Read User Reviews and Submit your own for Conan the Barbarian (2011)

7

DarkJediDec 31, 2011

I quite liked this film, more than I liked Captain America: The First Avenger that we watched a couple of days ago. It has gotten some rather disappointing ratings. I obviously disagree.

I found the film to be pretty much what I hoped for. II quite liked this film, more than I liked Captain America: The First Avenger that we watched a couple of days ago. It has gotten some rather disappointing ratings. I obviously disagree.

I found the film to be pretty much what I hoped for. I read some reviews on IMDb stating that Conan only said about 40 words, that he wasnâ… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

1

gasperkJun 30, 2012

Seen it 5 mins ago. And all i can say is... pure trash. '' Barbarian, i dont like you anymore'' crappy lines like this everywhere. Actors are mostly **** Rose McGowan is ok. But the rest are stupid. Scenery is so fake and bad. Not even worthSeen it 5 mins ago. And all i can say is... pure trash. '' Barbarian, i dont like you anymore'' crappy lines like this everywhere. Actors are mostly **** Rose McGowan is ok. But the rest are stupid. Scenery is so fake and bad. Not even worth pirating this movie.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

3

ZilcellDec 2, 2011

While it does provide a couple thrills, this film lacks some of the things that made the original Conan good. This film is thin plotted and there is not enough character development.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

3

mako_psySep 22, 2013

It just felt like one long action sequence. And a boring one at that. There was virtually no tension throughout the whole film, mainly because we’re told how it would all end quite early on through a monk’s foretelling of the future. But evenIt just felt like one long action sequence. And a boring one at that. There was virtually no tension throughout the whole film, mainly because we’re told how it would all end quite early on through a monk’s foretelling of the future. But even if this scene didn’t exist, it would still be devoid of tension, since none of the character’s are developed enough to care about. Also, the romance between Conan and whatever her name, felt like a forced cliché. Ultimately this film was quite disappointing. It had all the potential for a nice little reboot, something fresh and entertaining. But it ended up just feeling like a long string of tired clichés.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

1

EverlongJun 2, 2012

Horrible, horrible, horrible. Possibly one of the WORST movie plots in the history of film making and the acting is poor. Boring action scenes, gaaah. No thank you. AVOID.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

2

Jailhouse_McGeeFeb 1, 2013

A serious downgrade from the enjoyable, yet cheesy flick with Arnold from 1982. Wooden acting, silly story, corny dialogue (bad corny), needles use of 3D and maybe the worst screenplay ever sink this remake/restart and created a huge box office bomb.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

3

kof-dropSep 22, 2012

I went into this movie having only seen bits and pieces of the old Arnold Schwarzenegger film from 1982. Those bits and pieces were enough to tell me that I should expect nothing more than a mindless action movie with a tiny bit of heart. II went into this movie having only seen bits and pieces of the old Arnold Schwarzenegger film from 1982. Those bits and pieces were enough to tell me that I should expect nothing more than a mindless action movie with a tiny bit of heart. I know Jason Momoa from HBO's Game of Thrones, so I figured it couldn't be too bad. Well, the 2011 remake of Conan the Barbarian is a film that tries desperately to be something it is not: more than just an action movie. Thanks to a dreadful script, it fails miserably.

Conan is a barbarian born in the midst of a battle, thanks to an improvised C-section by his father (Ron Perlman). He grows into a small, athletic punk with a thirst for blood, at which age he sees his village invaded by an army and everyone slaughtered. He further grows into a large, insanely jacked punk (Jason Momoa) with a thirst for vengeance. Throw something in there about a magical necromancer's mask and a guy with a witch for a daughter, and the need to sacrifice a pretty girl in order to obtain incredible power.

As you can probably tell from my descriptions, there is not a shred of depth to Conan's character. This was disappointing, to say the least, given Momoa's awesome portayal of the extremely hardened yet surprisingly affectionate Khal Drogo in Game of Thrones. It is as though, with Conan, he was told not to do anything meaningful whatsoever, just to be cool. It seems that there is an attempt to develop something while Conan is a boy, but it doesn't quite finish, and then when Momoa comes on screen he is nothing more than a brute.

Ron Perlman is stuck in a role that is far beneath him and does not at all suit him. One can tell that he has a very hard time taking his lines seriously, because they are just awful. This is what the script seems like to me: Two twelve-year-old boys collaborate on what they think is going to be a totally sweet action movie. They develop a very loose plot involving a hunky, heartless hero, a ruthless villain, and a pretty girl who needs saving. Then they come up with five or six one-liners, such as, "I live, I love, I slay, and I am content," and they build the screenplay around the deliverance of those lines.

The film goes through the motions: one event succeeds another, with no actual meaning to any of it. There is an obvious attempt to make Conan a dynamic character: the pretty girl is supposed to change him, make him more human. But it is far too little, far too late, and he remains nothing but a silent muscle-show. The one-liners, I think, are intended to add a sense of importance to the whole thing, but they're so cheesy and ineffective.

As far as action goes, it's not even very good. The CGI seems low-budget (except for the sand guys, but that is such a rare moment of quality in this film). Hardly a moment of action seems to be actually choreographed: whenever things get too complicated, the camera moves sporadically so as not to have the audience realize that it is all computer-generated. And the events that transpire are utterly ridiculous. The final fight scene should last five minutes, but it feels like thirty (I'm not sure how long it actually is); one conflict is overcome, and another is introduced, and it repeats and repeats so that it is not even interesting, but rather tedious.

Rose McGowan is dreadful as the witch-woman, Marique. That character is cringe-worthy from the moment she appears on screen with those stupid claws (something that only twelve-year-olds would think is cool). Rachel Nichols gives the most believable performance, which is really sad, because she plays the damsel in distress.

Everything is just plain sloppy. From writing and directing to acting to CGI, the production value of Conan the Barbarian (2011) is very low.

For a much more lengthy and in-depth review, see my blog at kofdrops.blogspot.com.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

2

cameronmorewoodNov 15, 2012

This Conan reboot is despicable, not because the performances are flat, and not even because of the sh*t imagery they call visuals, but because of the way it assumes its viewers are all morons. That has gotta be one of the seven deadly sinsThis Conan reboot is despicable, not because the performances are flat, and not even because of the sh*t imagery they call visuals, but because of the way it assumes its viewers are all morons. That has gotta be one of the seven deadly sins of movies.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

3

actiniumApr 26, 2021

/ /

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

1

FilipeNetoMay 19, 2022

This film is an adaptation of a comic book, and also a remake of a famous 1982 film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was a rather weak film, which only stood out thanks to the presence of the famous actor. So I decided to see if this newThis film is an adaptation of a comic book, and also a remake of a famous 1982 film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was a rather weak film, which only stood out thanks to the presence of the famous actor. So I decided to see if this new version was better than the older one. However, when I saw the name of director Marcus Nispel, I feared the worst... and my fears were justified, with the film proving to be extremely weak.

The script is very poorly written: taking advantage of the essentials of the story told in the older film (a hero's revenge journey against the villains, responsible for the massacre that killed his family), the film fails to give us a cohesive and functional story. , which seems to rust and creep more and more as the film progresses. Tired and uninteresting, the film unfolds in an exasperating way until it reaches a really disappointing end.

If there's one thing the older film excelled at, it was the choice of lead actor, with Schwarzenegger's remarkable collaboration being this film's strongest and most solid point. Without the actor's participation, the film could not hope to match the success achieved, but it could be much better than it is. The truth is, I can't understand why Jason Momoa was chosen for the lead role! The actor may be big and muscular, but he has nothing else to offer us and is particularly dull and boring. The rest of the cast is made up of an amalgamation of third-tier actors that I don't feel obliged to name, with the exception of Ron Perlman, who is not used as he could be. It may be hard to say like that, but the truth is that the characters, merely sketched, and the poor and poorly written dialogues didn't demand better actors.

Where the film really bets and stands out is in the production values and technical aspects. With a capable budget and all the machinery of the American film industry, the film is the typical "blockbuster" of action that tries to get the most coins from the public willing to pay to see if it is as bad as others say it is. The work of the make-up and characterization teams is quite amateurish, the editing is regular, the soundtrack is forgettable. On the positive side, the spectacular action scenes naturally stand out, removing any sense of danger and tension, transforming the film into something without emotion, but full of show-off. The work of the stuntmen, as well as the wide range of visual, special, computer and sound effects, helps a lot in these scenes and gives the film an appealing and vibrant liveliness. Finally, and to end with something positive, I must mention the good quality of the cinematography and the good design of the costumes.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

1

Orey-eyedFeb 17, 2020

I'm giving 1 out of 10 simply because the cameramen, at the least, appeared to understand that they were making a movie and showed up to work. Otherwise, a trainwreck. A plot that is both mindnumbingly stupid and needlessly complex. SeveralI'm giving 1 out of 10 simply because the cameramen, at the least, appeared to understand that they were making a movie and showed up to work. Otherwise, a trainwreck. A plot that is both mindnumbingly stupid and needlessly complex. Several very talented actors who clearly realized that this was a huge turd and there was no point in trying. Action scenes made incomprehensible through hyperactive editing. I got about 30 minutes in and realized that I was putting more effort into the movie than anyone who made it. Except for the camera people who appeared to be shooting the things that they intended to. Good job, camera people!… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

3

FollaringoAug 30, 2011

I like Conan and I like Jason as him, but I think the script is just bad and full of action clichÃ©s. There is no charisma in the characters except Conan. You can have fun with the movie, but it is just because it is Conan.I like Conan and I like Jason as him, but I think the script is just bad and full of action clichÃ©s. There is no charisma in the characters except Conan. You can have fun with the movie, but it is just because it is Conan. Please, next time pay a real scriptwriter and dont leave your nephew write it.… Expand

