The-Atlantean

(2012-05-02 06:24:33)

Go and watch Arnie again...

I like Jason Monoa, and I feel for him, swamped by a piece of utterlytripe storytelling. The dialogue was passable, fairly good actionwithout it being epic in any way at all. There are some nice lookingprops and scenes, and a few of the cast display some reasonable actingtalent, when they are given the chance to. But clichéd as hell. Okay, Iknow this is Conan, the template for all other sword and sorcery, andthus the inventor of the cliché, but this was done in such a ham-fistedand myopic way. The plot was ridiculously contrived and each scene justjumped to the next - "Conan go here." "Okay." "Oh look, we're there."He's trailing the girl and what does he find? One of witch-girl'sfinger spikes. Like she'd accidentally leave one behind! And aconvenient horse just waiting there for him! Actually, the more Ithink, the more stupid so many things become. Like, when some sort ofKraken is about to eat them, but the guards rush in to fight himanyway, and more are killed by the Kraken in their castle than Conankills... All of which strips the plotting of any meaning, the film ofany atmosphere, and the experience of any worth. As for the true natureof what the film *should* be, the director has as much feel for theexotic nature or the romantic savagery it is intended to portray as a7-year old. I am saying that specifically, because as a 10-year old Iused to choreograph better adventures. I was just an average child, andclaim no special skills in this area, but seriously, Nispel, this ispathetic. No loving hand crafted this, and… did I mention the story wascomplete guff? Almost non-existent, actually. I blame the writers, butthe director most of all. The man is a complete idiot. He has thepacing and vision of a blind tortoise... with 3 legs, and he hasdestroyed what should have been a masterpiece. I initially gave the 4stars, but after writing this, it has dropped to 2. Don't watch it. The1982 Arnie one is 100 times better.

dave2187124

(2012-05-01 17:21:37)

could have been great, but falls short

i saw this movie the week it came out and still can't get out of myhead how bad it was. i didn't expect it to be be the same as theprevious films but had high hopes that it would be good, i was wrong.like many other reviews the plot was missing there was a lack of storytelling, and character development seemed absent. the character nevergain any real connection with the audience as most of Conan's friendscome and go without time to build character bonds. Conan's "love"interest goes from hating him to loving him without any effort orreason. and the final battle is very anti-climatic. this could havebeen a great movie if not for the weak to non existent storyline, lackof character development, and choice of actors in particular parts, iwill let you decide which parts could have been different people. mysuggestion is to miss this movie in the theater and on DVD. if its onHBO or Stars then give it a watch if nothing else is on.

Carlos Romero

(2012-04-30 22:54:55)

Could be worse, but also much better

First of all, sorry about my English if it's not very good, it's not myfirst language.Maybe this is the best Conan adaptation in content, but in moviequality the first one beats this one by far. I'm not trying to comparetwo Conan movies, just two "sword and sorcery" movies, one made withtalent and other one without it, because when I go to the cinema Idon't go just because of the main character, I go because I want towatch a good movie, and even when I like the genre, Marcus Nispeldidn't help this one to be a good movie. I'm not going to say anythingabout the script or the actors, because they did it OK, at least in theSpanish dubbed version, I'm not sure about how they sound in English,and the script was not a great script, but good enough for an adventuremovie.My complains are, too much slow motion bits and not very well placed,too much and tiring barbarian bawling, not very good battle scenes andthe extras in the battle scenes weren't at their best, abuse of thebackground music or music themes poorly chosen, and I didn't like thenarrator, at least in the Spanish version. In other movies the narratoris like another character and suits well with the movie, but in thisone it looked like if it was put there just to save money and notexplain or show what was happening. He just speaks twice, but I wouldchange that for more auto-explicative scenes or a couple of minutesmore of movie.I hope this poorly done movie doesn't ruin the chances of other futureConan movies.

