Michael Ledo I love Conan/ Middle Earth type of movies, although for some reason the original Conan lacked appeal to me, perhaps because it looked like Arnold wore a wig the whole time. In this film we get a significant childhood view of Conan as a person who has more heart than brains. After his village is destroyed and his father killed, Conan wanders the earth to find the man and seek revenge.He comes to a town involved in slave trade, kills the traders and frees the topless women in a cage. Later soldiers show up and Conan deliberately gets himself arrested so he can get inside of the prison camp to get information. Of course armed guards are no match for a chained Conan.Conan is a barbarian, a Viking type. Another tribe appears to mimic Native Americans with Mohawks and another of the 12 tribes mimics Mongolian. The problem with Conan, the Barbarian is that he speaks as a barbarian with bad lines and a bad delivery. The CG specials effects make this a better film. There is a good supporting cast, however Conan himself was just written poorly. For most people this should just be a rental.No f-bombs, nudity, one poorly lit sex scene.

jayce2279 I first watched this version in a movie theater in 2011 which only played it in 3D. I remember at the time I thought they had focused too much on digital effects and that the film was over the top. But since I am a Conan the Barbarian buff and I like Jason Momoa as an actor, I eventually decided to give it another chance and see it on DVD, this time in 2D. It was almost like I was watching a different movie and I can't for the life of me understand why I disliked it so much the first time I saw it. I remembered it being a clean, kid- friendly reboot with lots of over the top action scenes, sort of along the lines of the Marvel superhero movies, but the production design is actually very similar to the John Milius version and it's not far behind on violence and nudity. Of course, it does make use of digital effects, but by far not as often as I got the impression it did when I watched the 3D version and most of the action scenes are actually along the lines of those in the 1982 version or other more traditional sword fighting movies. Maybe I just wanted them to make a sequel to the Schwarzenegger films so badly I never gave this version a fair chance. I still think the original Conan the Barbarian is the superior movie, but now that I have watched it again without any expectations or prejudices (and in 2D), I have to admit this reboot is actually not bad at all and definitely better than the 1984 sequel they did make to the first film.

fmbr-1 There is one big problem with this film - its title. If this was called Kilgoth the Swordsman, it would have done a lot better. But as Conan, everyone is going to compare it to the 1982 movie - even worse, its going to be compared with the 1982 movie viewed with eyes of nostalgia. Momoa is certainly a talkier Conan than Swartzenegger ever was. His acting, like the acting of all, isn't actually all that bad; and, nostalgia be damned, I think Momoa was better than Swatzenegger was in 82. Everyone was let down by the script though which should have been a lot better. Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer (the writers) are just not that good and even good actors can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Another problem is the number of henchmen that Khalar Zym has. Including his daughter, there has to be about eight of them that all have to get their screen time looking badass and then get killed by Conan. I understand that young actors need to get experience but this just seems like a production line. Finally, there is the plot - thanks again Donnelly and Oppenheimer. As far as I can piece it together, Khalar Zym's wife was a powerful sorceress but before she could rule the world with her husband and turn him into a god, she was captured and burned at the stake while he watched. He then heard the rumours of this mask that brings back the dead, the pieces being held by the various barbarian tribes that killed the guy that last used it - so Zym goes on a big quest beating up and then recruiting barbarians (don't know how that works) to get the mask back. The last piece is in Conan's village and Conan's dad, decides not to join so dies but saves his some. Meanwhile Zym, spends 20 years looking for the pure blood of someone, which naturally enough turns out to belong to a hot girl; while Conan levels up and spends the same time looking for Zym. Strange that they both find each other at the same time and Conan ends up with the girl, so Zym has to come to him. Despite all this, it is sort of entertaining with the large number of action sequences one expects from this sort of film. It's fun for an evening where you have nothing to do and don't want something deep.

Ian The problem with doing a remake is that it really, really needs to be better than the original. For S&S fans, that's going to be a tough job. But it's always easier to get finance for a 'proven concept' than an original one. You'd have thought they'd have learned their lesson by now but apparently not.Having said that, this isn't a direly bad film, it's just not a particularly good one. Is that an oxymoron? Anyway, it certainly falls short in comparison to the two originals which is a shame because there is a lot of 'Conan' left to explore, but this just doesn't get to the heart of the characters or story/plot. If you look at the sequence of events, it can seem rather contrived (maybe you're not supposed to do that).The goodies and allies are good and the baddies are suitably bad and, of course, get their comeuppance - comeuppance is always good, isn't it. There are some interesting set pieces and the production values are superb but the editor (stand up Ken Blackwell) could do with a little less caffeine while he's copying and pasting. In case no one's told him - which they obviously haven't - fast cutting doesn't make scenes more interesting or exciting, just more boring and confusing. Hey ho...Momoa may be a good actor but, judging from from this movie, the jury's still out. Ron Perlman is at his gruff, solid and earnest best. Lang (in spite of some corny lines which he still delivers well), Nichols and McGowan are excellent and Nonso Anzoie as Conan's sidekick is superb! More Nonso, please!But neither they - nor the copious amounts of action - can make up for a rather derivative script and iffy direction. And what's his predilection with dark? It's not more menacing, threatening, scary, intriguing, mysterious or mystical - you just wonder why they spent so much on production if you can't see it.Watch it and enjoy it on a lazy Sunday afternoon but don't expect any of the magic of the original.I'm scoring it higher than it probably deserves but, heck, it's a Sunday afternoon.