Sound Off: Marcus Nispel's 'Conan the Barbarian' - Your Thoughts?
by Alex Billington
August 19, 2011
Now that you've seen it, what did you think? Born on the Battlefield. The other 80's remake hitting theaters this weekend is the Marcus Nispel-directed Conan the Barbarian, starring Jason Momoa as the new Conan, Ron Perlman as his father Corin. Based on the classic Robert E. Howard characters, this Conan re-tells his origin and struggle to find and defeat Khalar Zym, played by Stephen Lang, the scourge or Hyboria. So how is this remake? Action-packed, violent and badass? How is Jason Momoa in Arnold's old role? If you've seen it, leave us a comment below and tell us what you thought of this Conan the Barbarian.
To fuel the campfire this time, I was unfortunately not impressed with Conan the Barbarian at all. I've seen most of Marcus Nispel's films and it felt like the most average he could get with bringing this story to life. Everything expected, nothing out of the ordinary, even the action wasn't as bloody or awesome as I was hoping. I saw it in 3D and maybe that's part of the problem, as that wasn't a good idea. The story itself is basic and should satisfy fans of Robert E. Howard at least. I still think Jason Momoa was badass and did a great job, but the rest of the cast was a complete let down, even Stephen Lang. And Rose McGowan, what a pointless, freaky character. Anyone else think they wasted some of the best action set pieces too early on?
What did you think of Conan the Barbarian? Great remake or total let down? Was it in 3D? We will remove any comments that indicate you have not seen the movie, as this area is meant to discuss the film only once you have seen it and can talk about your thoughts. Please keep the comments civilized!
Reader Feedback - 34 Comments
It was bad and they should feel bad!
Angry Chief on Aug 20, 2011
Oh my god thank you for quoting Futurama.
SkylerB619 on Aug 20, 2011
Well I didn't expect a Oscar performance from the movie just blood and guts and some fun and it delivered it. If you're going to see a movie find out what it about and what kind of audience they are trying to attract. Save all the haters for wasting their money.
richie on Aug 20, 2011
The movie turned out a lot better than I thought it was going to be. It wasn't better than the original, but I would say it was on par with Conan the Destroyer. Jason Momoa can't act very well, but he kicks butt, there is lots of blood and I enjoyed it for what it was for...a popcorn movie.
Michael McRorey on Aug 20, 2011
somehow... i don't know what it was, but somehow i just knew i should stay away from this film when you said "Jason Momoa can't act very well". call it a bad omen. when the popcorn's 10 bucks and the movie's another 15 i'll take it "to go". popcorns' cheaper at home, too.
NICK S. on Aug 20, 2011
I am a fan of the original Conan films but I have to say that Momoa is a better actor than Arnold, especially at that time in his career. I think the old Conan's are cool, but i really loved this new take on the legend.
Gloomyforest on Aug 21, 2011
Blood & guts? Sounds good for the TV. I can't see spending ticket price on this.
Nate Carroll on Aug 20, 2011
When a film begins with a cesarean performed on the battlefield, with a rusty dagger, you have two choices: leave, or strap in and revel in the gore. Those who choose the latter will be rewarded tenfold by Conan The Barbarian's endless geysers of blood........
smithjackob on Aug 20, 2011
I saw this tonight, and I must say that the first half of the movie was pretty good, somewhat original, and I really loved conan as a kid, he was a straight killing machine! But at the midway point, the movie seem to shift into a mix of clash of the titans and prince of persia..and the effects, mainly the background scenes looked so bad it reminded me of one of those late night fantasy shows on the CW network...
jah p on Aug 20, 2011
It is only shown in 3D in my country. No option here.
Loser on Aug 20, 2011
The first 15 minutes are good. The rest sucks.
Tyler Bannock on Aug 20, 2011
Shero Rauf on Aug 20, 2011
luckily i didnt watch it in 3d i would say it was SUPER SUCK....
Shalnark on Aug 20, 2011
I thought it was great. All the people i went to watch it with thought it was great. Lots of references to Robert Howards original stories and they captured Conans character very well.
Vold on Aug 20, 2011
i saw it 2D so i can say it was a just what i was expecting... a Marcus Nispel remake using a better actor than the original.......
Jericho on Aug 20, 2011
WOW!! Alex, I thought this was for people who have actually seen the flick to 'sound off', but most of these people have barley seen the trailer!!! Try watching it and giving it a chance guys!!
