User reviews

I've always been a fan not only of Robert E. Howard's fantasy stories but also of the Marvel Comics or the 1982 film "Conan the Barbarian" with Arnold Schwarzenegger. So when I heard of a new Conan I was most interested. With today's budget and cgi they really could pull it off. Oh Man I was wrong.

Where do I start as everything is wrong in this movie …Words cannot adequately describe how terrible this movie is. It's that bad. However I have come to my senses to provide you with seven reasons why this film is bad.

Number 1 the plot is "shaky". Here is the plot summary in one sentence: Conan witness the destruction of his Tribe and the Death of his Father by an evil Warlord who search the pieces of an ancient mask that is supposed to resurrect his wife, an evil sorceress that could grant him the powers of a God… OK??? Obviously a Conan film isn't built on a Tarkovskian scenario but with this Conan we reach an apogee in terms of bad writing. Writers Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer aren't fit for writing. The least they could have done was to read Robert E. Howard's literature and if as I suspect they aren't capable of reading more than 10 pages, I suggest looking at Marvel Comics who introduced a relatively lore-faithful version of Conan the Barbarian in 1970 written by Roy Thomas and illustrated by Barry Windsor-Smith. In fact the total lack of understanding the character of Conan not only from the writers but also from Director Marcus Nispel and actor Jason Momoa is the main problem. I am not a Conan fanatic but if you put the word Conan somewhere in a movie title I guess as a Director you need to understand what is the essence of a Conan movie… You owe it to your audience; you owe it to yourself…

Number 2, the script is bad and as soon as Conan's Mother opens her mouth to name his son before she dies we know we are in for a treat of bad dialogs and overall silly script. What follows is ridicule one liners deliver with zero conviction from every protagonist.

Number 3, where are the sidekicks? In a Conan film good sidekicks are mandatory. I remember Subotai (Jerry Lopez) in the 1982 Conan. He was a cool, loyal, and courageous dude. Every fan of this film remembers the crucifixion scene when suddenly Subotai appears in the horizon to save the day. Valeria was also a very likable and an equally strong character, some sort of Valkyrie that impacted Conan's emotions. In this 2011 version female characters are filler. The dialog of the main female character consists in screaming "Conan" every time she is in danger. Moreover there are no charismatic sidekicks or even interesting other characters. The black pirate serves as a pretext for a black character but has the personality of a "playmobil"; the "Arabic" Thief is so common I don't even remember his name or face.

Number 4, a good villain should have depth… Stephen Lang as Khalar Zym does not do the job. Sure there wasn't much to do with the poor script he had in hands and screaming "barbarian!!!" every 2 seconds of his screen time doesn't help. Plus Rose McGowan transformed by either plastic-surgery or bad cgi (couldn't really tell) as his witchy daughter Marique is so outrageously goth that you constantly wonder if you are in a Conan film or in a remake of the Crow. Net net all protagonists are badly written and played even Ron Perlman, as Conan's father, is wasted.

Number 5, there isn't any consistency between the scenes…We watch Conan's Ship being attacked during the night, but the next scene of the battle for the Ship happens during the day… We see the girl go mating with Conan in a rocky cave of what seems to be a cliff environment. In the next morning when she attempts to go back to the Ship she gets kidnapped in what appears to be a Forest. At this stage I kept wondering if the Director was a little bit "special" or if the film editor endured a lobotomy half way during the editing session. Now that I think about it it's probably both.

Number 6, they didn't hire a lead designer and that shows…they should have. Costumes, armors, or even Architecture (by the way you can clearly see the use of models) don't fit the Conan universe and there isn't any vision or unity regarding the design of the film. As a result you don't have a feel that the story takes place in a possible ancient time with tangible ancient civilizations. So basically the production recycled costumes from the last 10 sand & sandals films and the result is catastrophic.

Number 7, they didn't hire a composer and that shows too. I understand that not everyone can be Basil Poledouris the composer of the haunting score from the 1982 Conan but in this 2011 Conan I was forgetting the music as I was watching the film…this is a premiere to me.

As a conclusion there is close to nothing that is enjoyable in this film. There is no sense of adventure that makes a heroic fantasy film worth it. There is no sense of progression that makes a revenge plot efficacious. There is no sense of danger that makes an action film breathtaking. There is no sense of feasibility that makes a film epic. There is no adequate script that makes characters believable and there is no musical soundtrack that draws you into the Journey. Give me 45millions dollars (half of the amount spent on this mockery) and some of the Conan fans from IMDb and we will probably do a better film

Conan lacks myth - it truly lacks that sense of myth and wonder that created a whole new genre, and it lacks cinematic vision, it lacks what makes film rather than TV, and while entertaining after a decade of Xena and Game of Thrones we deserve more than this in our big budget movies.

Casting is fine, plot is a little dull, action is half-way to OK - it's just that overall there is nothing to really put life into this - where is the wow! factor, the, yes this is film. Even if you're making a B movie it doesn't excuse it.

In the right hands and the right team this could be storytelling at its best, instead we get a film that thrives on the cliché of its genre. It may have lots of sorcery, but it truly lacks magic.

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

WHAT WORKS:

• Jason Momoa, as Conan, is excellent; far better than Arnie. It's hard to conceive of a better Conan.

• The Bulgarian locations are outstanding.

• The Costuming is more convincing than the '82 version. Conan's apparel, for instance, is more faithful to REH than Arnie's fur loincloth.

• Better acting than the '82 version, excluding James Earl Jones, of course.

• Brutal, thrilling action throughout with convincing swordplay (unlike the contrived '82 version).

• Corsairs, highlighted by Conan's comrade Artus, effectively played by likable Nonso Anozie.

• Excellent sets/props; it definitely looks like the Hyborian Age.

• Good serious vibe, despite the cartoony, over-the-top last act.

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

• Ron Perlman as Conan's father.

• The whole opening sequence.

• I liked how the film stressed the closeness and love of Conan and his father. There's a correlation between true greatness and a close relationship with a strong father-figure and his example of excellence.

• You have to give credit to the filmmakers for effectively illustrating Conan's youthful days and life in a Cimmerian village in general, something Conan's creator never delved into in any detail.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK:

• The film deviates from Robert E. Howard, albeit not as much as the '82 version. Regardless, it certainly adhered to REH's overall pulp vibe. I'd prefer to see one of REH's originals put to film, like "A Witch Shall Be Born" or "Beyond the Black River."

• Stephan Lang as Zym makes a worthy enough villain for Conan, but he comes off too clichéd and cartoony, especially in the final act. James Earl Jones' Thulsa Doom worked better, likely because he was so unique.

• Rachel Nichols' Tamara is solid as the female protagonist, but she doesn't hold a candle to Sandahl Bergman's Valeria.

• The score is serviceable but pales in comparison with Basil Poledouris' score from the '82 version and "Conan The Destroyer" (1984). This score definitely won't be celebrated 30 years later like Basil's. Why didn't they just update Polerdouris' piece?

• There's too much "Modern Blockbuster Syndrome" that appeals to those with ADHD.

• Especially the over-the-top final act, which is way too comic booky. It's cartoony overkill, pure and simple. But, then again, it did bring to mind REH's "Jewels of Gwahlur," so maybe it's not so far off the mark.

• The biggest flaw was that there wasn't enough depth. The film needed more 'downtime' to contrast the wall-to-wall action, like campfire scenes (which would better indicate distances), more camaraderie on the ship, more development of Conan & Tamara's relationship, etc. Although it had some of this, it wasn't enough. Action sequences naturally hold more weight when the audience cares about the characters. As it is, it's clear that the filmmakers wanted to make an action flick above all else and this weakens the film.

• Along with lack of depth was the lack of epic-ness or moving moments. The '82 film deviated from REH but at least it made up for it with depth and a sense of epic-ness. For instance, when Conan & Subotai make their stand against the riders of doom or Conan's moving victory salute, not to mention the potent love & death/funeral scenes, etc. This 2011 version had glimpses of this, like when Conan is birthed on the battlefield then raised to the sky and when Conan's father expresses his love with his final act, but, again, it needed more.

CONCLUSION: The filmmakers got a lot of things right, like Momoa as Conan and the authentic look/feel of the Hyborian Age. The film's not bad at all and pulsates with energy, but it needed more depth, epic-ness and uniqueness to pull it out of its "blockbuster" mediocrity. It's a case of violence for the sake of violence, which gets dull by the 90-minute mark, plus the last act is just comic booky overload. The focus on wall-to-wall action limits the film's effectiveness. It lacks the confidence to chill and allow the characters to breathe. Still, it's a somewhat worthy Conan movie. It's serious and brutal; and, thankfully, lacks "cute" characters. It's arguably on par with "Conan the Destroyer" and superior in ways, not to mention leagues better than "Red Sonja" (1985) and "Kull the Conqueror."

The film runs 1 hour, 53 minutes.

GRADE: B-/C+

Director Marcus Nispel is undoubtedly the long-lost offspring of trash master and fellow German, Uwe Boll, as this film is so profoundly awful on every level that it's hard to think that it wasn't intentionally made this way.

Remarkably, the movie gets bad immediately and stays that way. One of its most jarring aspects is that it begins with Morgan Freeman's narration, which sounds so utterly out of place, with his comforting, slightly Southern drawl the total opposite of everything bloody and Cimmerian, that it instantly comes across like self-parody, as if we were seeing some schticky Mel Brooks interpretation after the fact. This ham-handed disregard for appropriate tone haunts every frame of the film.

The story fails to find the real Conan -- who in Robert E. Howard's stories is a smart, tough, brutal survivor -- and instead seems to reveal to us the underwhelming idea that Conan's just another hunky sword dude with a knack for slaughter.

The script inconsistently sticks to any epic poetic flair in the dialog, so that when such words are delivered, they feel forced and flat. The noted line "I live, I love, I slay, and I am content," is meted out with such lack of panache or feeling that I wanted to wash out Jason Momoa's mouth with soap, right after forcing him to watch Schwarzenegger -- not a great actor, by any means -- deliver the unforgettable tagline: "To crush your enemies, drive them before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." But then again, John Milius bothered to direct his actors.

Stephen Lang (Colonel Quaritch of "Avatar") is the half-assed villain Khalar Zym, who inspires zero awe and no respect on his whatever quest for some supernatural thingy, which is such an afterthought that you constantly forget about it. And post plastic-surgery Rose McGowan as his witchy daughter Marique is so outrageously goth that you half-wish for a Sisters of Mercy musical cue every time she steps on camera; if only her performance received the same attention as her over-the-top costumes. Ron Perlman, as Conan's father, is simply wasted. Weep!

I'm totally sick of the short-attention-span style of storytelling. The filmmakers are so afraid that if some big action sequence doesn't occur every ten minutes, that we'll be bored; and of course, this quickly has the opposite effect, as we instead become bored from so much pointless, poorly shot and edited action unsupported by character or story. Video games often have more character development than this film, and yes, I'm specifically thinking of the comparatively Shakespearean struggles portrayed in Donkey Kong.

I bestowed two stars on this flick, as the second is for unintentional hilarity, of which the film has much. Its hyperbolic Hyborian cartoonishness makes you either wince or chuckle derisively. Hopefully, as many heads as roll on screen will also roll in Hollywood for this abortive, dreadful garbage.

Perhaps the noble Conan will someday get his proper due in a modern film. But not today.

Well, in general I'm not this master for writing reviews or anything else. But in general, I do agree with 95% of IMDb ratings, besides some special cases. And this is one of them.

Seriously, if we put away the old Conan the Barbarian Movie with Arnie. This movie offers You "A grade" quality of picture, "A- grade" quality of camera angles "B grade" quality of story composition "B grade" quality of actor performance and "A- grade" of sound/music quality. It's not that bad as a movie for DVD/BD @ your home, right? And frankly, many TV movies have much, much higher vote rating as Conan.

For me, I really enjoyed some fights in the movie, I liked how actors were masked up, also enjoyed Conan as a kid and as an adult. As I say, these guys didn't put out any blockbuster performance to Your screen but seriously, it wasn't that bad [5/10] all in all. It really deserves solid 6/10 from a random viewer and from a fan of medieval times and fantasy good 7/10.

Though, this is only my opinion and I fully respect the opinions of whole IMDb community...

First, I would like to say I love Howard's stories. I also like the 82 film. So that this deviates from Howard a little (or a lot) isn't really a bother to me.

Now, before I get to the review I want to say to anyone out there studying film (like myself) to watch this movie. It will prove to you that no matter how much action, blood or one liners you squeeze into a movie, if the story and characterization are missing you don't have a movie.

Without ANY disrespect, I would urge Mr. Nispel to do a film course, as he clearly needs to learn story telling at its most basic. This is not an insult, this is advice, because I believe once he has a better grasp on it, he will make a fine film maker.

Conan the Barbarian is a summer movie. Sadly this also has become synonymous with stupid, bad movies. And this film doesn't escape that. Clearly this film had a lot of trouble, by the looks of it at the conceptual stage. The fact the Sean Hood had to rewrite on set proves the material they had to work with was a disaster, and it shows.

Donelley and Oppenheimer (forgive my spelling) did a poor job on the script, if, what was shown in the final cut was more or less what they wrote. Mr. Hood's rewrites I heard were quite well received, but I also hear they cut most of what he wrote out of the cinematic cut...

This film, cursed with a poor script fails at even just an entertainment level. Sure, there is lots of action and fighting, but there is no emotion behind it. I was actually bored half way through of the fighting and wanted some damn character scenes, of which there are none of note. And that is another problem, after the first act (young Conan) nobody has any character. They walk around, kill or die and that is all. Their motivations are given to us in a single line and that is all.

The cast were good, but they had nothing to work with. The directing was inconsistent, the mood was all over the place, at times it smelt of a less fun Scorpion King with Artus and Elan-sha (I know I got those names wrong) being out of place "comic relief". Stephen Lang, as usual is good, but again, he has nothing to work with, so he stands and acts mean a lot.

The one thing that really took me out of the world of the film, is the dialogue. Which lacks any sort of finesse, culture, period etc. It sounds like modern speech... which is one thing it shouldn't sound like. Imagine watching a Western where they all talk in modern American slang, that is what this dialogue felt like. It was dialogue you write in your first draft, then go back over and make it good...though it seems no one did in Conan.

The film looked nice, I'll give it that. Some scenes were too bright and conflicted with the mood, but again, the mood changed as often as it would in an angst ridden teenager. The CGI wasn't bad, it wasn't great but it was serviceable.

The Dweller scene was pathetic. There was no choreography, set up to it, Momoa literally stood in one spot for most of it and did just ducked around a lot. Clearly a complete failure in the directing department for this scene which had no climax.

Costume and wardrobe design was impressive. Lang's armour and get up were nice, McGowan looked sexy in a freaky kind of way. So visually it almost always worked.

Overall, I suggest seeing it if you are curious, it isn't the worst thing to happen to cinema by a long shot. But, with no story, at least none that is told in a coherent way, no character development or motivation and no sense of culture or the world the characters (caricatures) inhabit it not only fails as a Conan movie, it fails as a movie. It fails as a coherent story told with moving pictures, it breaks the very foundation of cinema's rules. It cannot engage an audience, because there is nothing for us to care about. As a video game, this would kick arse. As a movie, it falls on it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

First of all, before I say anything about the movie I want people to know a little bit about me. I went into this movie with an open mind wanting to see it anyway despite the horrid reviews it's been getting from critics. (I generally tend to ignore the critics especially for movies that I personally think will be worth seeing in theaters) the trailer looked pretty cool for this one, so I went in expecting at the least an awesome super gory action flick. What I got was the total opposite and a huge disappointment for me. The critics are right. Conan the Barbarian is overall an absolutely terrible movie.

To be fair, the movie actually starts out with some promise showing us young Conan and a really brutal kick-ass action scene with young Conan in the beginning. After the beginning sequence though, the movie starts to fall apart rapidly. The dialog is extremely weak and uninspired. I kid you not, Conan probably says a maximum of forty words or less throughout the entire movie. Whoever wrote the script seemed like they just stopped trying and gave up after the promising beginning scenes.

