web
counter
 

Conan the Barbarian Review: If a Bag of Hammers and a Box of Hair Got Married and Had a Baby

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (61)



conan-the-barbarian04.jpg

After Morgan Freeman (?) dispenses with the obligatory and meaningless voice-over exposition, Conan the Barbarian opens on the battlefield, where a pregnant woman absorbs the business end of a sword. Her husband, Corin (Ron Perlman) — who looks like an old-school character in Planet of the Apes — then kneels over his wife. “I have to see my son before I die,” she says. Corin reaches his hand into his wife’s vagina and, in one quick squishy motion, he pulls out little baby CGI Conan.

The message of the opening sequence is simple, and it is this: Friends don’t let friends see Conan the Barbarian sober. It should be seen in groups, and it should be seen while heavily inebriated. Bring a designated driver; he or she should go see Fright Night, which doesn’t need the alcohol to be intoxicating.

Conan the Barbarian loosely belongs to the category of cinema known as so-bad-it’s-good. Those films travel so far into the bad side of things that they bend around back into good, only Conan can’t quite break through to the other side of bad on the rebound. It bangs its head up against good like a concussed Slayer fan on a mission to achieve permanent brain damage, but it doesn’t break through as much as it simply dents the line separating good from bad.

It is a terrible film, but if you’re in the right frame of mind (read: three tits to a sheet), it has the potential to be wicked fun.

Jason Momoa stars as the title character, and Schwarzenegger — who originated the role in 1982 — he is not. The two have bad acting in common, but Schwarzenegger’s Austrian accent and his stern demeanor obscured his lack of talent when it came to roles about men who spoke with their weapons. Like a wild boar fucking a hole in the ground, the grunts and snarls do come easily to Momoa (see also, “Game of Thrones”), but when he’s asked to deliver dialogue, two things become immediately apparent: 1) That he should keep his mouth shut; and 2) beneath 200 pounds of pure muscle resides the soul of a surfer douche. Each time he slices through another Pict, you expect him to Hang 10 and deliver a resounding “Gnarly, dude!” I suspect that wasn’t Robert E. Howard’s desired effect when he created the character.

The story follows a young warrior whose entire tribe is slain by a group of unbathed troops led by an equally unkempt man named Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang, inexplicably). Zym needs the last piece of a mask that will make him a GOD, and once he secures it from Corin, he leaves young Conan to watch his father die. Zym, however, still needs the essence of the world’s last remaining pure-blood, Tamara (Rachel Nichols), to achieve his deific status. He travels in search of her with his sorcerer daughter, Marique (Rose McGowan). Meanwhile, Conan fills out quite nicely in the intervening years, and eventually crosses paths with Tamara. Zym wants to find Tamara so he can be a GOD (and bring back his dead wife), and Conan wants to find Zym so that he can break a surfboard over his head. The two eventually clash in a series of action sequences that look as though modern CGI has been layered over a Ray Harryhausen film.

Marcus Nispel, responsible for the heinous Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Nightmare on Elm Street remakes, as well as a more successful so-bad-it’s-good flick, Pathfinder, approaches Conan the Barbarian with what can only be considered gleeful incompetence. It’s like one of those deluded “American Idol” contestants who lack in self-awareness. The joy is not in the bad performance; it’s in the overconfident reaction, like a diver who clangs his head on the diving board, lands in the water face down, and jumps out of the water exclaiming, “Nailed it!” Nispel thinks he is a talented director creating this bold, new version of Conan, when in fact, his munificent ineptitude has the unintended benefit of recreating some of the cheesy glory of the original.

What he does do well is keep Conan moving briskly. Barely three minutes will go by between fight sequences, which at least keeps Conan from being tedious or boring. Nispel and the committee of poo-flinging monkeys who crapped out the script over the course of a few bowel movements are never short of an excuse for Conan to pull out his sword and plunge it into fierce, sharp-toothed hobos holding topless women captive. Nispel liberally splatters the screen with CGI blood, sometimes in places where perhaps CGI blood shouldn’t be, like away from the action, for instance. The director also hilariously juxtaposes gratuitous violence with what can only be described as the Lifetime for Men vibe of the film.