8 of 9 users found this helpful81

All this user's reviews

6

BrahmaBullAug 22, 2011

They didn't necessarily get Conan wrong, but they didn't quite get it right. It just didn't make you feel like you were seeing the guy you envisioned when reading Howard's Conan. But I guess if you came into the movie never having read anyThey didn't necessarily get Conan wrong, but they didn't quite get it right. It just didn't make you feel like you were seeing the guy you envisioned when reading Howard's Conan. But I guess if you came into the movie never having read any of REH's evocative prose, then it doesn't make any difference. Why does every filmmaker think he has to retell the origin story of the hero? We never needed to see Indiana Jones' childhood to know that we were about to see another of his great adventures. And just like John Williams nailed the score for Superman, Basil Poledouris nailed Conan's theme in the original movie. It just isn't the same without it. Jason does a passable job as Conan with as little as he was given to work with. Just nothing new in the same old paternal vengeance motive. There was never any Conan avenging his father/mother/fellow Cimmerians in any of Howard's work. Just pure adventure. Fight scenes were mostly well choreographed and with good blood and some gore thrown in. And it wouldn't be a Hyborian Age movie without the topless women. Thanks for that at least. Did not hate this version of Conan, but wasn't all that pleased with it either.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

3

gromitAug 20, 2011

I was so looking forward to this movie as a long time conan fan. Sadly this movie completely loses the feel of the original novels and has an incredibly weak story that really doesn't make a lot of sense. As a true fan of conan I found thisI was so looking forward to this movie as a long time conan fan. Sadly this movie completely loses the feel of the original novels and has an incredibly weak story that really doesn't make a lot of sense. As a true fan of conan I found this garbage to be complete dissappointment, at best it is a weak Action movie with plenty of gore, it would probably rate a 5 but as they have further tarnished a great story I am only giving it a 3.… Expand

5 of 7 users found this helpful52

All this user's reviews

4

CanisrahAug 20, 2011

Ok. I'm a Conan fan, always have been. I read the terrible critic reviews for this film with a sense of dread as I had tried to keep an open mind and had hopes that the movie would defy expectations and be good. Undaunted, I went to theOk. I'm a Conan fan, always have been. I read the terrible critic reviews for this film with a sense of dread as I had tried to keep an open mind and had hopes that the movie would defy expectations and be good. Undaunted, I went to the cinema (albeit with fairly low expectations), and donned my 3D glasses.

I have to say, for the first 20 minutes or so, this movie was magnificent. I was totally engrossed, emotionally involved, and thoroughly impressed. The intro scenes depicting Conan's birth and the following exposition around his early years as a young Cimmerian boy are fantastic. I turned to my friend who was watching the film with me and said 'I don't understand it, the critics are so wrong.'

But then, unfortunately, came the rest of the film. For some inexplicable reason, after a brilliant setup (outstanding performance by Ron Pearlman), and a captivating turn by the lad playing the young Conan, the film kind of lost itself, and the plot, the pacing and the action became increasingly pointless until finally one didn't really care what was happening and by the third act I was waiting for it to be over. It's a shame really, because I think the new Conan is perfect - for me he's totally believable, and embodies the barbarian really well. I also loved the art direction and the CGI which was really well implemented. The 3D was ok - but didn't really add anything overall.

Too much fighting without good story to back it up, too much noise and crashing rocks for no real purpose. Started really well, and last 5 minutes it finished strongly, but the second and third acts were quite painful to endure.

My take is that it's not a bad movie, but it's not real good either. If it weren't for the first 20 min's I would be rating it much lower. Here's hoping they nail it in the sequel.… Expand

8 of 12 users found this helpful84

All this user's reviews

9

Xiphus200Aug 19, 2011

I've been a fan of Conan for a while, having read Robert E Howard's original stories and the comic books that have followed. I thought the movie did a good job of capturing the spirit of Conan and while the plot may be formulaic I was stillI've been a fan of Conan for a while, having read Robert E Howard's original stories and the comic books that have followed. I thought the movie did a good job of capturing the spirit of Conan and while the plot may be formulaic I was still entertained the whole way through. The movie touches on all the staples one would find in Robert E Howard tales and I thought that Jason Momoa played a convincing Conan, able to portray his barbaric savagery and cunning. I enjoyed watching this movie very much and would love to see Jason Momoa return to the screen as Conan.… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

8

aldoseriSep 4, 2011

i think the movies has a very good story and action and every friend of mine like the movie so its a greet movie and it deserves watching but i wish i watch it in 3D

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

5

OroiaelDec 20, 2012

If you go into this film with the old Conan movie in mind, you will be disappointed. This is not as dark and gritty as the original. In stead this is a lusty and muscle filled average romp of sword play. Its not terrible, has its own charm.If you go into this film with the old Conan movie in mind, you will be disappointed. This is not as dark and gritty as the original. In stead this is a lusty and muscle filled average romp of sword play. Its not terrible, has its own charm. For some reason my wife mistook it for a comedy and laughed heartily at many of the more campy elements. This was fun, but just an average adventure flick, don't expect much and you won't be let down. Also, there are a number a nice topless scenes, so that's a bonus.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

