, something Conan's creator never delved into in any detail. WHAT DOESN'T WORK: - Deviated too much from Robert E. Howard, like the '82 version,although it certainly adhered to REH's overall pulp vibe. I'd prefer tosee 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 hecomes off too clichéd and cartooney, especially in the final act. JamesEarl Jones' Thulsa Doom worked better, likely because he was so unique.- Rachel Nichols' Tamara is okay, but she doesn't hold a candle toSandahl Bergman's Valeria.- The score is serviceable but pales in comparison with BasilPoledouris' score from the '82 version (or even "Conan The Destroyer").This score definitely won't be celebrated 30 years later like Basil's.Why didn't they just update Polerdouris' score?- Too much "Modern Blockbuster Syndrome" that appeals to those withADHD.- Especially the over-the-top final act, which is way too comic booky.It's cartooney overKILL, pure and simple. But, then again, it did bringto mind REH's "Jewels of Gwahlur," so maybe it's not so far off themark.- The 3D format was interesting but unnecessary. Why do theaters burdenfilms with this needless expense?- The biggest flaw was that there wasn't enough depth. The film neededmore 'downtime' to contrast the wall-to-wall action, like campfirescenes (which would better indicate distances), more camaraderie on theship, more development of Conan & Tamara's relationship, etc. Althoughit had some of this, it wasn't enough. Action sequences naturally holdmore weight when the audience cares about the characters.- 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 withdepth and epic-ness. For instance, when Conan & Subotai make theirstand against the riders of doom or Conan's moving victory salute, notto mention the potent love & death/funeral scenes, etc. This 2011version had glimpses of this, like when Conan is birthed on thebattlefield then raised to the sky and when Conan's father expresseshis love with his final act, but -- again -- it needed more.The film runs 113 minutes.THE DVD: I have to admit that I enjoyed the movie slightly more onnon-3D DVD. Need I point out that the cover of the DVD is Conan to a't'? The extras include a director's commentary (Marcus Nispel), acommentary with Momoa and McGowan, a 12-minute feature on REH, aslightly longer one on the character of Conan, and a couple of featureson the action scenes. CONCLUSION: The filmmakers got a lot of things right, like Momoa asConan and the authentic look/feel of the Hyborian Age. The film's notbad 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 violence for the sake of violence, which gets dull bythe 90-minute mark, plus the last act is just cartooney overkill.Here's hoping that there will be a future Director's Cut DVD withimportant character-defining moments that were needlessly cut for thetheatrical release ("Daredevil Director's Cut)" comes to mind).GRADE: Visually, this is a Grade A adaption of Conan all the way, butstorywise I'd only give it a C (for Cartooney), even though it has acouple glimpses of greatness. Overall Grade: C+ or B-
Christian Aragon (19 May 2012)
The Studios NEED real people standing over their shoulders ...
I'm not going to get into the plot set-up and all that other stuffwhich has already been prefaced to this movie's release a thousanddifferent ways. Just straight to the review ...The entire introduction sequence at the beginning of this Conan wasgreat, up until you see the Jason as the adult Conan. The child actorwho played young Conan was broodier, and the sequence where he proveshimself as a warrior was more dynamic and believable than most of theother action sequences in the movie. I really enjoyed that entire firstportion of the movie, but it went down hill after that.Jason Mamoa can be a really good Conan. He brought some new flare tothe character, but I have to say that ultimately I'm split between himand Arnie, with a bit more leaning to Arnie's Conan. The director, andJason himself, almost made this Conan rather "sun-shiney" and somewhatfluffy. They had all the sequences they needed to really get dark withhim, but they kept it fairly light. With the exception of some mildnudity they really didn't take advantage of the "R" rating. Withexception to that mild nudity much of this movie felt like amade-for-TV movie more so than something which should be in thetheaters.Plot ... bleh. It was a weak twist on the original movie's plot.Nothing special in any way, shape or form. In watching Conan go throughthe progression of the plot I felt like I was watching a video gameplay out where he was just maneuvering through the different levelbosses of the game to his ultimate goal. To say the plot was formula isalmost an insult to formula plots.The CGI, especially in the scenics, was entirely too obvious and verylight-hearted comic book-ish. I know there was a lot in this moviewhere they were drawing upon the great Frazetta artworks, but theymissed the marks several times. At the end of the movie, as with manyother contemporary special effects movies, I was missing the days ofmechanical special effects and matte paintings as backdrops. CGI hasdestroyed a lot of movies over the years and this was another victim ofthe over-reliance that's been wrought by the movie industry.The Studios NEED real people standing over their shoulders DURINGproduction of what should be great movies, ESPECIALLY when there'salready a fan base for the subject matter. They need people who aren'tafraid to NOT be "Yes Men" and tell them straight up that something isstupid, or over-done, or under-done or just plain not right and let'sstart it over. The Studios don't have the genital fortitude to do this,so this is the kind of disappointment we have to live through 2 hoursat a time throughout our lives. This movie could have been abeginning-of-summer blockbuster, but instead it's stuck in the"could-have-been" file.