PureGore

(2012-04-30 17:38:35)

A Rompin' Good Time

First and foremost, this movie is not for movie critics. This movie isfor people looking to watch a film with an open mind and have a goodtime doing it. In these days of Michael Bay pseudo-epics being releasedevery other week, it was great to sit down, turn off my brain, andenjoy a Conan movie that follows in the true tradition of Conanstories.This movie is also for true Conan fans. Lots of violent battles, bloodeverywhere, a dark arch-nemesis, nude women, rowdy yet loyal friends,Conan "getting some" with the main heroine... if you've ever read oneof the Robert E. Howard or Robert Jordan (or any other author inbetween) Conan stories, you know exactly what to expect in this movie.The typical Conan adventure recipe is being followed faithfully, and ina very good way.Jason Momoa is a FANTASTIC Conan. He's got the moves, the attitude andthe stoic presence that I've always imagined when reading the stories.The action sequences really play to his strengths, and he takes fulladvantage of them.Of course there's plenty of clichГѓВ©s throughout the movie, but that's tobe expected from a Conan story. The novels are full of them too.There's also a few moments of cheesy visual effects that don't work toowell. But it's easy to forget these and get pulled into the nextwell-scripted battle sequence.By far the lowest point of the entire movie was the "evil daughter"Marique, played by Rose McGowan. That's about the worst performanceI've seen on the big screen in decades. Either the character wasterribly scripted, or Rose McGowan was a terrible casting decision.She's worse than a parody, she's an embarrassment to the movie. Sceneswhere she's trying to exude an aura of evil are laughable (seriously, Ialmost burst out laughing when she was on screen trying to be ominous).Don't let the artsy fartsy movie critics dissuade you. If you know whatto expect, or if you're a fan of Conan stories, this movie isdefinitely worth the price of admission. After decades of waiting foranother Conan movie, we can rejoice: it's finally arrived!

irishmonster

(2012-04-29 23:37:57)

Terrible, boring, bad.

What an absolutely terrible movie. No plot, bad casting, awful acting,and terrible effects make this one of the worst movies I've ever seen.What a complete waste of time. I actually fell asleep twice whilewatching! This piece of garbage drags along with no real direction,moving from scene to scene with no explanation. Jason Momoa may lookkind of like the Conan of the comic book and the book covers, andthough he hits some cool poses with a sword, he brings nothing else tothe table in this ugly reboot. Ron Pearlman as Conan's father isanother example of bad casting. All in all, this was an extremelydisappointing 2 hours of my life.

JoГѓВЈo Fernandes

(2012-04-29 15:55:24)

New Standard in general public action movies

I never thought to right a review on a movie of this kind. Normally iwood give 4 or 5 points, but, despite the unfair votes people aregiving i think 7 is the right number :) Conan, independently if it'saccording to original story, has very good details that you will neverexpect on a movie like this. It is truly violent, not just commonbloody scenes, it is creative! Death happens cruelly. Other giant steepis eroticism; if you can notice you will see many taboos almost broken.In general the scenarios are very enjoyable and the overall story fitswell with the acting. Of course this is not a great movie but compareto others of the same kind it's quite good. The bad parts are the lackof personality and characterization of female roll and a touch ofchildishness, probably to sale to the public who consume this gender ofmovie. I hope some day some one proceed with no "filter" and create amasterpiece in this field!

philstyxx

(2012-04-28 19:26:56)

Great Action Movie!!