10

p1rateAug 20, 2011

I don't understand why it has such a low meta critic score, I'm was very happy with the movie. Sure it had a couple lines of dialogue that could have been better, but overall it was a fun action movie that captured the spirit of hyboria muchI don't understand why it has such a low meta critic score, I'm was very happy with the movie. Sure it had a couple lines of dialogue that could have been better, but overall it was a fun action movie that captured the spirit of hyboria much better then the old Arnold movies. I wonder if it would have got better ratings if they ended the movie half way through a story that tends to be the trend.. I'm happy they didn't and it was a self contained tale after establishing conans childhood. I really hope they make more conan movies. I'm so sick of all the crappy super hero movies that rake in tons of money so they call them "good movies"… Expand

6 of 10 users found this helpful64

All this user's reviews

1

BartAug 20, 2011

A waste of a well cast movie. The Milius/Arnie version was much better and for those of us who read the books, their version was truer to the books. This new version is a lot of blood and not much more with no story, which is a shame as ifA waste of a well cast movie. The Milius/Arnie version was much better and for those of us who read the books, their version was truer to the books. This new version is a lot of blood and not much more with no story, which is a shame as if they had a good screenplay it could have been a lot of fun. Also, why did they bother with 3D? Save your money and netflix the original version which is 10X better.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

8

TiberSeptimAug 19, 2011

Critics are way too hard on this film, as if everything needs to be a pretentious art house film from the '60. It's an action film, one I found to be really enjoyable, with interesting foes and bloody visceral combat. Is it as quoteable asCritics are way too hard on this film, as if everything needs to be a pretentious art house film from the '60. It's an action film, one I found to be really enjoyable, with interesting foes and bloody visceral combat. Is it as quoteable as the 1982 version? No. Does it have the beautiful soundtrack from the 1982 version that makes it my favorite action movie of all time? No. What I do know is that it was a fun movie released in an age where everything needs to have a tacky political message to be "recognized"… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

1

RienyeNov 10, 2011

Utter nonsense. All the gore and blood tries to mask what a **** movie this is! And why do they keep showing us the names of the locations like we'll remember them? or know where they are?
stay away from this superb load of garbage!

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

10

toddacocoAug 29, 2011

Let's start off by saying that I have been a Conan fan for many years. I have read the original Howard material as well as both retellings of his saga through the Savage Sword and Dark Horse Conan series of Comics. Dark Horse has done ConanLet's start off by saying that I have been a Conan fan for many years. I have read the original Howard material as well as both retellings of his saga through the Savage Sword and Dark Horse Conan series of Comics. Dark Horse has done Conan proud. If you have not read the series do yourself a favor pick these compilations up.

I think the latest movie is the best representation of Howard's fantasy world on film. Is it for everyone? No. But I found myself very entertained. I think Jason did a great job of portraying Conan. I felt like I had stepped into a Savage Sword of Conan magazine. That's what I wanted from this film and it was all there. I would love to see this cast continue with other Conan stories. My only gripe was in the story. The father revenge story is good, but there are some fantastic Howard stories that I would love to see represented. "Rouges in the House" anyone. To sum my little review up, If you are any type of a Sword and Sorcery fan treat yourself to a great story within the Conan universe. The movie is much better than the pro reviews represent. I would give it a solid 75. My wife came along with me and found the film just as enjoyable as I did. She did classify it as gory action which it defiantly is but I think that is the way Howard wrote his tales.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

2

ivanafter5Aug 30, 2011

Being a big Conan fan I was hyped to see this. But although the first 20 minutes were OK, after that it quickly degenerated into a succession of shaky camera action scenes that just left me numb after a while. After it was over I had to goBeing a big Conan fan I was hyped to see this. But although the first 20 minutes were OK, after that it quickly degenerated into a succession of shaky camera action scenes that just left me numb after a while. After it was over I had to go home and watch the original Conan film just to cleanse the pallet. Seriously.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

0

SalesdadNov 13, 2011

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Watched the movie last night, mainly because I am a huge fan of Robert E Howard, but I also loved the first version with Arnold. I am sorry, but I couldn't believe how bad this version was. Not only did it not follow any of the original Robert Howard stories, but it was just a bad movie. And I love watching bad action adventure films. I typically can watch them over and over again. But this one - I couldn't even finish. No matter how big a fan you are on Conan, Arnold, Robert E Howard, or bad action adventure films - do not waste your time with this one.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

9

TresidentevilFeb 12, 2012

When you watch a film like Conan what do you truly expect? You need to judge Conan in the correct context, the context of a fantasy action film. From this perspective Conan is truly a brilliant film. I don't approach films like this expectingWhen you watch a film like Conan what do you truly expect? You need to judge Conan in the correct context, the context of a fantasy action film. From this perspective Conan is truly a brilliant film. I don't approach films like this expecting deep storylines and nobody should. Likewise I'd have thought modern viewers would be familiar with films having their own interpretations of original works. The original Conan would never have worked in film form, hence it NEEDS to be changed. Momoa is simply brilliant for the role set before him. I watched this film because I wanted to see fighting and fantasy and it delivered on those things 100%, I have a passing interest in Howards original works. It's about time movie magazines stopped reviewing action films if they can't review them from a fair perspective. Fantastic film, hope they make many many more.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

9

TheQuietGamerDec 2, 2011

If you like gory fantasy movies with some of the best action scenes out there, then this is for you, truly fantastic and had me dying to see what would happen next, and the acting is fantastic, especially from the guy who played Conan, andIf you like gory fantasy movies with some of the best action scenes out there, then this is for you, truly fantastic and had me dying to see what would happen next, and the acting is fantastic, especially from the guy who played Conan, and the script is surprisingly well done, a fantastic movie that I would love to see sequels for, a must watch.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

HighwayUKNov 6, 2011

It's not that the movie is all that bad, but lets face it... if it didn't try to be a reboot of the Conan franchise it wouldn't have drawn much flack as just a generic warrior movie, but to carry the Conan name on this a major fail. The storyIt's not that the movie is all that bad, but lets face it... if it didn't try to be a reboot of the Conan franchise it wouldn't have drawn much flack as just a generic warrior movie, but to carry the Conan name on this a major fail. The story was there in the opening but just fell apart once Mamoa walks into the scene, he has none of the screen presence Arnie in the cult flicks that did the licence justice, all the CGi effects in the world can't save this Turkey from a roasting... much like the terrible remake of clash of the titans, sure looks better but it's a very hollow movie that relied on FX over content… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

3

AkkharJan 8, 2012

With a dead script ,Powerless acting and Bad direction makes Conan the Barbarian Impossible to enjoy . Most of the dialogues seems so lame . It felt like a Tv movie with Great Visual Effect . Acting wasn't good at all . I thought Jason wouldWith a dead script ,Powerless acting and Bad direction makes Conan the Barbarian Impossible to enjoy . Most of the dialogues seems so lame . It felt like a Tv movie with Great Visual Effect . Acting wasn't good at all . I thought Jason would do good as Conan but he was worst then AS . Rest of the cast was really really bad . Rachel's first impression was good but later she became so boring .Stephen Lang did really bad as the main antagonist but the worst of all was Rose . Its was a pain to watch her acting the whole time .Nispel's Direction was so bad that its not hard to find his mistakes at all.On the other hand the Visual Effects and the set was the only good thing that kept me through the end . Overall Conan the Barbarian was so disappointing and one of the worst sword and sorcery fantasy film ever.â… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

10

GilAug 20, 2011

What a wonderful world they have set up, true to the work of Robert E Howard! I just feel like I want to dive deeper into it. I hope they come out with an extended edition. And let's hope they bring more of his fiction to the screen!

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

10

VlahkmaakAug 20, 2011

The director could have gotten a little more out of Conan's dad but that little bit of weak acting aside this is the Conan we have been waiting for - appropriately harsh, cruel, and brutal. Jason Momoa delivered where Arnold could not.The director could have gotten a little more out of Conan's dad but that little bit of weak acting aside this is the Conan we have been waiting for - appropriately harsh, cruel, and brutal. Jason Momoa delivered where Arnold could not. These so called critics ripping the movie apart are not fit to review comercials promoting crack to crack addicts and probabaly thought Avatar was a deep and intellectual work and not the cheap weak Rousseauian noble-savage space spin off it was. I would go see this CONAN again - True Grit was the last movie I paid for twice. Damn the critics - go see this movie. It was a great time.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

10

genericuser8888Aug 20, 2011

Movies are all about what you expect going in. I expected a lot of cool ***-kicking, and this movie did not let me down. Conan is hardcore!! I did not want some huge love story. That would not have been true to the character. There wasMovies are all about what you expect going in. I expected a lot of cool ***-kicking, and this movie did not let me down. Conan is hardcore!! I did not want some huge love story. That would not have been true to the character. There was a small love story element there, but at the end, ....I'm not going to give it away, but let's just say they do stay true to the character. The critics are way to harsh on this movie. The movie does have its flaws, some obvious, and they could have done more with Conan and the world he lives in, but overall, I went expecting to see a good summer action flick, and this is easily the best action movie that I saw all summer. If you want ***-kicking and a tough guy lead, then you will likely think this is a good movie.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

10

moviesRawsomeAug 21, 2011

to me one of the years best it does what movie a should do entertain, yes the character development is bad and the acting is not all that good but it makes up for it by just being fun the action scenes are just awsome the special affects areto me one of the years best it does what movie a should do entertain, yes the character development is bad and the acting is not all that good but it makes up for it by just being fun the action scenes are just awsome the special affects are good not the best but still good.but in the end this movie is just bad ass go and see it.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

9

CacophonyAug 29, 2011

This is a movie made by fans of the Arnold original, for fans of the original-- It's a great adventure story filled with otherworldly locations and characters. True to the 80's "classic," there are about 50 lines of dialogue in the entireThis is a movie made by fans of the Arnold original, for fans of the original-- It's a great adventure story filled with otherworldly locations and characters. True to the 80's "classic," there are about 50 lines of dialogue in the entire movie, each delivered with the pith and candor of Mike Tyson's right hook, and if you can't raise your drink to that, I really don't know what to say. The sound and action is visceral and bloodlust-inducing; it really feels like you're right there jamming a chunk of sharpened metal into some hapless grunt's coronal suture, and the score is blessedly Godsmack-free. If you have any love of the original Conan: The Barbarian, you owe it to yourself to see this, but for the rest of you that can't seem to enjoy this, I truly, truly pity you.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

