Read Mixed User Reviews for Conan the Barbarian (2011)

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

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

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

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

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

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