Another thing that I found really disappointing was that Conan himself was just not brutal enough. Only for short moments here and there he did some barbarian like things but not at all on the level that you'd expect from a movie titled "Conan The Barbarian" The action scenes themselves were just not filmed well at all. It was filmed using very fast paced cuts and it was very confusing to keep up with what was happening on screen. The camera always seemed to be lagging behind the action, and just when it finally catches up with Conan to see what he's doing, the bad guy is already dead. Great.

The plot was a jumbled mess and the acting pretty much on every level, was completely horrendous. Personally I am a fan of Jason Momoa. After his performance as the savage Khal Drago on the hit show "Game of Thrones" I thought he would be absolutely perfect to portray Conan, but sadly he is very weak in this role and really adds nothing new or interesting to the character. One more thing to be mentioned is that the 3D in this movie is non-existent. (Yes I saw it in 3D and don't think I am bashing the movie just because the 3D was horrible) The sad truth is even if I saw the regular 2D film I would still think the same about it. It is just that bad of a movie.

I dare to say that even 10,000 BC was better than this movie. (And that movie was terrible) At least in that movie you could tell what was happening during the action scenes. I strongly felt the urge to warn people not to waste their hard earned money on this movie. Trust me you will thank me for saving you the money. But, if you are dead-set on seeing it for yourself anyway despite what I have to say DO NOT see it in 3D it really is just an extra waste of money. Think "Clash of The Titans" not one thing in the entire film is 3D except for the ending credits. Avoid this film at all costs. 1/5

OK, you're going to read a lot of reviews about how awful this movie is. It's not. For all the people who claim to have read, and loved, Howard's books, and then trash this movie, they obviously suffer from looking at the past through rose-colored glasses, and they obviously haven't read Howard since they were teens.

Howard's books weren't good, they were pulp. And this movie is pulp, and it's pretty good pulp.

Conan is NOT a 'complex', or 'deep and brooding' character; he's a thug with a sword. And Momoa is the first actor to play him even close to Howard's vision. Howard's plots were not 'deep', his target audience was sexually frustrated 15 year old boys. To ascribe any 'literary' qualities to his books is BS. And this movie, true to Howard, targets the same audience.

Is the dialog good? No; neither was Howard's. Is the action good? Yes. Are the women hot and half naked? Yes. And THAT is the soul of Howard's Conan - violence and sex packaged for the 50's audience.

What struck me most about this movie is that for the first time, I saw on screen a movie that was true to Howard's Conan. Not Arnold's Conan, not the Conan from the broadsheet comics or the horrible comics from the 80's, but Conan as Howard wrote him: brutal, grand, violent and only interested in the next piece of a**.

If you love Howard's books, you'll like this movie. If your vision of Conan comes from anything else, you'll hate it; but in that case, you never 'got' Conan in the first place. Kudos to Momoa; he did a GREAT job, and I'll happily pay to see him do it again. One thing - avoid the 3D version, it's positively pain inducing. Rent the video and watch it in 2D.

Apparently those who have not actually read and enjoyed the original Robert E. Howard stories are responsible for this film's incomprehensibly and unfairly underrated status. It's far superior to the earlier attempts and much truer to Howard's characterization. As a film it's also superior to such bloated and underwhelming projects as "Prince of Persia" and "Gods of Egypt" which were little more than boring big-screen video games with non-existent or nonsensical plots. The abundant action proceeds briskly and the film looks stunning. It's an excellent introduction to the Conan character with Jason Mamoa doing the barbarian proud. Unfortunately it's generating more fans from the DVD release than it did while during its theatrical run, which is probably going to preclude more of the Conan stories being filmed, on this scale at least.

I am struggling to actually review this movie, not because of its weak story-line or because of its total lack of imagination, or even because of its gratuitous violence (most of which is hidden), but because the one thing that was missing was a lighting engineer. Yes folks, this is an object lesson in how to make a low budget blockbuster movie, though how much money was actually saved by shooting seventy-five percent of the film in darkness I don't know. However the other cost saving was certainly well designed, a few decent cameramen who could actually keep the shot in focus would have spoiled the whole thing for me. Out of focus darkness was entertaining for the first ten minutes, after that it became irritating, the big fight scene in the last ten minutes of the film is lost completely but then that will have saved on the cost of giving the monster too much detail, rather than leaving it a a piece of wet hose pipe. What a waste of time and money, not the production companies, but mine, I can sit in the dark with some flickering lights at home for free. There was one decent fight scene in the film about half way through, but it was certainly not worth the ticket price. One of the worst and most irritating films I have seen for a long time.