3

KevcbSep 3, 2011

I have been a big fan of Howards Conan stories for decades now. I was really hoping the low ratings were driven by critics who just don't like the fantasy genre. Unfortunately my hopes were dashed. This is a pretty poorly made movie. TheI have been a big fan of Howards Conan stories for decades now. I was really hoping the low ratings were driven by critics who just don't like the fantasy genre. Unfortunately my hopes were dashed. This is a pretty poorly made movie. The beginning was ok, recounting Conans childhood, but then it went downhill. The movie was very disjointed. It didn't flow smoothly from scene to scene. Plot was weak and the writing was weaker. Even a lot of the action scenes were a big disappointment, because the view was mostly close-ups and you couldn't really see what was going on half the time. So, to sum up, the bad writing and bad directing was not offset by good acting. CGI was cool though. Oh well.......… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

1

DNDNov 10, 2011

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. New Conan is not that well how i was expecting. The actors overplayed this one. The useless mystery mask was really useless such as the whole scenario. Very bad movie even its in 3D. Don't watch it, just don't.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

0

TJD2Jul 20, 2012

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Hardly any plot, any substance, and worst of all it's one of those "hey lets see how much **** and unnecessary violence with blood and guts galore (ripping peoples organs out and other morbidThis is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Hardly any plot, any substance, and worst of all it's one of those "hey lets see how much **** and unnecessary violence with blood and guts galore (ripping peoples organs out and other morbid acts) we can shove into a single movie!" This movie is worse than anything directed by Michael Bay (and that's saying something). I can't give it ANY merit because I absolutely can't STAND it. This film has successfully sodomized Conan's legacy....if there was one to begin with.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

9

KalrocVNAug 28, 2011

If you're a fan of the sword and sorcery fantasy genre (like me), this is a movie you definitely want to see. It's the best fantasy film released since the Lord of the Rings, no contest. Solid acting and good visuals. Much more in lineIf you're a fan of the sword and sorcery fantasy genre (like me), this is a movie you definitely want to see. It's the best fantasy film released since the Lord of the Rings, no contest. Solid acting and good visuals. Much more in line with Robert E. Howard's original pulp stories than the 1982 Arnie film.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

0

MrDLandrethAug 30, 2011

Wow! Anyone who rated this above me is delusional. To my utmost disappointment, this movie fails on every mark. Primarily the writing, screenplay, and direction drive the rest of this film crew's hard work into the ground like an atom bomb. IWow! Anyone who rated this above me is delusional. To my utmost disappointment, this movie fails on every mark. Primarily the writing, screenplay, and direction drive the rest of this film crew's hard work into the ground like an atom bomb. I am only taking a guess but I think the dialogue must only have taken up a fraction of the film's running time and what it used it did not use well at all.

It's truly sad to think about what we could have done with the 120 Million dollars that were wasted on this production. Right now the box office numbers are proving my point - I just hope producers see it as an omen. Bad story telling, forgettable music scores, and theatrics that cater to a 3D ride will likely cost them money rather than making it rain.

But you might say hey you're being too critical! After all it is suppose to be entertainment and the 1982 movie is not that good either." However they would be wrong. Milius and Stone's film had much charm despite the small budget, low amount of dialogue in the film and the acting skill of it's main star. The stark yet charming screenplay, cinematography that flowed with the exciting rhythm of a now iconic Hollywood music score pushed this film to become a much beloved cult classic. So much in fact, Lionsgate must truly believed they could make a profitable movie will disregarding some key elements of what makes a good film.

I was hoping to see a film that was a much closer representation of Howard's Conan but instead Lionsgate gave us fans a poor rehash of the 1982 film with the familiar brutish, simple-minded barbarian and dolled up in expensive effects. But not only that, the filmakers strived to put us on a 3D ride rather than give us any true theatrics and drama that made it's predecessor so much more than an action film.

If it were me in those producers seats I would have just said make "Hour of the Dragon" because it contains many of the story elements present in the new film, yet in the book they were much more carefully thought through.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

1

RodrigoBGCOct 19, 2011

The director of this movie forget one simple rule, if Schwarzenegger played that role, no one can do it again, simple as that, no more comments.......

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

1

KadeemluvmusicAug 30, 2011

This remake is a big mistake. No one wants to see a remake of Conan the Barbarian. The Arnold Schwarzenegger classic was one of the best, but with a mediocre 3-D movie like this I would rather watch a rerun of Predator. It's boring, dull, andThis remake is a big mistake. No one wants to see a remake of Conan the Barbarian. The Arnold Schwarzenegger classic was one of the best, but with a mediocre 3-D movie like this I would rather watch a rerun of Predator. It's boring, dull, and precisely the worst movie of summer 2011.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