benflashrock (18 May 2012)
Conan The Barbarian? Conan The Bore.
Not worthy of the Cimmerian blade. Started well, gruesome, loads ofblood splatting everywhere (which I wasn't expecting) and coolfighting, some awesome action...then too much...then more...then waymore. Story was rubbish and boring, didn't feel a thing for any of thecharacters and couldn't care less what happened. The villains quest wasclear at first then confusing and then pointless. I feel sorry for theactors as I think they thought they were making some brilliant epic,especially the lead, his acting certainly wasn't the problem. Seemed rushed as well, possibly this film had been butchered in theedit suit? They definitely got a few things right but it lacked themystical and magical feel that it needed. And the music was just 'meh'.The final product is forgettable. If you wanna see 'Conan The Barbarian' go get the John Millus/ArnoldSchwarzenegger version.
gregeichelberger (18 May 2012)
Was this 'Conan' or 'Pirates of the Caribbean'?
On a list of completely unnecessary remakes, the latest version of"Conan The Barbarian" certainly comes close to the top. And, unlikeit's box office competitor, "Fright Night," this one takes itself fartoo seriously for this humble critic to take anywhere near seriously.Based on the stories by Robert Howard and inspired in part by thegraphic novels and the 1985 Arnold Schwartzenegger film, this MarcusNispel-directed (the new "Friday the 13th," "Pathfinder") stars JasonMamoa as the title character and makes the first installment look like"Spartacus." Mamoa ("Game Of Thrones," "Baywatch" TV series) is as much a satisfyingsubstitute for Schwartzenegger as Wally Cox; and his quest to avengethe death of his Hyborian village family is like watching "NationalLampoon's Vacation" (without the laughs and more decapitations) blendedwith "Pirates Of the Caribbean." Yes, in fact, there's probably more time spent on old sailing vesselsin this movie than in "On Stranger Tides," if that's conceivable. Andwhen this tale of brutal genocide and vengeance is not waterlogged,it's stranded on dry land, making Nispel's dismal "Pathfinder" seemlucid and coherent by comparison.This newest version, with lightweight cast (especially the lead) andincomprehensible direction will certainly not invoke a rush for moresuch films (at least I HOPE not), and may even cause a spike in thepurchase or rentals of the original - itself a substandard sword andsandals semi epic on the lines of "Clash Of the Titans" or "Red Sonya."Nispel also seems to steal from "Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom,"as well, with a scene taken directly from the tearing out the guy'sheart for Kali sequence. In addition, look for the head villain, KhalarZym (Stephen Lang, also the bad guy in "Avatar") to be the object oflust from his own daughter. More than a little creepy, friends.Still, with Hollywood running out of new ideas and still catering - forsome bizarre reason - the the LCD (lowest common denominator), in thiscase 14-24 year-old males, this picture will no doubt top the mostimmediate box office polls.Thanks, of course, in no small part, to the many scenes of almost over-the-top graphic violence and a multitude of beheadings, dismemberments,disembowelments and just plain old slicing, dicing and stabbing. One of the most striking examples features a young Conan who has to runa race with a bird's egg in his mouth. In doing so, he slaughters ahorde of bad guys that appeared as if they just came from the set of"Last Of the Mohicans" with more than a passing resemblance to thePawnee Indians from "Dances With Wolves."Of course, it's all in a day's fun for the long-locked Mamoa, whosubstitutes such activity for any form of competent acting ability.So, if you're in for two hours of such banal nonsense - with noredeeming social or moral justification - feel free to part with yourhard-earned cash and enjoy this movie. If nothing else, it will give you the opportunity to check out theaging Ron Perlman ("Hellboy"), as Conan's old man, who over time isbeginning to look more and more like his TV series character of TheBeast, even with little or no makeup.