First of all,let's clear one thing - I'm a big fan of Milius's Conan ( 1982 ) version,but that didn't stop me from seeing this movie. Mainly,my strongest reason for writing this review is because of all the people that bashed this movie and hated it without even seeing it,and this flick certainly doesn't deserve this low score.

When I watched this movie I didn't have high expectations,but the most important thing here is that you shouldn't compare this movie to the Arnie's version,they are two totally different things.The only thing these two have in "common" is the origin story which happens in the first 15-20 minutes and that's it.

Overall,I liked this movie.Sure,it had few clichés and few bad dialogues which couldn't have been avoided,but as I said,overall this was a pleasant surprise.Remember,we are talking about Conan movie here,so you can't expect Oscar winning performances or certain depth of story.This is action adventure movie or sword and sorcery movie to be precise,and maybe that is the main reason that I liked the movie,because that genre is practically dead,so this was certainly a welcome addition.

This movie has all that you'll expect from Conan movie-it's brutal ( there are buckets of blood and violence ),there is magic,little bit of boobs,battles,creatures etc,etc...Certainly not movie for children.

On the acting side,I must say I liked Jason Momoa as Conan,I wasn't expecting to like him( having seen few trailers where they inserted that awful line "I slay,I love,blah,blah" ).Everybody else in the cast was solid,except female cast.While on the whole I didn't have anything against Rose McGowan's Marique character,Rachel Nichols's Tamara was totally one dimensional character and I really didn't care for her( cliché ridden character that unfortunately you have to have in this kind of story ).

This movie was doomed,bashed and trashed before it even stepped into production,first because of the director and then because of Jason Momoa.While I also wasn't thrilled with both of these choices,I gave this movie a chance...and didn't regret it,and I would ( if it ever gets made,which is probably impossible ) like to see a sequel.At least see it,before you say anything and see it for what it is-an entertaining sword and sorcery action flick.

7.5 out of 10 for what it is

I enjoyed the 1982 Conan the Barbarian, and went into this movie not expecting a film as good but one to be entertaining. Alas, this Conan the Barbarian only has the costume and set design going for it. Everything else is pretty much a disaster. The music score is not as memorable, or as epic or as haunting. The direction has inconsistencies with the tone especially all over the map. The dialogue is cliché-ridden and as much as I am starting to dislike using the term anachronistic the term applies to me here, the story is dull and sluggish and the characterisations feel little more than stock stereotypes. The acting doesn't help, Stephen Lang has good presence but has nothing to work with. The lead on the other hand has no charisma whatsoever. Overall, disappointing and weak. 2/10 Bethany Cox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many years ago, sorcerers crafted the Mask of Acheron and dark forces of Acheron conquered the world. However, the barbarians vanquished Acheron warriors and broke the Mask into pieces and divided among the tribes.

The barbarian Cimmerian village of chief Corin (Ron Perlman) is attacked by the evil warlord Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang) that wants the last piece of bone of the Mask of Acheron to resurrect his wife. When his witch daughter Marique (Rose McGowan) finds the hidden piece, he slaughters the villagers and the Corin's son Conan is the only survivor. Conan swears revenge against Khalar Zym.

Years later, the warrior Conan (Jason Momoa) is a pirate and he decides to release slaves from a field. When he is celebrating in a tavern with his friends, he sees a thief being chased by a guard and Conan recognizes him as Lucius (Steven O'Donnell), the Khalar Zym's soldier that he cut the nose out. Conan let the guards capture him and once in the prison, he forces Lucius to tell him where Khalar Zym is. Meanwhile Khalar Zym attacks a monastery where Marique believes that a pure-blood descent of Acheron lives. But the monk sent the descent Tamara (Rachel Nichols) back to her homeland. She is chased by Khalar Zym's soldiers, but Conan saves her. Now Conan intends to use Tamara to reach the evil Khalar Zym. Will he succeed in his intent?