Not sure why this movie got such bad reviews, I just seen the movie andI thought it was great as did my wife. The 3-D was not really necessaryand did blur the action sequences at times but no worse than other 3-Dmovies out now. I was very glad that the 3-D was not used to just put abunch of 3-D effects in the movie for the sake of having 3-D, but yetmore subtle; But the movie itself was great, I absolutely loved LeoHoward as young Conan, brilliant, and such a great character to playyoung Conan in appearance, he really looked like what Jason Momoa mighthave looked like as a young child. I thought the movie flowed well,fight scenes were awesome, choreography of the sword wielding was verynice, I was very pleased, hope it does well enough to continue thesaga!!!! I thought it held up very well against the original, probablybetter and that's hard for me to say being such an Arnold fan, but Iloved this Conan, and Jason Momoa does an excellent job. I was alsopleased to see a good R rated movie, I'm getting a little tired of allthe toned down PG-13 ratings, plenty of blood and guts in this one. Forthose who don't like remakes, you don't have to go see them

Chimera-5

(2012-04-28 14:06:51)

It's great. It's a blast. And (::drumroll::) it lives up to all expectations for those of us THAT HAD THEM!

*MINOR SPOILERS*You know, if you aren't familiar with a genre or a character therein,do yourself and the rest of the civilized world a favor and DON'T WATCHTHESE PARTICULAR FILMS! It really isn't as complicated as splittingatoms! What film did you haters see? How about you misbegotten charlatans andfrauds who are well-known "critics" that are just bitter you couldnever get a script of your own made into a feature? Because if you sawConan, you should at least have a sprinkling of a grasp of Conan andhis world and how the stories are fleshed out from the pulp novels ofnearly a century ago and comic books from decades ago when fantasy andfiction COULD be told in the manner this film unravels."The mask angle was stupid!" "The sorcery angle was stupid!" "He's meanto females!" Yep, that's how the vibe for the stories has ALWAYS been,and Nispel clearly did his homework, but hey, feel free to complainover nonsense!This one's cute, too: "Him and his father train with swords on ICE!What a rip-off of Batman Begins!!!" Yeah, and I'm sure no other film inhuman history had two people training on ice before Batman Begins cameout just a handful of years ago, right? For example, no martial artsfilm from any country anywhere anytime, I'm sure! Sigh, Americans,that's all I'm going to say!There's also "It looks like a made-for-TV movie!" No, it does not. Atall. That's just a feeble attempt to try and further smear the film inmuch the same way the comment I mentioned in the previous paragraph is.It isn't based on anything factual and is the product of complete andutter cluelessness. People who say such unfounded foolishness areoutright delusional, there's really no Option B about it.To conclude, the characters/locations/scenarios are straight out of theConan stories of yesteryear (again, something you should have probablywrapped your head around in advance before stepping one foot in thetheater), it's perfectly paced, the action is literally nonstop, thecostumes and set pieces are as good as any fantasy movie not associatedwith Tolkien, and it looks and sounds absolutely stunning. But hey,there's a vampire film also playing so the trendy teenager in you canrejoice and there's that apes movie that was about as exciting aswatching water freeze and had the most wooden, annoying, and deadbeatcharacters of any film this summer yet you somehow vouch for it as "Thebest movie of the year!"And ultimately, let's face facts; if it were to the letter the EXACTsame film but Johnny Depp played Conan or it was directed by PeterJackson or Quentin Tarantino, you'd eat it up, possibly more than once.Because that's how shallow and biased in advance filmgoing audienceshave become. Pathetic! Much like that large contingency of people whoindiscriminately watch any and all things anime simply because theycome from Japan, but if they were exact same thing and the country oforigin was say, Zimbabwe, they wouldn't touch it with a boomerang tiedto a fire hose! Yep, admit it, your logic is preferential in exactly inthe same manner!

patrickmaura

(2012-04-28 01:24:00)

A soft version of Batman

Man if your going to have a weak plot and not so great acting, at leasthave a well developed world that oozes style. I mean its not that hardto do.This movie felt that a bad video game, the MMORPG has better settingsand feeling for the world than this movie.As for Conan, well he is a California beach bum. Yeah when he is angrythere are glimmers of what he can be. Seriously after seeing Jason playKhal Drogo in game of thrones I was going oh yeah thats Conan. Nopeapparently some psych majors from Berkeley got a hold of this script.His father tells him I love instead of avenge me. He never soundsconvincing when he is being demanding of people. And at the end I swearthey ripped off the end of bat man begins with him reflecting on hisloving father.Conan was never really a joyous looking guy. The world is not dark and to many locations are thrown around just forthe hell of it instead of flushing them out.This was a poor attempt for a reboot. Even the music was weak, hellthey could of just taken the music from the original that alone wouldof made the movie better.The only good thing is that I thought the fighting was good and everynow and then you saw where giving a proper director and script Jason Mwould of been great.