Moreover, Rachel Nichols (Star Trek, G.I. Joe) acts like she walked out of a Katherine Heigl comedy and her romantic subplot with Conan amusingly plays into that belligerent sexual tension romcom trope. Lang (Avatar) does an admirable job for a role in which he’s terribly miscast, but only McGowan — of all the players — acquits herself well. She’s the only one I got the sense was trying to overact for effect, instead of earnestly failing to deliver a more determined performance.

Ultimately, Conan the Barbarian is a bad film, bad from the bottom. Trust me, it’s much worse than you can imagine without seeing it for yourself. That’s the challenge of Conan. Where is that line between so bad-it’s-good and so bad-it’s-atrocious? Conan straddles it, a result that will likely elicit a cacophony of exasperated laughter in theaters this weekend. Viewers may find themselves shaking their head and whispering under their breath, “Are you fucking kidding me with this?” But more often than not, even through all the bewildered regret, audiences will probably be smiling at the bold, audacious awfulness of it all.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Fright Night Review: That'll Do | One Day Review: There are 6.7 Billion People on Earth, and Not a One Will Like This Movie









Comments

Wild board?

Posted by: Zuffle at August 19, 2011 11:38 AM

It's much easier to drink the recommended drinks at home, which is where I'll be seeing this several months to a year from now. I'm a fan of the Schwarzenegger version, but I just don't have as much room in my life for so-bad-it's-almost-good anymore. A fine and telling review.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at August 19, 2011 11:47 AM

Does any dialogue come close to this ?


Mongol General: Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
Mongol General: That is good! That is good.

Posted by: Alex the not so odd at August 19, 2011 11:48 AM

Well me and my friends have been waiting to see it. I think I'll sneak a little adult beverage into the theater to ensure maximum enjoyment.

While watching the Arnold version last night on TV, I told my brother that, if we're honest, just about every Conan adaptation has been bad but that's because the source material is pulp in nature. It's not highbrow material. (Kind of like being mad at the Transformers movies for being crap when they're adapting a cartoon series based on a toy line).

What makes the Arnold version different is that you had two great writers (Milius and Stone) adapting it and that they made sure to give more dialogue to Mako than they did Arnold. Oh and Poledouris' score is awesome.

Posted by: Fredo at August 19, 2011 11:56 AM

Nothing obscures Arnold's bad acting, we just don't care. The original Conan is terrible, yet entertaining. This one sounds the same. The Momoa is delish.

Posted by: ChickaBoom! at August 19, 2011 12:30 PM

I can't wait to see this. Both because I love so-bad-it's-good movies (and frankly we don't have enough of those nowadays) and obviously because of the Mmmmmomoa.

Posted by: figgy at August 19, 2011 12:33 PM

I loooooved Stephen Lang in Avatar. I bet he'll kick ass in this too.
Plus, "pull out his sword and plunge it into fierce, sharp-toothed hobos holding topless women captive"
That's all I wanted from this. Yes.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at August 19, 2011 12:38 PM

I have a free ticket to this so I'll try and see it...but im not looking forward to it....but free ticket.

Posted by: Jeff at August 19, 2011 12:40 PM

"Pure-blood" WHAT, exactly?

Posted by: Todd at August 19, 2011 12:53 PM

I'll be skipping this and going to The Texas Theatre in Dallas to a showing of Conan the Barbarian (1982) on 35mm print.

Posted by: gunnertec at August 19, 2011 12:57 PM

THIS IS A GREAT CONAN MOVIE

I'm a longtime fangirl of Conan, this is the most authentic Adaptation To The BOOKS.

+ They reference original characters and plots.
+ Action is fantastic. (great adaptation from books)
+ The characters behave true to the Books. (some dialogue is verbatim)
+ The "princess" character is in the style of princess Leia (sp?) from star wars. When she is not tied up she is fighting.