"Conan the Barbarian" is an entertaining adventure, full of action, fantasy and special effects. I was reluctant to see this movie, since I do not like remakes, but this 2011 movie is totally different from the 1982 Conan the Barbarian with Arnold Schwarzenegger. The good story of revenge has a great cast, and Rachel Nichols is one of the most beautiful contemporary actresses. I had low expectations with "Conan the Barbarian" and I had a favorable surprise, maybe because I am fan of this genre. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Conan, o Bárbaro" ("Conan, the Barbarian")

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

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

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

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

The Original "Conan the barbarian" was meant to be the beginning of a series. But for whatever reason only 2 films were ever made starring 80's action star Arnold Schwarzenegger. I don't know why they felt he was irreplaceable as the lead character (Although I like Arnold, I'm sure he was chosen for his muscles over his acting skills) seeing as the character had been around long before he ever was. This is what happened however, and so production on further "Conan" films stopped.

Too me, it really feels like another Conan film is long over-due. The Only complaint I really have is that they chose to do a remake or reboot or whatever you want to call it when I'd off preferred them to do something different from every other franchise, and maybe just do another sequel. They'd have got away with that I think. Either way I guess this is intended to be the restart of a series they hope to get right this time, and from what I've heard, fans of the original "Conan" stories (who were less than thrilled by Schwarzeneggers efforts) are loving this so who am I to judge?

As a stand alone movie I can honestly say that it REALLY didn't want me to be bored by it, but it kind off did get boring in parts because of its constant action and noise. The story was about as straight forward as they come, but some of the action was pretty cool and I was surprised by its violence and nudity. Not that these are good things but it made it all slightly different from other PG-13 Sword and sorcery films I've seen, and apparently reflects the style of the source material so it was all good.

If this movie was released back when the Hollywood Studio System was in effect, this would have been the perfect "B" movie. It's not perfect, but it has enough action, fantasy, and pretty ladies to satisfy any fantasy-action junkie. As for it being a remake, I can't compare it to the original at this time because I have not seen it. But I do know Arnold would make a better Conan than Jason Momoa.

Marcus Nispel's film is about a Cimmerian warrior who goes out to avenge his father's death by defeating an evil warlord and his empire.

Jason Momoa wasn't terribly bad in the role, but he wasn't that great. His personality seemed wooden to me. Ron Perlman, who always stars in these kind of films, is really good as usual. Stephen Lang makes a pretty good impression of a bad guy. I must note that for these kind of "escapist" films, acting is not the main component. Unless the actors are truly bad of course.

Overall, this remake is action-packed and is pretty gory. I hear this film is way more violent than the original. I liked the creature designs and all the fantasy elements of the film. This is the perfect end-of-the-summer movie or a rainy-day movie. The movie itself is not perfect but it should have gotten better reviews. I rate this film 8/10.

Let me preface this review by stating that I have not seen either of the Arnold Schwarzenegger films (except for the opening scene of the first one during a class), not a single episode of any of the TV shows, whether animated or live-action and have never read any of the original stories by Robert E. Howard nor any subsequent comic book and have never played any of the video games. As such, I have no means to compare it to the previous films or to assess its fidelity to Howard's works. I am coming in fresh, and reviewing this film strictly on its own merits using as prejudice only my image brought over by pop culture of who Conan The Barbarian is.

The basic story is this: as a Morgan Freeman sound-alike tells us, a long time ago there were these bad guys, the Acheron, who had this bone mask which made them really powerful, but the Barbarian tribes united and beat them to a pulp and they destroyed the mask with each tribe keeping a piece of the mask so that it can't be united again. Then came the "Hyborian Age" and baby Conan is born on a battlefield to the chief of a Cimmerian village and a mother who dies in the process. Years later, teenage Conan is a skillful fighter and the village is attacked by a guy who wants to reunite the mask pieces. He finds the last piece remaining with the help of his witch daughter and Conan is forced to watch his father die in front of him. Naturally, he vows revenge and years later, adult Conan still searches for his father's murderers.