GoneWithTheTwins

(2012-04-27 04:29:45)

There aren't even any original monsters for the barbarian to conquer.

Visually, this new Conan feels authentic, with gallons of bloodspattering against tempered steel as muscular men wage war with beastsand each other alike. Yet while the action and carnage might sate themost bloodthirsty of viewers, the film feels rather soulless as theendless battles carry on with no pause for dialogue, characterdevelopment, or plot. The mishmash tale of revenge and an evil tyranttrying to conquer the world is the very definition of generic and theactors don't attempt to move beyond the scope of their stereotypes.Conan states early on, "I live, love, and slay. And I am content".Well, we need a story to be satisfied.Born of battle and raised to be a fearless Cimmerian warrior, Conan(Jason Momoa) seeks revenge against merciless warlord Khalar Zym(Stephen Lang), the man who razed his village and murdered his father.As Zym attempts to resurrect his dead wife with the aid of hissorceress daughter Marique (Rose McGowan), he discovers the last pieceto the puzzle lies in the pure blood of Tamara (Rachel Nichols), ayoung monk. When Conan rescues the girl from Zym's henchmen, thebarbarian sees his chance to draw out the ruthless king and fulfill hislifelong vendetta.Everything about Conan the Barbarian is unrelenting. While the level ofaction is commendable, it's sustained with nary a break, leaving noroom to catch your breath and no moment to differentiate one villain oraction sequence from the next. It's as if the movie is one long battle,starting with a blood-soaked killing field birth and ending with thefinal thrusts of a warrior dueling his nemesis, interrupted rarely bybrief conversations. There's so much butchery, but instead of beingcreative, it's generally cruel, and although the story is soaked inlegends, secrets, witchcraft, sorcery, rituals, necromancers, gravellyvoices, victory cries, satanic monks and a demonic Queen Amidala(complete with constantly changing hairpieces and attire), none of itis unique. A B-movie vibe presides over the entire ordeal, withunenthusiastic narration, bland transitions and characters strikingposter-ready poses (such as swords being raised to the heavens). Therearen't even any original monsters for the barbarian to conquer. Thefilmmakers have forgotten that adventure can still be exciting evenwithout nonstop predicaments and bloodshed. And are the impossiblywhite teeth and breast implants an anachronism? The greatestachievement for this second-rate return to the Conan franchise is thescenery, which makes striking use of locations; battlefields, forests,monasteries, deserts, villages, castles, and caves are all given anappropriate Hyborian treatment (with extensive matte painting) and evena hint of Frazetta influences. The makeup is also exemplary, but wastedon unoriginal character designs (save for McGowan who would have beenvisually interesting had it not been for her expected, over-the-topapproach to the role). Sadly, Conan the Barbarian has employed abroad-brush fashion to every other element – it secured the go-todirector for sanguineous remakes (Marcus Nispel previously helmed theTexas Chainsaw Massacre and Friday the 13th remakes), the go-tonarrator (Morgan Freeman), the go-to production company for violentextravaganzas (Lionsgate) and even cast Ron Perlman, the go-to elderbarbarian (he played similar roles in Season of the Witch and In theName of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale, as well as having voiced Conanin the 2007 video game).- The Massie Twins (GoneWithTheTwins.com)

mandelmanden

(2012-04-27 09:23:08)

Lighthearted but fun.