Why are you panning this?

If you love old school pulp fantasy you will love this movie!

Posted by: Jennifer at August 19, 2011 12:57 PM

THIS IS A GREAT CONAN MOVIE

Similiar in tone to

THIS IS THE BEST 1987 CAMARO IROC EVA!

Yes, but what's your point?

Posted by: Mrcreosote at August 19, 2011 1:02 PM

Dearest Overlord,

Whatever you were on when you wrote this review, keep doing that.

That's even assuming "wild board fucking a hole in the ground" is a typo, though that phrase did send me to a strange Treebeard & Hobbits meets Spader in Dream Lover place. Halflings are kind of earthy, right?

- Bierce

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at August 19, 2011 1:06 PM

Conan does not wear a shirt the whole movie! A couple scenes have him wearing armor. Everyone costume and makeup look fantastic. There is a good sex scene. There is even a screen credit at the end for "Topless Wenches" how awesome is that?! Go see this movie please! I need sequels!

Posted by: Jennifer at August 19, 2011 1:07 PM

Ok, but if I get whisky'd up, I'll have fun?

Like, D-Wars fun? Or Rambo (2008) fun? Or some sort of unimaginable, mega-fun combination of the two I don't even know about yet?

Posted by: =DocDoom1= at August 19, 2011 1:21 PM

Jennifer, I don't think Dustin panned it, he just said it was stupid. I want my Conan stupid, I NEED my Conan stupid! I will of course be going to see it, because any time "topless wenches" are involved in a movie I need to see it. For research. My thesis is of course "The role of the wench in imaginary pre-industrial societies involving snakes. An examination that takes into account the additional roles of doxies, slatterns and trollops."

I love the University of Phoenix.

Posted by: Mrcreosote at August 19, 2011 1:26 PM

I do not get in any shape or form why Jason Momoa is hot. His body sure, but his face -his fucking FACE.

Posted by: Faye at August 19, 2011 1:35 PM

Great review, Dustin.

Posted by: Corntree at August 19, 2011 1:45 PM

I only need to know 2 things:

1. Is Khal Drogo/Ronon Dex wearing a loincloth*?
2. Is he running around in said loincloth* stabbing people with his giant sword?

If so, I'm in.

*An actual loincloth is not even necessary as long as he is shirtless and there are a few pantless scenes thrown in for variety.

Posted by: pq at August 19, 2011 1:46 PM

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at August 19, 2011 1:06 PM

I really love how your mind works.

Posted by: MelBivDevoe at August 19, 2011 2:13 PM

And I had such high hopes for this film.

Posted by: Dingle Berry at August 19, 2011 2:15 PM

I was worried that the trailers might have gotten my hopes up for this too much. I don't care. I'm going to see it anyway. I'll just pretend that my drinking beforehand is a unique thing just for the movie.

Posted by: Paultera at August 19, 2011 2:24 PM

Mrcreosote then convince everyone who shares similar studies to go see this movie .the sequel could be against Stygian priests and followers of Set. So much potential for snakes and snake charmers!

Do not confuse simple for stupid. This is no George of the jungle blundering buffoonery. Conan is smart. He's a warrior and a king and a theif and a pirate.

Good for you, Jennifer! I encourage drinking during the day! -- DR

Posted by: Jennifer at August 19, 2011 2:43 PM

before even reading review - the title made me laugh on a boring Friday. Thank you.

Posted by: Sara Tonin at August 19, 2011 2:54 PM

Hmmm. The NYTimes said it was a pretty good movie, and that Momoa "shows glints of self-awareness that can make hypermasculine blowouts like these more watchable and were largely missing from Mr. Schwarzenegger’s wide-eyed turn". I usually agree with Mahnola Dargis, so I'll take her word for it and go see. Good movie or bad, though, Momoa is all set for a highly successful action film star career, and I'm just fine with that.

