Conan the Barbarian
Lionsgate | Release Date: August 19, 2011
5.0
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 218 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
67
Mixed:
82
Negative:
69
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
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 clichés. 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 clichés. 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2
bronn_43Jul 23, 2023
Why? - was the only question after the news about this "remake". Managed to watch about first 10 mins, even that was too long.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

36 Critic Reviews

5.0 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 77 Project Hail Mary
2 75 Send Help
3 73 Hoppers
4 71 The Sheep Detectives
5 68 Crime 101
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL