» Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:53 pm Just saw the new Conan the Barbarian movie last night, as it was opening weekend. I'm a huge fan of the original Robert E. Howard stories, dabbled in Age of Conan before I realized I don't like MMOs (apparently it's free now tho so maybe I'll give it another shot). I own both of the old movies as a DVD combo pack I got for $10. I'm a fan. Thought I'd post a review for all those who are, as well as people who just like fantasy in general. I'll do my best to avoid spoilers.
To begin: I saw it in 3-D, only because that was the only late showing. I don't think it was well optimized for it, some scenes had more depth, but nothing really popped out. I don't care, but unless you love wearing the glasses, the 2D version is just as good, I'm sure.
The movie is definitely more "aware" of the original Conan than the Schwarzenegger films, and fans will appreciate the few subtle touches. For instance, Conan is born on a battlefield. You hear names like Acheron, Messantia, Shaipur, Cimmeria, Hyrkania, Vanarium.
After the opening scene of Conan's birth (his father is the always good-in-bad-movies Ron Perlman) we see him being raised in his village. I had watched this scene several times in a Red-Band trailer, so take that in stride. I'll say that when I first saw the trailer, I thought it started cheesy but ended well enough that I knew this wasn't typical Hollywood melodrama. By the time I saw it in theaters, I simply thought it was a decent introduction. The film spends perhaps too much time with Conan as a boy, although I have to say they do so in a way that doesn't ruin the character by seeing him poorly played by a child actor, who tend to be cute or annoying, which is as much their fault as writers and directors. This wasn't a problem.
We are soon introduced to the villain Khalar Zym, played by Stephen Lang (grizzled military commander from Avatar). Although he is driven by an extremely formulaic Hollywood plot device, Lang does an excellent job playing the role of a tyrannical warlord. Looking him up, he's worked as stage actor, so he takes his craft very seriously, and it shows.
Flash forward to Conan full-grown, played by Jason Momoa. When I first heard him cast in the role, I was disappointed. His role as Ronan Dex in Stargate, despite having a very similar name and character as Conan, was not physically right for the role. He was almost too tall, surfer muscles stretched too thin over a large frame, and with a distinctly Polynesian, rather than Celtic look. Conan has blue eyes and black hair, not brown eyes and dreadlocks. After watching Game of Thrones, I was much more assured of his caliber as an actor, even if only for that particular type of role. He did some working out, and proved he could growl menacingly and not just talk like an over confident frat boy. In Conan, he was in my mind infinitely better than Schwarzenegger. It's not that I disliked Arnie, but his accent and the poor dialogue given to him didn't convey Conan as he was originally - barbaric but intelligent, introspective and well traveled. Arnie's Conan came off as strong but dumb, whereas Momoa's came of as being thoughtful before he decapitated somebody.
I was worried when he was introduced working with another adventurer, as the previous films had the "side kick problem," and I was made even MORE nervous when they later had him team up with another thief who fit the profile exactly...the smaller, devious, scream and hide during the fight type character. But these were not abused, and there were certainly times when Conan worked with or under other people in the stories, although in most cases he would eventually kill his former boss and take control of whatever band of thieves/pirates/mercenaries he was part of. As it was, you'd see Conan work with these guys for a scene, then go off on his own again. Which is much better than having the side kick with him the whole movie, and more realistic than Conan taking on the world himself (Conan's greatest appeal is that his world is not TOO fantastic).
Let me continue with other things I liked. The violence was appropriate. I am extremely pleased they went with an R rating. There's even a couple scenes with exposed briasts, naked or scantily clad females being a staple of the Howard stories. There was plenty of blood, but I wouldn't have minded a few more brains, guts, and severed limbs, but I'm definitely not complaining. The set designs were pretty beautiful. You see a lot of shining cities and ruined battlements. While the desolate wilderness scenes in the 80's movies inspired a sense of adventure, one of the great juxtapositions of the REH works was that Conan was part of the wild, and here he was in the marble cities of civilized societies. Speaking of, they actually have Artus (the big sidekick) with a line of dialogue about the differences between barbarity and "civilization," which was probably the entire theme of the original character. There was also an element of the weird, as they invade the stronghold of Khalar Zym, they encounter a giant tentacled beast. Robert E. Howard was actually a pen pal of HP Lovecraft, and many of the "old gods" of his science fiction were worshiped more openly in Conan's times. Conan often came across monsters which were not so much supernatural as extraterrestrial. The costume design was pretty good. Some movies have absolutely terrible design for armor and weapons, bad enough to ruin the film. While theirs wasn't perfect, it was certainly not distracting and occasionally better than expected.
Things I didn't like...other than not using more of the original stories for the plot/dialogue, the lengthy intro, and some of Rose McGowan's delivery of lines, (she played Khalar Zym's witch daughter) there really wasn't too much to complain about, and I was prepared to be extremely critical of the film. The trailers actually made me more worried than I needed to be most the time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final rating? Good. 7.5 stars out of 10, 8 - 8.5 if you're a fantasy fan. I'd definitely say worth the price of a ticket if you have the money to go, and while I'd avoid 3D, I was happy to pay the extra few bucks to see it that night and not wait. It was about as good a Hollywood adaptation as you could have hoped for, mature, visceral, and unburdened by most obvious flaws. While general fantasy fans might enjoy it more than more dedicated Conan fans, the die-hards will enjoy it better than the 80's Schwarzenegger version. And if we do get a sequel or trilogy, I'd look forward to seeing them, and if they improve as much over the first as it improved over the older movies, they might even be great. But if they were only equal, I would be satisfied.
"I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."
- from Conan the Barbarian, Robert E. Howard
. 