Posted by: PDamian at August 19, 2011 3:12 PM

I haven't seen the movie and probably won't, but solely based on the delightful amounts of sweaty, shirtless, juicy Momoa provided in the trailers, I give the movie 4 out of 5 tingley vaginas.

Posted by: KiwiBrownn at August 19, 2011 3:29 PM

Posted by: MelBivDevoe at August 19, 2011 2:13 PM

I like how my mind works too, which is good because I'm stuck here.

BTW, your handle makes me chuckle a bit every time.


Posted by: BierceAmbrose at August 19, 2011 3:31 PM

Ok, and DR's reply to Jennifer just made me laugh even harder.

Posted by: Sara Tonin at August 19, 2011 3:32 PM

The "princess" character is in the style of princess Leia (sp?) from star wars. When she is not tied up she is fighting.

That might be true to some of the later authors who have written Conan stories, but it is definitely NOT true to the original Robert E. Howard stuff. Neither is all this "origin story" crap. In the original stories Conan simply appears, striding across the land and killing everyone who pisses him off. There's never any mention of his parents, or how he was born, or anything like that.

Posted by: Todd at August 19, 2011 4:46 PM

It's like they knew I'd rage at the prospect of someone else assuming the helm and camel-punching duties of my beloved 1980s Schwarzenegger. They knew I'd rage and so they brought not only Jason Momoa into this picture, but Ron Perlman! RON PERLMAN! I almost have to see this now on sheer principle.

Not to mention: vagina-ripping and CGI babies. Holy fuck. Maybe I should get tossed before I go. I'll be howling in laughter the entire time.

Posted by: duckandcover at August 19, 2011 5:18 PM

"Jason Momoa stars as the title character, and Schwarzenegger — who originated the role in 1982"

No, Robert E. Howard originated the role in 1932, when he wrote "The Phoenix on the Sword" for Weird Tales. The 1982 film came along after Conan gained a massive following in books and comics. He is by no means the "originator" of Conan. All the more confusing since you go on to mention Robert E. Howard less than a paragraph later...

"I told my brother that, if we're honest, just about every Conan adaptation has been bad but that's because the source material is pulp in nature. It's not highbrow material. "

It's evidently highbrow enough to be collected in Penguin Classics and the Library of America, and the subject of literally scores of literary journals exploring its deeper themes, allusions and philosophy.

Howard's work was great in that it could be enjoyed both as thrilling adventures AND on a deeper level: the commentary on civilized hypocrisy and decadence, destroying the idea of the noble savage, man's place in a cold, unforgiving universe, and so on. The Biblical and mythological allusions alone elevate it above the standard pulp fare.

The origins of a character or franchise are no excuse for sub-par material. Otherwise you could justify Batman & Robin because "it was based on a comic book, whaddaya expect."

Posted by: Al Harron at August 19, 2011 5:32 PM

Just saw it.

100% Grade A American Cheese!!! And really, you all need to come to Austin and see it at Alamo Drafthouse for all the Conan + Others pre-movie stuff. Perfect stage-setting, Alamo gang! Kudos!

My only frustration with it, ***SEMI-SPOILER ALERT*** was the squid scene. That could've stayed on the cutting room floor. (And it's only a semi-spoiler because, really, I smelled that scene for a full three minutes before it actually got there.)

Posted by: NateS1973 at August 19, 2011 5:37 PM

" Momoa "shows glints of self-awareness that can make hypermasculine blowouts like these more watchable"
-Posted by: PDamian at August 19, 2011 3:12 PM
Agreed. I stand by my Mamoa Man Crush.
Director stank this mess. The 3D just made it murky and shitty. But Momoa has that "fight or fuck - it's all the same to me" thing about him that could rock this thing with a good writer and a real director.
Fuck 3D. I hate what it does to movies. It's like a drunken frat boy at a wedding.

Posted by: Odnon at August 19, 2011 5:38 PM

Umm...there is a 2D version, you know....

Not saying I don't agree about the 3D. That's why I saw it in standard format...Just saying.