The Dude. on Aug 20, 2011
First off, let's take a look at the trailer for this movie. Conan the Barbarian looks like it was going to be a very action packed movie, instead what we did get was a very violent R rated film with no story and no dialogue. Which brings me to my second point - the dialogue. Personally, I found that in this film there was more dialogue in the intro then in the rest of the movie. You could go out and replace the dialogue of just about any character by just repeating the same thing over and over and that would be "Conan". Is there any need to say anything else? They must of said at least twenty times, why not say it a few more times. Right? right. What also annoyed me was that every time somebody said "Conan" you knew there going to be an action scene. Which brings me to my final point - the whole movie was just one big action scene - or more correctly one horrible and repetitive action scene where everything is just one big blur. The only thing you do see is when a person dies. To finish off, here are my final comments - piss poor dialogue, horrible camera work, no story and grotesque violence. On a five star rating system, I give it 4 bombs. Thank you
Jrichardson1999 on Aug 21, 2011
I grew up loving the original, and stayed optimistic when watching the trailers, was I disappointed? A little, but only because it really could have been great. Momoa was great, lots of badassdom, and love of the scowl. The story is all right (think Destroyer) but the villains and Conan's supporting characters are mostly bland and stale. Lang was lame... It needed a better baddie. The action was there, and quite awesome at times. I actually enjoyed the CG battles of the sand ghosts and the sea creature, and the overall 3Dness didn't ruin the film for me, but no major wow moments... Well maybe in the beginning, the way Conan's father goes out is kinda wild, but weird. And there is one early fight that depicts a provocation rarely scene in fight scenes... And Yes, a dude pisses his pants! I dug it despite some cheesiness; Born on the battlefield!
WOOBOT on Aug 21, 2011
Loved it. Excellent pure action movie that wasn't a rehash of the original...
Anonymous on Aug 21, 2011
I agree with whoever said first 15 minutes were good and the rest sucked. Even going in with low expectations this movie is bad.
Youngeagle on Aug 21, 2011
what is wrong with you people that hated it? it was full of action and there was a story line to it as well as a whole back story to the character. the original was super cheesy (though super good also)...and this one has just a few moments of humor/silliness...the rest is, as stated a few times here, "badass". Momoa was perfect and delivered a fresh, cool, gory view of the Conan character. I am definitely hoping for the sequels.
Gloomyforest on Aug 21, 2011
This movie was bad. Not bad enough to completely shut down the franchise but if they try again, they're going to need a different director, better script and an actual reason to use 3D. I'm glad I snuck into the movie, I fell alseep before the sand warriors even showed up (watched the second half again while waiting for another movie... which was better.) And all I wanted was the original Conan Theme to be included in the beginning and I would've been satisfied. I would've let everything else go. Momoa was "good", there was no time where I felt ripped off at his portrayal of the barbarian. I even liked his boat captain friend (needed more of him in the film, by the way). Pearlman was underused. Everyone else could've been recasted (for better or worse...) and I wouldn't have lost any sleep. The thief pales in comparison to the original snivelling guy from destroyer, classic character. The action was good, I honestly could've done with a little more. Like some more over the top battles with overwhelming monsters. The serpent looked menacing but Conan just runs away after freeing his friend and they're on to the next scene. Total rip-off. Conan "should be" just short of super-human, I'd like to have seen him pull off some "OMFG!!!/ Hell Nawh!!" feats. Bottom line, it was watchable, held my interest as long as I could keep my eyes open but didn't do anything notable AT ALL. If you HAVE to see it, don't pay the extra cash for 3D. There are other movies that do it better. Namely, all of them. And if you just have to see it in 3D, recycle the glasses and watch another movie while you're there. Plenty to choose from. /rant.
That 1 Guy.... on Aug 21, 2011
I had a mixed reaction to the film. The story was a bit dull and generic and the battle scenes had so many cuts that I could barely understand what's going on. That said, I thought things picked up a bit in the second half, even though, at the end of the day, I would still consider it a forgettable film. Also, because I saw the film at local independent theatre, the film wasn't in 3D (probably one of the only cinemas in Toronto not to show it that way). However, based on what I saw in the film, I probably wasn't missing much.
Sean Kelly on Aug 21, 2011
I hope they get one more chance to make a good movie because yes Momoa is badass. This movie tho, I really didnt care for it. It's supposed to be Conan, but it felt more like The Mummy+Pirates OTC+a little bit of Conan. Its like Conan for people who have ADD. I think the originals reign supreme in every facet except possibly budget. My GF sitting to my left loved it! My sister on my right kept saying, yeah right and yawning. I also thought the CGI sucked, that's all I'll say about that. While watching the guys behind me were laughing the whole time, even when it wasnt supposed to be funny, it was really annoying but also spoke to its lack of soul and seriousness that Conan should have, in fact Mamoa's Conan was always smiling and smirking, and seemed happy and ready to party, in contract to Arnolds who was solemn, pissed, angry, with a chip on his shoulder, which demeanor do you think makes a better stone cold barbarian killer?! The dialogue was really shitty and wow, all around it just really did suck. Even Ron Pearlman whose a fantasy vet didn't seem to put any effort into the dialogue, I mean come on man, pretend your in Hyboria! Give some kinda dialect changes or inflections or change your tone or something that doesn't make it sound like you could be having this conversation in modern day on the living room couch with your son. The female lead wasn't a good in this either, she was more akin to an Indiana Jones damsel in distress making jokes and squeaky sounds then a high-born pure-blood monk (who just happens to be able to kill the shit out of everyoe dispite living in a monastary her whole life) you would think should act. Rose McGowan and Avatar guy were descent, they just should have been a little more creepy and evil and of course had a better script. PS if you want to make a movie rated R barbarian gory dont just have blood splatter everywhere, make an effort to make it more brutal. I mean these guys are wearing armor anyway how does blood spray out of them like a faucet from every thing that hits them? maybe now I'm being nit-picky but it seems like the whole thing just lacked what I was hoping for in Conan.