I went to see Conan the Barbarian in 2D (naturally) after a few beersat the end of a long day. I had seen a couple of reviews, heard a fewopinions, and it was apparently the worst garbage to come out ofHollywood since forever. So, I was very pleasantly surprised when thismovie turned out to be quite a lot more fun and probably pretty coolfor a handful of kids in their early teens. But we had good fun,despite being rather a lot older than our early teens. At the end of the day, you don't get much more than you could'veexpected to get from a movie that's basically only about a guy growingup to kill the guy who killed his father. The plot starts out flat andremains flat. In between the start and the end we see a bunch of coollocations, a lot of fighting, a couple of fun moments, a random sexscene, and it sticks pretty true to Conan lore.I wonder if it's at all feasible to make this movie. You have acharacter that is basically only from a couple of handfuls of pulpshort stories from the 30's. A teenage boy's hero, exciting adventures.It's not for the mainstream cinema, at all. It's something for kids intheir room, playing Dungeons & Dragons or Descent: Journeys in theDark, or a sword & sorcery video games.To adults, it's either horrible, or something fun to remind us of atime where we were more easily impressed by the world and its sights.But then, as a person who very much enjoys movies that are so badthey're good, a movie in that category that's also nicely made ingeneral, is a rarity. For those points, I'll give it a 7/10. If you'rethe nerdy type and dip into a couple of beers, you'll probably enjoythis. Your 13-15 year old son and his mates will also love it no doubt.

jviramontez

(2012-04-26 14:19:34)

Robert E Howared would be proud...

I started reading Conan stories (and comics) in the early 70's. I sawthe Arnold movies, but just couldn't see Arnold as Conan (came acrossas far too nice). I was somewhat surprised to see so many reviewsstating how great the Arnold movies were as compared to this mostrecent release, and somewhat concerned I'd be wasting my money...Again, this proves you can't always trust what you read, or the frameof reference of the critic(s). In my opinion, this was a great movieand I think Mr. Howard would have thought this story and portrayal muchmore along the lines of his original imagination.Don't pay attention to the skeptics, if you like the Conan stories byRobert E Howard, you'd be hard pressed not to at least enjoy theride...Myself, I'm looking forward to the next story, and hope there will bemany more on the way towards Conan the King!!!

drew_atreides

(2012-04-26 14:08:24)

The whole does not equal the sum of it's parts

I have to admit i went in wanting to like this new Conan. There weresome interesting actors in place here. Stephen Lang was solid in"Avatar", Rose McGowan is someone i've had a secret love for since"SCREAM", and her participation "Grind House" cemented her status as aB-movie favourite, and being a Stargate Fan i knew what Jason Momoacould bring to the table. He had all the tools to fill the sandals andloin cloth of Conan, along with an undeniably brooding screen presence.These 3 at the core give a valiant effort, but i don't think any actorcould save this fairly poorly spliced together schlock. I think the direction is the weak point. There's definitely some solidmakeup work, and the action scenes are conceptually pretty cool. Butthe way they were executed and actually filmed left a lot to bedesired, and near the end of the film it seems like the editing went topot.Still, for gore-fiends there's definitely some appeal here. There's anundeniable brutality to the violence. I have to admit i was cringing acouple of times!Overall, though, a bit of a wasted opportunity. There was some neatpieces in place here, but it's all for naught. Too bad. McGowan's performance alone was definitely worthy of a morefleshed out character in a better film.To be honest i want to give this a 6.5/10, but I am rounding up to avery generous 7.Disappointed.