Posted by: NateS1973 at August 19, 2011 5:43 PM

I know. I thought I'd try it 3d. Only time I could see it. Wish I had seen the other. Was it ok?

Posted by: Odnon at August 19, 2011 6:09 PM

In re: Al Harron at August 19, 2011 5:32 PM containing various high-minded stuff which I'll take as sincere vs. ironic because it starts by nit-picking who originated Conan ...

Well, fuck me with an improbable Atlantean sword. Now I'll have to go read the books.

Also, oh, snap, and I wish I'd said that.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at August 19, 2011 7:06 PM

If a bag of hammers and a box of hair get married and have a baby, I think you get Michelle Bachman.

Posted by: lil_a at August 19, 2011 7:22 PM

Originated the role

Much different than saying created the character. A role is not a character.

The books are often described as pulp, though I never felt they were myself. Maybe it's because some of the novels were more like short story compilations.

Arnold will always be superior simply because of his lack of acting ability and his accent. Conan was a Cimmerian, a stoic outsider barbarian with a strange foreign accent. His lack of dialogue suited the character as written perfectly. His solution to most problems was not talking about it, it was slicing through it. It was his fearlessness in the face of horrifying demons and magic that propelled the stories.

Posted by: Protoguy at August 19, 2011 7:45 PM

2) beneath 200 pounds of pure muscle resides the soul of a surfer douche. Each time he slices through another Pict, you expect him to Hang 10 and deliver a resounding “Gnarly, dude!”

Yeah, we Iowa natives get that a lot. It's a total fucking shame we don't have jack shit to curl around here.

Posted by: idiosynchronic at August 19, 2011 8:43 PM

I don't know shit about the books because I've never read them. (I will rectify this oversight soon, though.) What I do know? I know that this movie has my $10, or whatever the fuck they're charging these days. Now to convince my husband that Conan is ALWAYS awesome and MUST be seen in the theater...

Posted by: stardust at August 19, 2011 9:19 PM

Fredo: "What makes the Arnold version different is that you had two great writers (Milius and Stone) adapting it and that they made sure to give more dialogue to Mako than they did Arnold. Oh and Poledouris' score is awesome."

Exactly! IAWTC

Posted by: Melody Be at August 19, 2011 10:38 PM

Okay, so I've seen it. I think the NYTimes review was spot-on. Stephen Lang is quite good. Rose McGowan is "pretty, and pretty ridiculous." And Jason Momoa is exactly what I expected: hot, muscled, ferocious, hot, violent, hot, hot, and did I mention hot? Not exactly Shakespearean, and no-one's going to be tapping him to play Hamlet any time soon, but he was perfectly suited to the role. More to the point, the man has one thing in common with Schwarznegger: astonishing charisma. You can't take your eyes off him. For a role like Conan, little more is required, really.

Slight spoiler: there's a scene in which Momoa, naked, rolls over in bed, and his buns are delightfully displayed. I nearly had a heart attack. He's described in the NYTimes review as "a luxury cut of beef." Oh, yeah. Prime USDA cut. I'm going to have to buy the DVD just for that.

Posted by: PDamian at August 20, 2011 12:27 AM

The origins of a character or franchise are no excuse for sub-par material. Otherwise you could justify Batman & Robin because "it was based on a comic book, whaddaya expect."

Well Batman & Robin get no justification. That's just crap.

My point wasn't that it was lowbrow. My point was that any adaptation is always working against the pulp origins of Howard's work. Compare it to The Lord of the Rings which got instant acclaim because it was a respected professor writing a novel. One got Peter Jackson and a billion bucks to reach the screen. The other one got Marcus Nispel copying and ripping things off Pathfinder. It's why I liked the '82 movie so much: they took it seriously.

As for this movie, I liked the performances from Momoa, Lang, McGowan, etc. But the movie is more convoluted than it has to be and the fight scenes are shot poorly.

Posted by: Fredo at August 20, 2011 2:48 AM

I think you forget that LOTR originally got Bakshi and a budget that couldn't buy decent animators. His novels didn't get instant acclaim and spent a time being considered children's books alongside his buddy C.S. Lewis. After Bakshi, it was taken up by Rankin and Bass as some very forgettable cartoons. It wasn't until the 60's, when college students championed his novels that it became widely popular.

Again, I realize that this is mostly just opinion at this point, but I still reject the idea that Howard's writings were "pulp". Even Wikipedia calls them pulp, mostly because it started out as stories for a magazine. To me, pulp signifies throwaway to a large degree and his stories have remained popular, which kinda negates that mentality. Lovecraft began in a similar fashion and was actually one of his contemporaries and a friend, but his stories are not really considered pulp, even though the origins and the short story style is very similar.

As for the movie? I plan to see it at some point. hopefully on the big screen, just for the spectacle of it. I have never felt Momoa could do the character justice, but then I've never felt a director or production company could either. The source material is almost never taken seriously, certainly not as serious as Milius took it. The tendency to make these sorts of things too accessible to modern viewers by including the same "Dude, how many names do I need" kinda dialogue and over the top action dooms this sort of thing from the start.

Posted by: Protoguy at August 20, 2011 5:02 AM

Conan does not wear a shirt the whole movie!

That...that's all I needed to hear. This the movie for me.

*waves arms in the air in joy*

Posted by: figgy at August 20, 2011 11:29 AM

I hate to keep harping on this, but...all the people who've said they're throwing down $10 to see shirtless and briefly pantsless Jason Momoa...you know there's an Internet charged with compiling thousands, nay MILLIONS of beefcake pictures from all corners of the world, right? In fact, I think even if I spent 4 seconds googling "Jarsen Morrmoua anked" I could find the very bun scene in high def from six angles. For free.

What gives?

Posted by: Alabaster Salamander at August 20, 2011 1:19 PM

"Lovecraft began in a similar fashion and was actually one of his contemporaries and a friend, but his stories are not really considered pulp, even though the origins and the short story style is very similar."

Yes, I frequently have to check the book cover to remind myself whether I'm reading Lovecraft or another "Conan kills something and then sexes up a wench" story.

Posted by: Craig at August 20, 2011 1:25 PM

It's moving. On a big screen. Plus there's swords and horses and things going BOOM (probably) and sometimes that's all you need.

See, if Dustin had said this was just irredeemably bad, I wouldn't watch it, no matter how much Momoa there was in it. But I can't resist a stupid, fun movie.

Posted by: figgy at August 20, 2011 1:45 PM

Clearly you've not read any Conan, and I didn't say they were the same.

Posted by: Protoguy at August 20, 2011 1:47 PM

Dustin, I have to take exception to your recommendation that I drink heavily before seeing this movie. I went and saw it sober.

And laughed all the way through it.

There's Ron Perlman looking craggy and shaggy, there's enough tits and ass to satisfy both the fanboys and fangirls. There's massive continuity errors and implausibilities abound.

I've seen the original Conan. I've also seen Excalibur, Sword and the Sorcerer, and many others. This flick is a worthy companion to the oeuvre, and is (in short) rat-brained, balls to the wall crazy.

I will give the film three whips.

The only thing I didn't like about my moviegoing experience was having to shell out $15.80 for admission, a small soft drink and a paltry box of Sno-Caps.

Posted by: The Wanderer at August 20, 2011 2:44 PM

figgy wins my vote for most astute comments. i will also award you with a "damnit, i wish i had more fun-timey people like you over here, bc sometimes being a serious grown up can take the piss out of a person!"

That being said, the only reason why this flaming pile even exists is to say "thank you, ladies of the world! we offer you copious gifts of Moma-inducing lady boners! you have suffered through so much non-naked men fucking shit up for too long! Moma! Moma chest and buttockal regions for all!"

this is the only time i can say i wish i were back in high school or even college because we were still allowed to enjoy mindlessly stupid films such as this little gem. i could not entice any of my friends to see this with me last night (not to mention my man-guy, who used Moma's terrible acting as reason enough to avoid this one -- really? really, guy? bad acting in a film called CONAN THE BARBARIAN?! pretty sure if it was anyone else you would have been all over that shit! don't deny me my right to lady boners!!!!!!!).

subsequently, i pouted and got drunk while he went to see Planet of the Apes.