I will just come straight out and say I very much enjoyed this version of Conan The Barbarian. No, it's not an Oscar contender, of course not. No, there are no big surprises either, the whole thing is pretty straightforward. But it fulfilled every expectation I had from a movie called "Conan The Barbarian". Much like the other recent Robert E. Howard adaptation from the same producers, 2009's Solomon Kane, and perhaps even more so, it's a perfectly sound, effective piece of entertainment, and compared to other films with similar ambitions, such as Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time, The Scorpion King and the Clash Of The Titans remake, it is much better.

First of all, the film looks very good. The world we are shown is vast and expansive. Indeed, Conan moves around a lot and we are introduced to scores of different environments, all beautifully conceived from amalgamations of different real-world cultures and with a realistic look and feel. Secondly, the film is not shy on violence and certainly earns its R rating. The (very) numerous action scenes range from very good to excellent and are in addition very bloody. In fact I'd go so far as to claim that the film is more bloody than director Marcus Nispel's remakes of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Friday The 13th combined. In other words, you may not want to bring your kids and the squeamish may want to give this a pass, as there are some truly unpleasant scenes.

Tyler Bates' score is not particularly memorable after a first watch but is still strong, epic, and effective. Marcus Nispel has truly done a great job directing the film, and a strong sense of adventure seeps through every frame. He also seems to pay homage to John Milius in an early scene where Conan and his father forge a sword together, which echoes and looks very similar to the opening scene of the 1982 film. The 3D (post-converted) looks good and works well in the film.

As for the actors, Jason Momoa, best known as a TV actor up to this point with roles in Baywatch, North Shore, Stargate Atlantis and Game Of Thrones, does not possess the same presence as Arnold Schwarzenegger but delivers an adequate performance nonetheless. Teen Conan, played by the same kid who blew everyone away as Teen Snake Eyes in G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra is very good here as well. Ron Perlman (Hellboy, Season Of The Witch) acts as his bearded father and does well as expected, and otherwise we have Stephen Lang (Avatar) as the bad guy, Rose McGowan (TV's Charmed and who was ironically previously attached to a Red Sonja reboot) as his daughter, Rachel Nichols (G.I. Joe) as the love interest and Saïd Taghmaoui (G.I. Joe) as one of Conan's buddies (3 former G.I. Joe actors in a single movie?). There's also that huge pile of muscles called Nathan Jones whom you might remember from the beginning of Troy. All do fine and apart from Perlman and Taghmaoui are rather unrecognizable.

The biggest question is how will 2011's movie audiences react to Conan The Barbarian, as it seems in many ways a relic of a bygone era. It's a very earnest film, that doesn't pretend to be anything else than what it is, where characters snarl at each other and raise their swords to the sky in a powerful thrust while screaming their lungs out while heroic music plays on the soundtrack. Yet somehow, for some reason modern audiences seem to think they're above this sort of thing and tend to snicker at such things. They might call it unsophisticated and silly. But I am rooting for Conan The Barbarian. I hope that people will be able to appreciate it for what it is instead of mocking it for those same reasons. I hope it is successful enough to green-light the planned Red Sonja film starring Amber Heard as well as Conan sequels. I would like to see this become a franchise.

In short the film looks great, is decently acted, has a Morgan Freeman sound-alike narrating, offers plenty of imaginative action scenes and is just altogether entertaining, which is the most important thing. A job well done.

I thought I had ordered the original on blu ray, turns out I'd ordered this version, which I didn't know existed.

First off, there's a pretty wonderful introduction from Morgan Freeman, that led me to think I was in for a treat.....

...The thirty section Cesarian section was enough, sadly it was downhill from hereon in.

Not all bad, some positives, I thought Ron Perlman was excellent, and best of all was the location, Bulgarian forests always make for amazing visuals, this was no exception.

Sadly the bad outweighed the good, the first thing, the music was at odds with the film, it jarred the whole way through, it was irritating, and almost felt like it belonged on another movie.

I thought some of the acting was awful, James Earl Jones, and a few others were woeful.

The worst element, the actual storytelling, now I'm not saying the original is a masterpiece, but it's definitely interesting, they managed to dumb it right down, and make it just about a string of action sequences, no story at all.

Momoa, I like him, I think he'd so much more than just the hot guy lead, but sadly that's what he is here, the script he's working with is pretty awful.

This was a shocker, 4/10.