Furious911 on Aug 21, 2011
With a script that includes lines like... "I live, I love, I slay...I am content" "I don't think I like you anymore, barbarian!" "You smell bad" ...how can you go wrong? I will say I haven't laughed that hard in a movie in quite some time. The bad news is...it wasn't a comedy.
Matt on Aug 21, 2011
Not good at all. I don't really remember the original film and I have not read the books, so this film had to stand on it's own for me. It totally failed to do that. I didn't go in with high art expectations. I knew this was just a brainless action movie, but even on that level it just didn't work. There were action scenes after action scenes, but I noticed that myself and my friends were not really reacting to them. They just had no meaning. They were just people fighting, but we didn't have any interest in the characters fighting and why they were fighting. I mean yeah, you know Conan wants revenge, but so little is spent in the film giving his adult character any depth that you just don't care about him, his friends or his mission. There is a bad guy and daughter combo. Bleh, go ahead, destroy the earth or whatever it is that we forgot you wanted to do in the first place. Who cares! On top of this, the action scenes were also shot in a way that made them difficult to really grasp what was going on. Note to the director - back the camera up a bit - and back off on the number of edits. They only action scene that I found half-interesting in the whole film was one in which Conan fights conjured up "sand warriors". There was some interesting CGI effects when the worriers crumbled like sand sculptures at the beach when they died. That was it. The plot was dumb, there were obvious gaffs - such as when (yet another) fight scene starts out in the middle of the night, only moments later to look like high noon. And note to props - swords in water should look heavy, not floating as if they are made of plastic. Now to the 3D. Hollywood. Listen carefully please. If you are going to release a movie in 3D - then FILM it using 3D cameras!!! No more of this half-assed post production 3D conversion crap. You are going to ruin the market for good 3D movies because people will begin to think there is no difference in 3D vs. 2D. There were points in the film where I lifted up my glasses to see a picture that looked the same - flat. Those were the more watchable parts. In other scenes, the 3D was all over the place. Things were not on the right depth plane all over the place. Trees were jumping around in depth in some scenes. It was very distracting. When they showed vistas overlooking a city or place Conan was about to show up in, the 3D was done in such a way that they looked like small models, not real full sized cities. BAD BAD BAD 3D. My advice - stay away from this movie. Do not reward it in any way with your money - it is not even worth a $1 Redbox rental when it comes out there (likely in just a few short weeks). Forget it even exists.
Keith Stansell on Aug 22, 2011
im positng another comment. THIS MOVIE SUCKED THEY SAY HIS NAME WRONG. i've read the books. the comics. they blew this. he says crom once i think. talks way to much. so dumb. also went with a crew of bros. 7 of us we all walked out of the 3-d cuz looked like shit and went to 2-d....don't waste time or anything and i watch bad movies a lot....and this sucked
Ako on Aug 22, 2011
I'm not knocking the film or even comparing it to Arnold's portrayal. But I do remember that with Conan's dialogue less was more. Even going in with the previews i thought he spoke a bit too much. I really liked what J-Mo brought to the screen and he was waaaaaay buffer than i remember. I do hope they can pull off a sequel, but with fewer words (from Conan) and less harsh on the edits!
Anonymous on Aug 23, 2011
This could have been a much better movie if it wasn't an origin story. If all the hype was to be true to the Robert E. Howard stories, simply tell a story about one of the adventures of Conan. By trying to (unsuccessfully) link Conan's search for a madman who needs an ancient mask to the death of Conan's father, the who concept of a Robert E. Howard story is lost, while we gain a terrible movie that refuses to stand out at what could have been a classic.
phoenix31 on Aug 27, 2011
I would screw the hell out of the actor of Conan...
Vampire Lilith on Sep 4, 2011
Why the F didn't they get Milius to make this? Like the second Connan Movie, Hollywood rapes something that could be done amazingly well, and if done properly could produce sequels and make them even more money. Stupid wankers!!!!
Hellatobe on Nov 13, 2011
Amazing write-up! This could aid plenty of people find out more about this particular issue. Are you keen to integrate video clips coupled with these? It would absolutely help out. Your conclusion was spot on and thanks to you; I probably won’t have to describe everything to my pals. I can simply direct them here!
cheap bras on Jan 19, 2012
The originals were better. Even the acting. Except for the young Conan intro... that was very good... i would have preferred if the movie had just carried on there with the young kid and his story... I think Momoa did a decent job, good action... ok acting... but the rest of the movie is a let down... and also brings down his performance somewhat sadly. Somebody mentioned Momoa's acting being better than Arnold's in the originals, but i disagree, yes, his acting wasn't great, but he did a very believable barbarian warrior/thief.
TwistedJest on Apr 13, 2012
Sorry, no commenting is allowed at this time.