1

KoloskiAug 20, 2011

I wwas so pumped for this movie. I gave all my guys that work for me the day off for us to go watch it at the movie tavern. Well it was a total flop. The script and director sucked. Jasom Momoa can be Conan. Everything was way to dark.I wwas so pumped for this movie. I gave all my guys that work for me the day off for us to go watch it at the movie tavern. Well it was a total flop. The script and director sucked. Jasom Momoa can be Conan. Everything was way to dark. The dialog could of been so much better. Heck, Jason can even act unlike Arnold back then. They lacked the flair and cool characters of the original Conan's.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

2

scrieciuAug 22, 2011

This movie gave me less than I expected. The most awesome parts were the action ones. It was very bloody, violent and exaggerated, you know, barbarian style. But I didn't really care of the rest. The story was not interesting. I don'tThis movie gave me less than I expected. The most awesome parts were the action ones. It was very bloody, violent and exaggerated, you know, barbarian style. But I didn't really care of the rest. The story was not interesting. I don't understand how you could make this action movie so boring. So, it has the action that you would anticipated, but the story is unoriginal. It was predictable, and the chances are that you already saw those '' cliche '' scenes before. What i'm trying to say is, you will know when the girl (Rachel Nichols as Tamara) will get kidnap, when she will be saved, etc. You will probably recognise Stephen Lang (as Colonel Miles Quaritch, the villain from '' Avatar ''), which he plays Khalar Zym. I thought that Jason Momoa was great has Conan. '' Conan the Barbarian '' is huge disappointment and you will forget it in the next 20 minutes, it's that forgettable. I was really angry wasting my time watching this boring film. There's nothing worth seeing and there's nothing to get exited about.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

10

natespankAug 23, 2011

Conan the barbarian rocked some socks. There were some incredibly cliche and cheesy moments, and at first I recoiled in horror at these... however, they pulled it off and instead of hurting the movie the cheese aided it. The violence is grim,Conan the barbarian rocked some socks. There were some incredibly cliche and cheesy moments, and at first I recoiled in horror at these... however, they pulled it off and instead of hurting the movie the cheese aided it. The violence is grim, the characters are potent, the situation is howard-esque and, while a re-imagining of Conan to an extent, it is true to what conan is and is a great movie.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

10

dziresAug 25, 2011

You must see this movie!!! It may not be Oscar worthy according to the "professional critics", but who cares? It's great entertainment, exciting, and Momoa makes a great Conan. I never listen to "professional critics". If I think a movieYou must see this movie!!! It may not be Oscar worthy according to the "professional critics", but who cares? It's great entertainment, exciting, and Momoa makes a great Conan. I never listen to "professional critics". If I think a movie looks good, I see it and make up my own mind.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

9

ScottishFoxAug 25, 2011

This movie is closer to the REH version of Conan then the Ahnuld version from the 1980s. The music isn't as good and the directing is fairly bad. There are several scenes that jump without a smooth transition. That being said it is betterThis movie is closer to the REH version of Conan then the Ahnuld version from the 1980s. The music isn't as good and the directing is fairly bad. There are several scenes that jump without a smooth transition. That being said it is better than the movie from the 80s. The action is better. The choreography and the athleticism of the primary actors is dramatically better than the crowd of bodybuilders populating the 1st movie. Jason Mamoa can act circles around Arnold. Ron Perlman does a fantastic job and the kid playing teen Conan steals the show.

My only REAL gripe was the nature of the final fight scene. The environment is ludicrous, but it's not enough to really ding this movie after 90 mins of fantastic action scenes.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

3

Khunter4382Nov 29, 2011

Just like any remake, you can't help but compare each one with its predecessor. So is the case here. While good old Arnold S. has never had superb acting chops, he still has a commanding presence both physically and performance wise. NeitherJust like any remake, you can't help but compare each one with its predecessor. So is the case here. While good old Arnold S. has never had superb acting chops, he still has a commanding presence both physically and performance wise. Neither is the case for Momoa, who just happens to be another boring star that is easy on the eyes. All of his costars are just as forgettable, except for Ron Perlman, who does a fine job as Conan's father. Lang does a decent job as Zym, but even his performance seems lackluster. This one just didn't have the right shoe-fit and I wasn't driven to that wonderful tale of lore, vengeance, and bloody satisfaction that was so prevalent in the original film.… Expand

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

9

SandrickApr 22, 2012

Thanks to all of the negative reviews here I was pleasantly surprised by how much fun this movie was. I thought that the casting was spot on and that the narrative captured the essence Howard's world. I loved the into to young Conan and IThanks to all of the negative reviews here I was pleasantly surprised by how much fun this movie was. I thought that the casting was spot on and that the narrative captured the essence Howard's world. I loved the into to young Conan and I thought that Pearlman was ideal for his father. I love the Howard stories, loved the comics, loved the old movies, but I definitely think that people's nostalgia for the old films has been the curse of this one. I couldn't help but appreciate how much practical movie making (real sets, stunts, etc) there was in place of CG. Sure some of the locales were computer generated, but I found that these were done very well and it didn't detract from the experience. This was a fun adventure that I hope people discover later as a cult film. My only gripe with the film is the use of Morgan Freeman as a narrator that drops out halfway through. If there is a narrator, then they should bookend the film, closing it out. Also, Morgan Freeman's voice was not a good choice.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