PureGore (16 May 2012)
A Rompin' Good Time
First and foremost, this movie is not for movie critics. This movie isfor people looking to watch a film with an open mind and have a goodtime doing it. In these days of Michael Bay pseudo-epics being releasedevery other week, it was great to sit down, turn off my brain, andenjoy a Conan movie that follows in the true tradition of Conanstories.This movie is also for true Conan fans. Lots of violent battles, bloodeverywhere, a dark arch-nemesis, nude women, rowdy yet loyal friends,Conan "getting some" with the main heroine... if you've ever read oneof the Robert E. Howard or Robert Jordan (or any other author inbetween) Conan stories, you know exactly what to expect in this movie.The typical Conan adventure recipe is being followed faithfully, and ina very good way.Jason Momoa is a FANTASTIC Conan. He's got the moves, the attitude andthe stoic presence that I've always imagined when reading the stories.The action sequences really play to his strengths, and he takes fulladvantage of them.Of course there's plenty of clichés throughout the movie, but that's tobe expected from a Conan story. The novels are full of them too.There's also a few moments of cheesy visual effects that don't work toowell. But it's easy to forget these and get pulled into the nextwell-scripted battle sequence.By far the lowest point of the entire movie was the "evil daughter"Marique, played by Rose McGowan. That's about the worst performanceI've seen on the big screen in decades. Either the character wasterribly scripted, or Rose McGowan was a terrible casting decision.She's worse than a parody, she's an embarrassment to the movie. Sceneswhere she's trying to exude an aura of evil are laughable (seriously, Ialmost burst out laughing when she was on screen trying to be ominous).Don't let the artsy fartsy movie critics dissuade you. If you know whatto expect, or if you're a fan of Conan stories, this movie isdefinitely worth the price of admission. After decades of waiting foranother Conan movie, we can rejoice: it's finally arrived!
Enchorde (16 May 2012)
Testosterone filled action
The name Conan comes with a lot of expectations. Many of them createdby the movies in the 80s starring Arnold Schwarzenegger as an absurdlymuscular barbarian warrior. Compared to the young Schwarzenegger JasonMomoa who has inherited the role is slim, but perhaps is a betteractor. But in essence they are both the same. Huge men, with bigmuscles that wields a big sword.When I think about there isn't much more to it really. That might seema little meager, but really, who expects anything else from a movienamed Conan the Barbarian? We have the muscled hero, a lot, lot, lot offighting and action and sometimes just a little too much blood andgore. The plot is somewhat of a reboot of the old movie, instead of acontinuation. It is a little thin, good enough to base an action movieon, but it does lack a dimension if there is any visions beyond justaction movie. What could have helped is better supporting characterswith real depth. For instance is the character Ela-Shan very under usedand undeveloped. Even rather big characters as Tamara, Marique andUkafa could really have been much more developed. As it is now it isjust about Conan really, and his fight against Khalar Zym. It is just abit too thin, too simple.Jason Momoa bears the role surprisingly well. Not as muscled asSchwarzenegger, but a little better actor. And Stephen Lang is good asthe bad guy, even though he seems a little undeveloped as well.But in the end, Conan is an entertaining movie, and that's what reallycounts. Never a dull moment just right along my expectations.6/10
tiger86-2 (15 May 2012)
The sad story of a good movie
This is not a great movie. I think I should start by saying it. It isjust great entertainment that deserved a much better fate...DISCLAIMER: This review is written very harshly. If you like the 1982Conan movie or you are an Arnold Schwarzenegger fanboy, skip it. Youwill hate it.As I said, this movie did not deserve to bomb so badly. Sadly, it did,and that was due to a few things.First, it had the worst marketing campaign that I have EVER seen. Idon't know who were the idiots responsible for its' marketing anddistribution but I hope they will never ruin any movie again. First,they released the real trailers too late. Second, they released theR-rated trailer too much time later than they released the PG-13trailer. Both things are huge