Rated R for strong bloody violence, some sexuality and nudity
Cast: Jason Momoa, Rachel Nichols, Stephen Lang
Director: Marcus Nispel
It's hard to appreciate a movie that takes pride in its decibel level. "Conan the Barbarian" spares no effort in obliterating viewer senses to keep them awake, but apparently couldn't give a rat's ass about entertaining them in the process. I think I would have preferred the nap.
"Re-boots" are the hot thing in mainstream Hollywood these days. The successful ones involve adding something new or a fresh perspective to the original. Christopher Nolan altered the whole atmosphere in his "Batman" reinvention while Matthew Vaughn achieved modest success in streamlining the various plotlines and cutting back on the multifarious collection of mutants to create a more cohesive story in "X-Men: First Class." Director Marcus Nispel's update of the 1982 original "Conan" brings nothing remotely fresh... just a ho-hum third dimension, an added $3 surcharge per moviegoer, and a thunderous din for good measure. Personally, I think they would have been better served by attempting to restore and re-release the original in theatres, and save the cast and crew (not to mention the moviegoing public) a lot of time and trouble.
I admit, sword-and-sorcery films have never resonated with me as much as some other genres. I am no aficionado of such material and don't have any desire to engage in debates with those who are, though I respect their interest. I don't consider John Milius' original version classic filmmaking, but at least it displayed a desire to offer up a skillful film adaptation for the hordes of fans of Robert E. Howard's stories involving the Cimmerian hero. It benefited from a superior production design and a terrific musical score from Basil Poledouris.
This supposed re-boot offers up about 90% action, but only 50% of it is effective. (And I'm being generous in that estimation.) The climactic fight scenes are poorly-lit, shoddily-edited and feel rushed; it seems as though the filmmakers threw in the towel about halfway into the production. (Making a scene "atmospheric" and making it just plain dark are not necessarily the same thing.) I know fanboys will want to spear me with questions like "why can't you just accept the movie for what it is?" For the same reason I don't eat shit, I suppose.
The story involves the quest for revenge of Cimmerian warrior Conan (Jason Momoa) against the nefarious Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang) and his devilishly sordid daughter, Marique (Rose McGowan) after his village was burned to the ground at their hands. They were seeking the missing piece to a mask, you see, that would enable Khalar Zym to procure ultimate power while resurrecting his murdered wife to rule at his side. The other requirement for this task is the pureblood of a descendant from necromancers. The only scion of necromancy in the vicinity is Tamara (Rachel Nichols), who has already crossed paths with Conan and reluctantly joined his quest. Each side possesses something the other wants to gut.
At the absolute minimum, the movie may appeal to viewers with a high tolerance for bloodlust. There are hacked limbs, decapitations, and torture throughout. The film gets a surprising amount of mileage from a severed nose, and there's a certain aberrant appeal to a scene where Conan forces a slave driver to swallow a key to his captives' shackles, then allows the thralls to slice him open to secure their freedom. Depends on where your tastes lie.
The cast actually isn't half bad. Jason Momoa is credible in the lead role; he's certainly no worse an actor than Schwarzenegger was when he burst onto the scene. Stephen Lang and Rose McGowan are both doyens in the art of scenery-chewing. Rachel Nichols is less interesting, but acceptable enough. Playing Conan's father, Ron Perlman is always a welcome sight, even if the movie surrounding him isn't.
To call this movie a "re-boot" is misrepresentative of the term. There's nothing fresh or energizing about the experience. In fact, nothing here distinguishes itself from the most mediocre of sword-and-sorcery films. If the studio's goal was to reintroduce a new generation of moviegoers to "Conan," a better option would be to rent the original on DVD... it's not art, but it's campy enough, entertaining enough, and will spare you a 3D surcharge and a few aspirin.
* 1/2 out of * * * * stars
"Re-boots" are the hot thing in mainstream Hollywood these days. The successful ones involve adding something new or a fresh perspective to the original. Christopher Nolan altered the whole atmosphere in his "Batman" reinvention while Matthew Vaughn achieved modest success in streamlining the various plotlines and cutting back on the multifarious collection of mutants to create a more cohesive story in "X-Men: First Class." Director Marcus Nispel's update of the 1982 original "Conan" brings nothing remotely fresh... just a ho-hum third dimension, an added $3 surcharge per moviegoer, and a thunderous din for good measure. Personally, I think they would have been better served by attempting to restore and re-release the original in theatres, and save the cast and crew (not to mention the moviegoing public) a lot of time and trouble.
I admit, sword-and-sorcery films have never resonated with me as much as some other genres. I am no aficionado of such material and don't have any desire to engage in debates with those who are, though I respect their interest. I don't consider John Milius' original version classic filmmaking, but at least it displayed a desire to offer up a skillful film adaptation for the hordes of fans of Robert E. Howard's stories involving the Cimmerian hero. It benefited from a superior production design and a terrific musical score from Basil Poledouris.
This supposed re-boot offers up about 90% action, but only 50% of it is effective. (And I'm being generous in that estimation.) The climactic fight scenes are poorly-lit, shoddily-edited and feel rushed; it seems as though the filmmakers threw in the towel about halfway into the production. (Making a scene "atmospheric" and making it just plain dark are not necessarily the same thing.) I know fanboys will want to spear me with questions like "why can't you just accept the movie for what it is?" For the same reason I don't eat shit, I suppose.
The story involves the quest for revenge of Cimmerian warrior Conan (Jason Momoa) against the nefarious Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang) and his devilishly sordid daughter, Marique (Rose McGowan) after his village was burned to the ground at their hands. They were seeking the missing piece to a mask, you see, that would enable Khalar Zym to procure ultimate power while resurrecting his murdered wife to rule at his side. The other requirement for this task is the pureblood of a descendant from necromancers. The only scion of necromancy in the vicinity is Tamara (Rachel Nichols), who has already crossed paths with Conan and reluctantly joined his quest. Each side possesses something the other wants to gut.
At the absolute minimum, the movie may appeal to viewers with a high tolerance for bloodlust. There are hacked limbs, decapitations, and torture throughout. The film gets a surprising amount of mileage from a severed nose, and there's a certain aberrant appeal to a scene where Conan forces a slave driver to swallow a key to his captives' shackles, then allows the thralls to slice him open to secure their freedom. Depends on where your tastes lie.
The cast actually isn't half bad. Jason Momoa is credible in the lead role; he's certainly no worse an actor than Schwarzenegger was when he burst onto the scene. Stephen Lang and Rose McGowan are both doyens in the art of scenery-chewing. Rachel Nichols is less interesting, but acceptable enough. Playing Conan's father, Ron Perlman is always a welcome sight, even if the movie surrounding him isn't.
To call this movie a "re-boot" is misrepresentative of the term. There's nothing fresh or energizing about the experience. In fact, nothing here distinguishes itself from the most mediocre of sword-and-sorcery films. If the studio's goal was to reintroduce a new generation of moviegoers to "Conan," a better option would be to rent the original on DVD... it's not art, but it's campy enough, entertaining enough, and will spare you a 3D surcharge and a few aspirin.
* 1/2 out of * * * * stars
