Conan the Barbarian

Squeamish types may balk, but the gory cruelty on display here is faithful to the source material and deeply thrilling.

Mr. Momoa has some awfully big biceps to fill. He rises to that task with a pumped physique made for ogling. Thankfully, he also shows glints of self-awareness that can make hypermasculine blowouts like these more watchable and were largely missing from Mr. Schwarzenegger's wide-eyed turn in the first "Conan the Barbarian" (1982).

Take away much of the myth, most of the sorcery and all of the humor of the 1982 John Milius-Arnold Schwarzenegger version of the sword and sorcery epic "Conan the Barbarian" and you've got an idea what the new "Conan" is like.

The 2011 version of Conan the Barbarian looks cheap and feels rushed. The few good elements are dwarfed by a generic, nonsensical plot and shoddy storytelling.

A brutal, crude, witless high-tech CGI contrivance, in which no artificial technique has been overlooked, including 3-D.

Morgan Freeman's voice is heard as the narrator, which is in itself the stuff of parody. Then we listen and get lost within two sentences, because the narration is so poorly written that Freeman himself probably didn't know what he was talking about.

There are swords and sorcery, pirates and monsters, taxed bodices and taxing mythology. In other words, there's the bare minimum necessary to summon this dismal movie into existence.

You must see this movie!!! It may not be Oscar worthy according to the "professional critics", but who cares? It's great entertainment, exciting, and Momoa makes a great Conan. I never listen to "professional critics". If I think a movie looks good, I see it and make up my own mind.

The ill-conceived CONAN THE BARBARIAN remake is an absolute mess of a film that places bloody violence and over-budgeted effects over character and story. While it attempts to remain closer to the works of Robert E. Howard, it lacks the heart and epic qualities of Howard's writing. The casting is like a bad joke. Jason Momoa may look the part, but his over-confidence and exaggerated expressions come off as being silly instead of stern and powerful. There is no consistency whatsoever in the accents or dialects of the various groups of people that Conan encounters in his travels. The world of Hyboria is dramatically reduced as a result, especially considering how quickly Conan is able to travel from land to land in search of his betrayers. Most of the story and background are related by an unseen narrator, who quickly tries to piece things together for the audience in between the overblown action sequences. Zym is a bland and forgettable villain that would cower before James Earl Jones' Thulsa Doom. What is worse, the grand scheme that has taken him over 20 years of battling and searching to complete is spoiled in one brief and unsatisfying final conflict. This consists mostly of unbelievable feats and unnecessary computerization. The only entertainment comes from the absurd amount of bloodshed and heavy reliance on nude wenches. For mindless sword-fighting and mayhem, CONAN is a serviceable action flick, but in all other ways, it is utterly underwhelming. -Carl Manes I Like Horror Movies

One of the better action adventure movies. But as they all lack in plot so did this. It gains a decent score as it did not try to have any sidekicks. The setting were dark and gritty just like the novels

/ /

It just felt like one long action sequence. And a boring one at that. There was virtually no tension throughout the whole film, mainly because we’re told how it would all end quite early on through a monk’s foretelling of the future. But even if this scene didn’t exist, it would still be devoid of tension, since none of the character’s are developed enough to care about. Also, the romance between Conan and whatever her name, felt like a forced cliché. Ultimately this film was quite disappointing. It had all the potential for a nice little reboot, something fresh and entertaining. But it ended up just feeling like a long string of tired clichés.