Nikola

(2012-04-26 09:20:08)

Remember people,this is Conan not Shakespeare

First of all,let's clear one thing - I'm a big fan of Milius's Conan (1982 ) version,but that didn't stop me from seeing this movie.Mainly,my strongest reason for writing this review is because of allthe people that bashed this movie and hated it without even seeingit,and this flick certainly doesn't deserve this low score.When I watched this movie I didn't have high expectations,but the mostimportant thing here is that you shouldn't compare this movie to theArnie's version,they are two totally different things.The only thingthese two have in "common" is the origin story which happens in thefirst 15-20 minutes and that's it.Overall,I liked this movie.Sure,it had few clichГѓВ©s and few baddialogues which couldn't have been avoided,but as I said,overall thiswas a pleasant surprise.Remember,we are talking about Conan moviehere,so you can't expect Oscar winning performances or certain depth ofstory.This is action adventure movie or sword and sorcery movie to beprecise,and maybe that is the main reason that I liked themovie,because that genre is practically dead,so this was certainly awelcome addition.This movie has all that you'll expect from Conan movie-it's brutal (there are buckets of blood and violence ),there is magic,little bit ofboobs,battles,creatures etc,etc...Certainly not movie for children.On the acting side,I must say I liked Jason Momoa as Conan,I wasn'texpecting to like him( having seen few trailers where they insertedthat awful line "I slay,I love,blah,blah" ).Everybody else in the castwas solid,except female cast.While on the whole I didn't have anythingagainst Rose McGowan's Marique character,Rachel Nichols's Tamara wastotally one dimensional character and I really didn't care for her(clichГѓВ© ridden character that unfortunately you have to have in thiskind of story ).This movie was doomed,bashed and trashed before it even stepped intoproduction,first because of the director and then because of JasonMomoa.While I also wasn't thrilled with both of these choices,I gavethis movie a chance...and didn't regret it,and I would ( if it evergets made,which is probably impossible ) like to see a sequel.At leastsee it,before you say anything and see it for what it is-anentertaining sword and sorcery action flick.7.5 out of 10 for what it is

Pingo-2

(2012-04-20 19:37:32)

Looks great - is boring.

Extremely well made. Looks wonderful. Child actors in the first 30minutes are super impressive. Actually, ALL actors in the film areimpressive! So are the action, the music, the sound effects, the CGI -everything is impressive! Except one thing and that is Conan thecharacter. He's Superman without cryptonite. Which makes him completelyboring. Which makes the movie boring.Sadly, but the film is so well made that they forgot to make the maincharacter interesting. Well - if you have a billion dollars and don'tcare about what you're doing, this is what you end up with.Schwarzenegger's version was more entertaining - this one looks better.If you're looking for a movie - rent the 1982-version.If you're looking for something visually cool - watch this.5/10

Bhupender Thakur

(2012-04-20 16:32:43)

all muscle but not story

WELL I was very excited about the movie when i entered in the theaterbut it faded away after the 20 minutes duration.. i was hoping thatthis Conan movie seems different not simply because of involvement of3D or CGI effects but a lot has been changed in the way movie makingworks these days. the trailers were nice so everyone was hoping thestory is there this time unlike previous installments where onlymuscles were the center of the story. Hero displays his biceps andholding sword in his both hands..cut, next scene a lovemakingscene...cut... climax..the end.no wonder why the first two movies never impressed me that they were agenuine effort. they were only made to cash the popularity of Arnold.Well they succeeded but at that time audience were not kept aware ofthe storyline or screening so that they have a clue of what they aregoing to see.. they bought ticket just for the sake of star cast.But current scenario has changed..if the story is good even without anunknown star cast movies works..This Remake of Conan fails on several levels.. 1. STORY 2. ACTING 3.REPRESENTING SOMETHING WHICH HAS BEEN DONE BETTER WITHOUT THE MODERNTECHNOLOGY IN THE PAST.I notices many scenes in the 3D version were not getting the feel of3D. they looked more like 2D quality. I WAS WATCHING many sceneswithout using my glasses & faced no difficulty at all..I don't knowwhat was in the mind of director during the post production work.the story was same as the Bollywood directors calls a "MASALASCRIPT"... i.e. hero is in childhood, his father is on the oppositionof villain so villain kills the father of hero to clear his path.. heroruns away or hides himself so that one day he grows up and avenge thedeath of his family. In India many movies were made on the same theme &they somehow managed to attract the crowd. but this formula has beenrepeated so many times that even in India people don't go for thesefilms & no wonder filmmakers don't make these kinda films.But Hollywood audience is way more smarter than this. So how thedirectors of this movie dared to present this script. where nocreativity is present. Because script didn't brought anything new sothere was not plenty to do for actors so poor performance in acting.Graphics were good but it cannot holds your interest for the whole 90minutes or so. My friend was also with me and he doesn't watch manyHollywood movies but even he said that this movie was a crap & waste ofmoney. and i was fully agree with him. I felt that a huge fan base wasconned by the filmmakers.A huge disappointment..!!! 2/10 is my rating.

