Conan the Barbarian

Name: Conan the Barbarian
Genre: Action, Adventure, Fantasy
Released: May 14, 1982
Duration: 129 min
Rating: 43
Cast: Arnold Schwarzenegger, James Earl Jones

1982

METASCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 10 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 163 Ratings

See All

8.0

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8.0	Your Score
8.0	User Score Generally favorable reviews based on 163 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Conan The Barbarian

Now Playing: Conan The Barbarian

Movie Details & Credits

Universal Pictures | Release Date: May 14, 1982 | R

Starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger, James Earl Jones

Summary: Conan (Schwarzenegger) seeks revenge from the group lead by Thulsa Doom who killed his parents and enslaved him.

Director: John Milius

Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Fantasy

Rating: R

Runtime: 129 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

Empire Staff (Not Credited)

It's easy to criticise Conan. Cheesy. Dated. And ever-so-slightly fascist (Conan is the ultimate Aryan: punishing the weak and defending the strong, while looking great in thigh-high boots). But while all that's true, for Arnie fans, the film still rocks. Read full review

James Berardinelli

Those who have an inherent distaste for this sort of entertainment will appreciate Conan the Barbarian's impeccable production values without enjoying the story; most everyone else will be swept away by the film's spectacle. Read full review

Roger Ebert

I liked a lot of it myself, and with me, a few broadswords and leather jerkins go a long way. Read full review

TV Guide Magazine Staff (Not Credited)

A series of meaningless adventures punctuated with a lot of clanky, very bloody swordplay, Conan the Barbarian is best remembered for a scene in which Schwarzenegger punches out a camel. Read full review

Staff (Not Credited)

Director John Milius does a nice job of setting up the initial story.... But for whatever reasons, [Schwarzenegger] has a minimum of dialog and fails to convey much about the character through his actions. Read full review

Dave Kehr

Milius has nothing to say: this 1982 film only hints at the romantic heroics of "The Wind and the Lion" and has none of the personal quality of "Big Wednesday." Read full review

Richard Schickel

Conan is a sort of psychopathic Star Wars, stupid and stupefying. Read full review

SEE ALL 10 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

thvaz

Sep 12, 2014

Don't be fooled - this is a pure art movie. No other like it before or since (not even the sequel - it sucks, by the way)
Amazing soundtrack (how it didn't even got nominated for the Oscar is beyond me)

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

Trefferaufnahme

Aug 11, 2019

Hervorragender Film mit guten Special Effekts. Etwas in die Jahre gekommen aber absoluter Kult. Auch an der Aufmachung ist bis heute nichts auszusetzen.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

bitskull

Aug 18, 2011

This movie contains much more then most people can understand because it is about power of spirit. Total classic and still one of the best fantasy movies.

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

gracjanski

Feb 15, 2020

For its time the movie was surely great, today a bit outdated. But still the world they created is great: savage and wild. Music is fantastic. Of course Schwarzenegger was perfect for this role and the director and cameraman put him perfectly into the scenes.
The plot and some fights areFor its time the movie was surely great, today a bit outdated. But still the world they created is great: savage and wild. Music is fantastic. Of course Schwarzenegger was perfect for this role and the director and cameraman put him perfectly into the scenes.
The plot and some fights are outdated. Especially the end fight is too simple. But I liked the fantasy elements in the movie, they fit very well.

I am laughing about the "professional" = left corrupted critics.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Kai82

Jan 22, 2021

Conan is based on tales from Robert Ervin Howard starting in 1932. He is one of the fathers of the “Low Fantasy” genre or a least a really well know contributor. Low Fantasy is a setting that is our world with some magic, mythical or supernatural elements but more dark and grim as it hidesConan is based on tales from Robert Ervin Howard starting in 1932. He is one of the fathers of the “Low Fantasy” genre or a least a really well know contributor. Low Fantasy is a setting that is our world with some magic, mythical or supernatural elements but more dark and grim as it hides not the dark sides of human nature (Like the Witcher for example). The movie itself is well know for being an epic sword and sorcery tale and the first big role of Arnold Schwarzenegger which was also a financially successful movie. Be warned it is a show not tell approach and there will be blood and nudity which is fitting for the movie and setting. It is set in the Hyborian Age which is created / defined by Robert E. Howard as between the sinking of Atlantis and the beginning of recorded history. Conan is a young boy and son of a blacksmith. His father tells him about the riddle of steel he must solve as this is important to his people the Cimmerians. Shortly after the village is ambushed and the few survivors including Conan are sold into slavery. This is the set up and beginning of his adventures as he wants revenge and answers. The story is great sword and sorcery material. It delivers and uses all tropes in a good way. This means the story is engaging and you are invested into the characters. There are some good reveals and ideas like for example the riddle of steel, what is greatest in life, a ritual I cant spoil and other scenes that are homages or the approach of the villain to gain power. I don't know why many rated it lower because you have to adapt to the genre. If you don't believe me try comparing 2 classic of different genres like for (an extreme) example Schindlers List to Spaceballs or for a milder case The Great Dictator to The Godfather. No one expects a Shakespearean tale here and for its genre and setting it does a great job. The actors deliver. Arnold Schwarzenegger creates the template for the Barbarian character in fantasy and fiction. He has the looks for this and even his acting works well enough. Then we have the legend himself James Earl Jones as Thulsa Doom. He is a great antagonist as he is smart, a great schemer and uses his abilities to full potential. He is one of the underrated movie characters and I praise the performance. Jorge Sanz as young Conan does a good job in his short role. I always say you should praise good child actors as it is hard to perform at this age. Sandahl Bergman as Valeria and Gerry Lopez as Subotai are great additions to the cast. Overall for the genre we got a satisfying performance. The battles and fights were great and bloody as they shy not away from brutal depictions. Here I must warn you as it is to brutal for some. However it is a grim and dark world so it is fitting for the setting. This is also valid for the sets. It is a world full of dark and grim things as much as debauchery in rich cities for contrast. All sets are a good representation you expect for this setting. What impressed me was the immersive and awesome score. Basil Poledouris enhances the scenes with his composition and reminds me of Ennio Morricone who could also tell a story just with the score. An underrated performance. Overall this movie delivers and became a cult classic for some. It is not an intellectual movie but has an appeal and is entertaining. Bonus knowledge 1: Believe it or not Conan is at the time of writing a Marvel character and he found his way into some events. In a what if story it was also shown that he is worthy to pick up Thors hammer. Bonus Knowledge 2: Conans answer to “What is the greatest in life” is actually what Genghis Khan answered to the same question.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

actinium

Apr 26, 2021

/ /

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

FilipeNeto

Apr 10, 2022

This is one of those movies that leaves me not knowing what to think. On the one hand, it has become very popular and has a legion of fans, but the truth is that it looks like an extremely dated film and an extraordinary surrender to kitsch, with those costumes and props of somewhat dubiousThis is one of those movies that leaves me not knowing what to think. On the one hand, it has become very popular and has a legion of fans, but the truth is that it looks like an extremely dated film and an extraordinary surrender to kitsch, with those costumes and props of somewhat dubious taste, fanciful and inspired by the original comics created by Robert E. Howard.

The screenplay, written based on the original stories, takes place in an uncertain time in Antiquity, and begins with the massacre of a town or village by a group of warriors. A child, Conan, is taken as a slave and grows up as such, acquiring enormous stamina and strength at the expense of hard work. He thus becomes a bounty fighter and learns to kill. When he is free, he finds the path that leads him to a quest for revenge against those who massacred his family and took his freedom. Personally, I can't swallow the way this film (like the source material) chews up the past and creates a completely strange space-time reality, where Neolithic elements intersect with medieval props and creations invented for the film, such as the sword of Conan. The construction of the characters, the writing of the dialogues, the conception of the story, everything leaves something to be desired and reveals itself to be average and poor.

If there's anyone for whom this movie was important, it's Arnold Schwarzenegger. This actor, now renowned, had his first big box office success in this film, and a job that opened the door to other films, particularly "Terminator". And in fact, the actor lived up to what was asked of him (it wasn't much, because his character is basically a muscular animal driven by anger and without any dramatic depth) and his work is the determining point for the success of the film. To be frank, seeing the way he manages, being aware of the relevance the film has had to his career, is the only plausible reason to see it. James Earl Jones also appears here and is the only actor capable of effectively playing a character, but he doesn't have much to do, appears little and seems to be out of his element and uncomfortable with the character.

On a technical level, the film has an effective direction by John Millius and good cinematography, which makes good use of the filming locations. The sets and costumes, apart from any matter of personal taste, were well executed and look realistic. The biggest technical problem I've noticed is the primitive special effects and visuals, some of them shockingly obvious like the extra who, to simulate the swing of a sword, takes his hand to his shoulder, strategically placing a bag of fake blood that breaks out. The action scenes are the film's strong point and are heavily staged and theatrical, but they work and are somehow genuine. The film also has an atmosphere that leads us to think that it has given itself too much importance, something that the heroic soundtrack emphasizes and reinforces, which ends up being comical in itself.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

SEE ALL 34 REVIEWS