Conan the Barbarian: Review

Much more by accident than design, I ended up going to see Conan the Barbarian. Given how rubbish the trailer had looked, I had decided not to, but there you go. The new Conan is Jason Momoa, who played Khal Drogo in the amazing Game of Thrones TV show. There’s no doubt that he’s a big guy, and was perfect as an uncivilised warrior chief in Game of Thrones. However, let’s face it: when it comes to muscles, he looks puny beside Arnie’s Conan. So right from the off, I thought they had made a mistake with the choice. Conan is supposed to be a thief as well as a skilled warrior. I thought they’d have been better going for someone who looked strong and swift but wasn’t particularly pumped up. Because if you go for someone who’s pumped up, you’re never going to match Arnie. And they didn’t, and so I spent a lot of the film thinking that this new guy could never knock a horse or a camel unconscious with a single punch. Plus the movie was already bound to suffer from the lack of James Earl Jones.

The story itself has undergone significant alteration, not always for the better. Conan’s father is around much more (which is good because it’s Ron Pearlman). There are no giant snakes (bad). The main baddie is now given a different and personal motivation for the pursuit of power, as well as an evil witch daughter. No need. To be fair, the start and middle of the film were better than I had expected from the trailer, but the end was dire, and dragged on for too long and was deeply unsatisfactory. This is also a misogynistic film with a great deal of unnecessary female toplessness. And the music was nowhere near as good as the original. Generally speaking, this was an inferior product. Even taking away the comparisons with the original, the disappointing ending meant it sucked. Not even worth going to see on a crazy Tuesday at the Movie House.


3 Responses to “Conan the Barbarian: Review”

  1. WorldbyStorm Says:

    hah, you should cross post this to the CLR!

  2. Starkadder Says:

    Hmm. I was planning to give this a look, but I didn’t bother
    after reading all the negative reviews. Shame-
    Robert E. Howard is an excellent writer of popular fiction, and it’s a shame he hasn’t received an adaptation that does justice to his fiction.

    Apart from his unpleasant racism (probably derived from his
    pre-Civil RIghts Texas upbringing and his reading of outdated
    Victorian textbooks), Howard’s political views were fairly
    liberal-he castigated Lovecraft for supporting Mussolini and I’ve
    also read he supported Frankin D. Roosevelt and aspects
    of the New Deal.

  3. Tobar Geal Says:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: