1. BrahmaBull

   6

   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 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

   • Helpful?

     4 of 4 users said yes
2. Canisrah

   4

   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 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

   • Helpful?

     6 of 8 users said yes
3. Follaringo

   3

   I like Conan and I like Jason as him, but I think the script is just bad and full of action clichés. There is no charisma in the characters except Conan. You can have fun with the movie, but it is just because it is Conan. Please, next time pay a real scriptwriter and dont leave your nephew write it.… Expand

   • Helpful?

     6 of 7 users said yes

See all 54 User Reviews