juliethood

(2012-04-20 02:48:27)

You need a script for a movie to work

This started with a small spark of promise that died in thescriptwriters hands. The characters had no depth at all and thetalented cast had absolutely no script to work with. The actionsequences were well choreographed and brutally detailed, but the toofast action and hatchet job editing turned this possibly watchablemovie into a nightmare. It makes the original version look full of well rounded characters.Slick editing, good continuity, a well thought out script and goodproduction values. Really, the continuity guy should have been terminated.

doom-ca

(2012-04-19 14:51:17)

weak sauce

Ouch this is a weak movie,the script is soft with little to nosubstance and the plot line is thin at best. If you are looking for anaction packed sword and saucer movie pass this up and delve into thearchives. Horrible acting, stereotyped characters, and over the topfight scenes equal an hour and a half of your life you won't get back.While the sets are reasonable and the barbarians ripped muscles willsure to please some starved house wives, its just not enough to make upfor all the short comings of the movie. In addition, the moves feelslike it is designed for a 13 year old boy to enjoy, with the overlysimplistic plot and over the top violence but seems to have an r ratingto the content. In short, you'll wonder why they even bothered to makesuch a blunder in the first place.

mario-277

(2012-04-18 22:28:09)

Brilliant fast paced action movie

I just returned from cinema watching this movie and I give it a 8 of10.I'm a Conan fan since Schwarzenegger's "Conan - The Barbarian" from1982, I read all Robert E. Howard's Conan novels and played the "Age ofConan - Hyborian Adventures" MMO for a long time. So my review maybe abit biased.This Conan movie got all what the heart of a Conan fan desires:Beautiful landscapes, sexy women, black humor and sarcasm, violence andgore, strong and honorable men, fierce enemies and monsters and lots offighting scenes.Yes, it may be not perfect and has some flaws. But nonetheless Ipersonally found it very entertaining and exciting. For me there was nomoment of boredom or the desire that the movie will hopefully end soon- rather the opposite.If you like movies which touch the relentless warrior and hero withinyourself you'll probably also like this Conan movie.

johncbpb

(2012-04-18 17:00:26)

Huge Disappointment

This production unfortunately validates the old axiom that most remakesare inferior to the original. The Schwarzenegger production of 1983 isa masterpiece beside this production. Momoa is an attractive andappealing lead, but he is wasted. The villains are colorful, butsquandered too. It is the awful screenplay and direction which doomthis film. When is Hollywood going to understand that special effectsalone are not enough to make a film successful? Both artistically andfinancially this film confirms that. These writers and director shouldNEVER be given a budget of any substance to work on again until theyprove they can deliver a watchable product. This film has nocharacterization, no dialog, no plot development, no credible action.Ahhnold's 'Conan' was not only muscular, but vulnerable. He wascaptured, he was beat up, he suffered. He made us root for him. ThisConan is invincible from the start, and is never allowed to acquire oursympathy. His mission seems mindless. His confederates have nothing todo. The romantic connection has no chemistry or credibility. The setsare simply too over-the-top fantastical. Save your money. It is noteven worth DVD or PPV view, except to see the very watchable Momoa.