mistakes. The "teaser" that was releasedfirst was just HORRIBLE. You remember it - the one with the mummiesdancing before some green smoke or something like that. It lookedcheaper than a trailer of SyFy movie and it didn't build any positiveexpectations even among the greatest Howard fans. The PG-13 trailer wasmuch better but it made the movie look similar to 'Prince of Persia' -and that built the wrong expectations and made a lot of people hate themovie before they saw it. After the evil was done they released thereal, red band trailer. But it was too late. Now, I get why did theyrelease a PG-13 trailer. What I don't get is why did they delay the Rrated trailer that much. It was a stupid marketing decision. What isworse, after they failed with the trailers, the producers of the moviemade an even worse mistake - they decided to release the movie only in3D in most places. Didn't these idiots read the millions of commentswritten by people who hate 3D? How about the people who get headache,nausea or dizziness from the 3D movies? And how about the fact thatalmost every movie that was shot in 2D and then converted in 3D lookedlike cr@p in 3D? Judging by the reviews that is what happened to CtBfor various reasons - rushed converting, the fact that the movie isshot and edited like a contemporary action movie with short cuts andsome shaky cam in some scenes, etc... Not to mention the fact that manypeople refuse to pay for the overpriced tickets of the 3D screenings.That is it. People already know that 3D is a gimmick to make them paymore but to see less.Of course, even the worst marketing wouldn't tank an otherwise goodmovie so badly if it weren't for other factors. Did you see myDISCLAIMER above? Read it again, please. Don't say I didn't warn you.The other factor were the Arnold Schwarzenegger's fanboys. I am sorrybut too many of these people deserve a horrible, painful death. Toomany of these people are brainless idiots. These idiots did everythingpossible to kill the movie. There were a lot of fake reviews written onmany sites describing how horrible the movie is. There were a lot ofbogus 1-s on sites like IMDb.com. The "No Arnold - no Conan" topics onevery single movie message board or forum in the world were countless.And why? Because their precious body builder with the acting talent ofa tree starred in the most overrated piece of sh!t in the fantasy moviegenre - the 1982 movie called 'Conan the Barbarian'. These idiotsfailed to acknowledge the simple fact that Arnold's character hadNOTHING to do with Conan. Arnold's character was not even a barbarian!That is what angers me a lot. Arnold's character was everything thatthe real Conan IS NOT - a slave, a gladiator, a lumbering idiot who isas slow as a snail and is barely able to speak. Milius and Stoneliterally STOLE the name of the real Conan and cashed in on his fame.Stone even wanted to place the story in a post-apocalyptic futures.Whoever says this is not true is just an idiot, and that is an absoluteFACT. Don't you agree with me? That would be like not agreeing with thefact that the sea is full of water. I am not stating opinions, I amstating FACTS. And the fact that the old movie is not true to the realConan is the least of its' problems. Try to look at it with your fanboyglasses off and you will see for yourself how incredibly lame it is andhow terrible it is when it comes to acting, script, editing and action- especially when it comes to action. The 1982 movie contains the worstsword fights that one can see in such a cult movie.To sum it up - the 1982 movie is a piece of sh!t. It is badly written,terribly acted, horribly choreographed and awfully directed, and itcashed in on the name of a famous and beloved character. Its' onlysaving grace is its' score. Sadly, Arnoldheads are too busy lickingArnold's shoes and can't see that. That is why they flooded theInternet with hatred towards the new movie and created fake word ofmouth about the new movie. That is why they killed it. Being the idiotsthat they are, they destroyed everyone's chance of seeing a high budgetR-rated fantasy movie again. Good for you, Arnoldheads. As someone onthe movie's message board said, I hope you enjoy your big stinking pileof NOTHING. I have nothing against people who liked the old movie or despised thenew one. However I had to report a few fake reviews here - they werewritten by idiots who had obviously not seen the movie but trashed itanyway. I dedicate what I wrote here to them.
washedupfailure (15 May 2012)
No imagination
SPOILERS FOR BOTH CONAN MOVIES FOLLOWThe first Conan is one of my favorite movies of all time. The Destroyersucks although I did like it when I was a kid. The new one sucks too.There are too many battle scenes and they are all dull. There isabsolutely nothing new here. What made the first movie so great was thepoetry of it all. The land felt barren. Conan was not another cookiecooker hero on a cookie cutter George Lucas hero quest but a truenomad...a man who wanders from one encounter to the next...a witch...asnake cult...getting drunk and laid...punching a camel...happening uponthe man who murdered his father...killing him...the epistemologicalspace in which the first Conan takes place is that of a senselesspremodern universe in which magical events succeed each other withoutever truly fusing into one overarching narrative. Meaning is alwayssomewhere over the horizon and the gods never deign to show themselves.The movie is filmed, scripted and scored in such a way that we feel theradical foreignness of Conan's universe. In the new film, however,there is no alterity at all, no imagination, no sense of beingtransported, no attempt to depart from the vaguely ideologicalboilerplate superhero narrative in even the slightest way...no mythicalresonance...the new Conan struts and smirks like something out of theFast and the Furious and has none of the cruel charisma of ArnoldSchwarzenegger. Although the movie is incredibly violent and gory, thepat coziness of the narrative renders all of this violence absolutelysterile. Nothing real is ever at stake and the movie has nothing to sayabout anything. It practically evaporates off the screen it is soephemeral. Don't waste your time with this one...watch the first oneagain.By the way, I am not one of those people who dislikes remakes and"reboots" on principle...I actually really enjoyed Marcus Nispel'sreboot of Friday the 13th...but he's out of his depth here.
rockguru (14 May 2012)
Conan the accountant
I was really looking forward to see that. Yet after the first 15 min itwas painful to watch how Conan 2.0 crashed and burned.No amount of special effects can hide the awful dialog, the ridiculousscript. The worst of all is Conan's lack of charisma. The barbaricspirit Ahnold introduced is replaced with a tamed nicer Conan.With few exceptions - young Conan and Conan's father the acting wasbelow average. The whole premise feels like made from accountants who were wonderinghow to recycle Hollywood gimmicks and it is as interesting as balancesheet. The story looks confused and broken introducing too manyinsignificant side elements. I wonder who was the "genius" behind thefemale Freddy Krueger?Conan number two is just that - it stinks.Boring boring boring...
avfanatic (14 May 2012)
Disappointing
Conan the Barbarian reboot was disappointingly average. The acting wassolid, but dialog was often weak, art direction was uninspired anddirecting was poor at best. Not one single good transition betweenscenes in the entire movie. Only the first fight sequence was verygood, the rest were meh. The director and writer should go see Rise ofthe Planet of the Apes to see how a franchise is rebooted well and withnods to the original. The "mystery of steel"? Really? And theramshackle Cimmerians with stick and hide huts but a well built forgeand a reputation for being great smiths couldn't make nails for betterhousing? I had no problems with Momoa as Conan and his dialog aboutwomen and fighting was the only thing truly Conan about this film. Icould go on about the dropped subplots and the inconsistencies withstory, but that would just show my ire at not seeing what I hoped for:a new start for a great character.
spideyhenk (13 May 2012)
Awesome!
I am not making this review long as I don't think it is needed. Thismovie was old fashion 80 style movie. Everything was in it, all the oldingredients to make a classic 80's movie. I know people will eitherlove or hate me for this comment, but I thought the movie was justbrilliant. You don't see a lot of these kind of movies anymore. So muchis made with computers that it looks fake and most of todays moviesdon't have the blood and gore anymore which they deserve to have, whichwill make a movie so much better. I just love that there is a directorand writer out there that dare to make these sort of movies where theycan hack and slash in it. I just loved it and my friends did as well,we cheered and laughed about it. Brilliantly done!
derekblake (13 May 2012)
How to Make a Movie in the Dark
I am struggling to actually review this movie, not because of its weakstory-line or because of its total lack of imagination, or even becauseof its gratuitous violence (most of which is hidden), but because theone thing that was missing was a lighting engineer. Yes folks, this isan object lesson in how to make a low budget blockbuster movie, thoughhow much money was actually saved by shooting seventy-five percent ofthe film in darkness I don't know. However the other cost saving wascertainly well designed, a few decent cameramen who could actually keepthe shot in focus would have spoiled the whole thing for me. Out offocus darkness was entertaining for the first ten minutes, after thatit became irritating, the big fight scene in the last ten minutes ofthe film is lost completely but then that will have saved on the costof giving the monster too much detail, rather than leaving it a a pieceof wet hose pipe. What a waste of time and money, not the productioncompanies, but mine, I can sit in the dark with some flickering lightsat home for free. There was one decent fight scene in the film abouthalf way through, but it was certainly not worth the ticket price. Oneof the worst and most irritating films I have seen for a long time.
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20