CINEMA REVIEW: Conan The Barbarian
This splashy take on fantasy fiction’s favourite barbarian features Baywatch and Game of Thrones TV actor Jason Momoa sticking his large, waxed chest into Arnold Schwarzenegger’s traditional 1980s territory. What’s the result? More blood, no humour. The supporting cast is, however, rock solid.
Taking only the elements needed from the wide world of Robert E Howard’s fabled Conan novels, etc, here the plot is simple and easy to follow. Born on a battlefield, child warrior Conan sees his noble father Corin (Ron Perlman) ruthlessly killed by Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang, who was Colonel Quaritch in Avatar) who also burns their village to the ground. Conan swears vengeance.
Along the way, there are battles to be fought and won, women to be wooed, and friends to make. It’s a child’s view of the valiant Teutonic Warrior – and the camerawork (by remake director Martin Nispel) is small-screen stuff. What thrills there are ping from the fantastic supporting cast: Lang is brilliantly believable (and respectable) as is Rose McGowan, who heaps on being a really nasty piece of work. Love interest Rachel Nichols brings a touch of 1970s gal power to the scene, unnoticed by the heap of muscles that is Conan. Constant spurts of blood during long battle scenes add very little.
Verdict: Glossy looking lo-fi fantasy entertainment, suitable for those who are fans of Momoa, any of the supporting cast or for those who think going to the gym, growing your hair long and swinging a sword equals leading an ‘adventurous life’.
Cautions: Violent, bloody and a two quite horrible scenes, one with a vat of molten metal, the other with a severed nose.
Related Posts
Review: Café de Flore
Like Beloved, Café de Flore has two distinct narratives existing at the same time but…
Review: Beloved (Les Bien-Aimés)
Although neither are entirely successful, two French language films out this week (well one is…
Review: Dark Shadows
No director, however talented they are, can expect to hit pay dirt with every movie…
As the co-author of the first critical study of Robert E Howard’s fiction, I can safely say the authors of this dreadful piece of crap took NOTHING from Howard. Conan’s village was not slaughtered and he rode off on no mission of vengeance. Conan was an existential anti-hero who did not need some sorry quest to goad him into action. This is just a remake of the equally dreadful Arnold film of thirty years ago.
They took what they needed to make it a Conan story, hence, the barest of elements. I am glad you said that this storyline did not exist within the literature. I couldn’t find it myself.