Posted by: beet salad at August 20, 2011 5:07 PM

Jason Momoa, from head to toe is fugly. I cannot even begin to understand how this fucking guy is all the rage nowadays. He is the diametric opposite of hot: too much beef, not enough light of intelligence in the eyes.

That said, nothing about this review surprises me in the least teensy little bit. The whole project has always looked like a yawner to me.

Posted by: June Velcro at August 21, 2011 5:41 AM

Dang it. I stayed at home rewatching season one of True Blood instead of seeing this movie because I was afraid it would be "So bad it is BAD." Oh well. My friends went to see it and they are not the type to realize this movie sucks. I couldn't have laughed in pain with them. Plus, no one was drinking.
Can I get some volunteers to be my snarky, jaded movie friends? The people I hang out with now are too naive and sincere.

Posted by: katyv at August 21, 2011 11:30 AM

I enjoyed the movie.

Posted by: MRod at August 21, 2011 7:04 PM

I thought it was good. The two things it was missing the most were the grandeur of the Poledouris score and Arnold Schwarzenegger. (On a serious note, the original score has more depth than most movies do. For some tracks he used 24 French horns. It's amazing what a good score does to a mediocre movie.)

Moma is no Arnold though, not by a long shot.

Posted by: Some Guy at August 21, 2011 9:01 PM

My favourite line in the original is also my favourite Schwarzenegger line as well. Whilst praying to his God, Krom, for help in the upcoming final battle:

"And eef you do not halp me, zen to HELL wiz you!"

Posted by: DarthBrookes at August 22, 2011 1:20 AM

Sounds exactly like the testosterone fueled wicked sword swinging and completely ridiculous fantasy this girl loves.

Posted by: Ford at August 22, 2011 12:54 PM

Saw it, and don't think it's as bad as critics make it out to be. Yes, there's not much character development, but I didn't feel like it was cheesy. Action was great and so was the T&A. I say it's better than Clash of the Titans, which also had great action, but had far too much cheese. It was not quite as good as 300. 300's action sequences were spectacular. Of course, the Granddaddy of the genre is Gladiator which none of these films come close to.

Posted by: The Man at August 22, 2011 4:10 PM

Speaking of elder god's,

is it just me, or did they somehow manage to neglect to utter the name "Crom" once in the entire movie?

How do you forget to include the man's deity, for pete's sake?

Posted by: Some Guy at August 22, 2011 4:16 PM

Just saw it. All of the above is true: I wish I had been hammered.

In its defense, though:

This Conan contains the most godawful disgusting, appalling moment(s) I've ever sort of seen on the big screen through my hands covering my face. It involves a nose, sort of, and is awful. People are routinely beheaded, bludgeoned, and set on fire in this movie--but this horrendous bit outstrips them all for sheer gross.

Worth the price of admission right there.

Posted by: Salieri2 at August 27, 2011 10:20 PM

Saw it yesterday and boy, did I have a good time! Momoa may be no Arnold but he is a better Conan than Arnold ever was.

There was even a little too much carnage, some of it entirely irrelevant to the plot. I would have enjoyed a just a little more banter by the campfire featuring Conan one-liners.

If you are a visual person you need to see this, the sets and props look amazing and reminded me a lot of Cary Nords artwork for the Dark Horse Comics (which I very much recommend). See Conans costume for example:http://marvelscustoms.com/bblackwolf/albums/Conan/Conan_1/Conan_dark_horse_01.jpg

Too bad there is in all likelyhood not going to be a sequel. While it isn´t perfect, this Conan gets a lot of things right and I would love to see more of it.

Posted by: Qualtinger at September 12, 2011 4:35 AM