BikerjamesAug 22, 2011

I Live. I Love. I Slay. I am Content! Hilarious! I'm giving the film a pass because it kept my attention the entire movie. I didn't look at my watch wondering when it would end. That doesn't mean it is not without some problems. TheI Live. I Love. I Slay. I am Content! Hilarious! I'm giving the film a pass because it kept my attention the entire movie. I didn't look at my watch wondering when it would end. That doesn't mean it is not without some problems. The dialog is clunky at times, It is overly gory for my taste, and the horrible wobbly hand held camera work during the fight scenes is frustrating. However, the acting is pretty good throughout and the bad guys are fun, especially Rose McGowan playing Marique with her deadly sharp fingernails. I also liked Ron Perlman as Conan's dad and wish they would have featured him more. The movie also looks good, although the 3D was average. I would have rated the movie a little higher if the fight scenes were filmed better, but since 70% of the movie consists of fight scenes it gets frustrating. Still, not as bad as the critics are claiming. Many critics are saying it is too dark and gory, yet those same critics loved the film 300 with its clunky dialogue and gory fight scenes. Go figure.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

Jcrank42210Oct 3, 2011

This remake is ok, where as the original is horrible. Jason Momoa was a good choice to play Conan because he fits the part. The plot was ok at best, the action was pretty good and there was a lot of it. Its dramatic side is where this film stuck out.

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

4

Knicksfan7Aug 24, 2011

Ok so first off im doing this movie justice by giving it a 4. This movie was really dumb, the acting was horrible, watched pretty much the entire film without the 3d glasses on, oh and jason mamoa is a terrible actor. The supposed to be coolOk so first off im doing this movie justice by giving it a 4. This movie was really dumb, the acting was horrible, watched pretty much the entire film without the 3d glasses on, oh and jason mamoa is a terrible actor. The supposed to be cool lines by Conan were supposed, i mean come on, I live, i love, i slay, i am contempt? Omg so dumb. Ron Perlman is a kicka$$ actor but why does he keep signing up for these dumb medieval films? The beginning of this movie was terrible and boring. The only reason i gave this movie a 4 is because the action was actually pretty damn good, whoever was in charge of the action in this film did a really good job but everything else was stupid, story was decent though, but i saw this movie for free because i work at a Regal theater so i cant complain too much, but overall this movie is a dumb fun film. Should be on the scifi channel but too graphic for television, oh and it definitely is #2 in my book for most awkward sex scene, only behind 300. But im doing this movie justice and giving it a 4/10… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

4toMillionsAug 26, 2011

If you liked the 1982 version of Conan the Barbarian, you will almost assuredly enjoy this one as well. It has everything you want in a Conan movie, copious amounts of violence, gore, and boobs. The opening scenes of Conan's childhood wereIf you liked the 1982 version of Conan the Barbarian, you will almost assuredly enjoy this one as well. It has everything you want in a Conan movie, copious amounts of violence, gore, and boobs. The opening scenes of Conan's childhood were fantastic. The movie does lose a bit of its momentum after that. But, over all it still a fun movie with enough of action and adventure to keep just about anyone entertained for the entire 112 minute run time.
I was disappointed with a few elements of the movie. The 3-D seemed to hurt the enjoyment of some of the fight scenes, especially fight scenes done in low lighted areas. I really did not like Morgan Freeman's take on the opening narrative. He seemed to read it the same way he would have read a grocery list. Finally, where was the music? The soundtrack from the 1982 version enhanced almost every scene in the movie. Unfortunately, there isn't one memorable note in this soundtrack.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

RyanPrattSep 12, 2011

Skip-it - This Conan is just as bloody and violent as the original, but it is also just a cheesy, and without Arnold Schwarzenegger it's more like Limburger.

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

4

HappymonkMar 12, 2012

I have not seen the original film, but this was a complete mess! The acting was terrible throughout, the story was very disjointed and a lot of the violence seemed unnecessary. Having said that, the film is just watchable due to it beingI have not seen the original film, but this was a complete mess! The acting was terrible throughout, the story was very disjointed and a lot of the violence seemed unnecessary. Having said that, the film is just watchable due to it being funnily bad. I probably won't recommend this film to anyone who doesn't understand the "so bad it's good" genre of films.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

8

pitochJan 3, 2012

1) If you are a male
2) if you don't compare this movie to Milius' movie
3) if you like having instant fun without any sort of thinking,

Then, just be prepared to the best brainless B-movie of all time :)

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

10

SanDiegoOct 1, 2016

This movie is based on the comic books and an arnie's fantasy movie, this remake is cooler than the other ones. Conan is badass. It's about a man becomes the barbarian and fights evil with swords. 10/10

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

TVJerryAug 23, 2011

There was no reason to reboot this fantasy adventure classic, but here it is. Jason Momoa plays the sword-wielding savage who travels across mythical times to reek revenge for his father's murder. The key word here is brutalality:There was no reason to reboot this fantasy adventure classic, but here it is. Jason Momoa plays the sword-wielding savage who travels across mythical times to reek revenge for his father's murder. The key word here is brutalality: back-to-back vicious, bloody battlesâ… Expand