Conan the Barbarian Movie. Download or Watch Online.

Movies: 18454 | TV Series: 3282 | Added today: 0 | Storage: 65882 GB

Genres:	ActionAdventureFant
Starring:	Stephen Lang, Rose McGowan, Ron Perlman, Bob Sapp, Nonso Anozie, Nathan Jones, Raad Rawi
Director(s):	Marcus Nispel
Available Quality:	DivX, Hi Def, Hi Def
Country:	USA
Year:	2011
IMDB Rating:	5.2
Tweet

A quest that begins as a personal vendetta for the fierce Cimmerian warrior soon turns into an epic battle against hulking rivals, horrific monsters, and impossible odds, as Conan realizes he is the only hope of saving the great nations of Hyboria from an encroaching reign of supernatural evil.

	Conan the Barbarian (Hi Def)	Resolution: 1920x800 px	Total Size: 7820 Mb
	Conan the Barbarian (Hi Def)	Resolution: 1280x528 px	Total Size: 4464 Mb
1	Conan the Barbarian (DivX)	Resolution: 624x256 px	Total Size: 702 Mb
2	Conan the Barbarian (DivX)	Resolution: 624x256 px	Total Size: 699 Mb

Movie Photos: We have taken some photos of "Conan the Barbarian". They represent actual movie quality.

Visitor Reviews: (20)

Powqueen 17 May 2012

Exciting! Action packed, loved Jason Momoa as Conan

I really do not understand why the critics were so hard on thismovie....This movie cannot be compared to the old Conan, It stands onit's on. This movie gave us everything you look for in an action,adventure, FANTASY movie. Come on people, fantasy, lighten up! We couldnot of asked for a better Conan, he had the roughness, skill, body andlooks! Why would you want to watch an ugly Conan for 2 hours, he wassuper sexy and he moved like a cat, loved Momoa! Stephen Lang played anamazing war lord and his freaky daughter; Rose Mcgowan, awesome, couldnot of been weirder, why not, it's a FANTASY movie......The majoractors all do good jobs and some of the minor characters actually stealtheir scenes. Young Conan is totally impressive, yes he is majorlyangro but can you blame him? It is sad that this movie did not hit itbig in the theatres and that people were so stuck on comparing it tothe old Conan movies. When will there be another movie like this??Never, it's all the same boring bs these days. This movie stayed trueto Robert E Howard's style and the comics. There will probably be nosequel, which I think is a total loss for this franchise. All younegative, boring people out there need to lighten up! I loved thismovie for what it was and I am bummed we will not get to see asequel.....So sad.

FlashCallahan 16 May 2012

The barBORErian.. look what I did there!!

A quest that begins as a personal vendetta for the fierce Cimmerianwarrior soon turns into an epic battle.Against hulking rivals, horrific monsters, and impossible odds, Conanrealises he is the only hope of saving the great nations of Hyboriafrom an encroaching reign of supernatural evil....I never liked the original Conan, I thought it was boring, and ploddedalong at an unearthly slow pace. The sequel was fun though, and I likeother sword and sorcery movies from that era.The trailer looked okay, and I am sort of a closet fan of Nispel (theUwe Boll of remakes) so I thought this would be trashy fun.It's really not. Gus Van Sants Gerry was more exciting than this, asthis is just plain stupid, and very, very boring indeed.Momoa doesn't have any of the charisma Schwarzenegger had, and StephenLang is just doing his bad guy schtick he did in The Hard Way.The rest of the cast are just as bad. McGowan should have hammed it upa little more, but no, she goes for the hissy villain, who just spendsthe majority of the film licking virgins and pointing her claws at thescreen, for the 3D effect.narration consists of walking, fighting, walking, threats, fighting,more fighitng.It's truly up there as one of the most unnecessary remakes ever, andthis is coming from someone who enjoyed the remake of Fright Night.A real dog of a film.

eoinej 16 May 2012

Conan, Lord of the Rings,Hercules Unchained, you name it....

Much will be written and argued abut this film by way of comparisonwith every possible sword and sandal fantasy even 13th Warrior and TheMumm(ies), so let's stay with this one alone and keep it short.Fantastic scenery and shooting, beautiful landscapes, both real andCGI. Riveting action in places, story line predictable with cleargoodies and baddies definition. Some loose ends like the thief but sowhat?.Time wasting, visually exciting, hocus-pocus gobbledygook maybe, butplease don't deteriorate into a TV series type franchise. Give it somewelly, develop the story, loose some of the tongue-in-cheek, keep upthe visual standard, and I'll happliy watch Son of Conan or Conan III,IV, or whatever else comes out.

Moustafa_Q 16 May 2012

Beautiful, intelligent, impressive movie

Interesting trip in the world of a delicate Paganism. Coloured chalkpicture of a time between tale and reality. Suggestions more thatfacts, mystery in spring shades.To talk about Conan is very strange. He is not a saint like manyothers, he is not a historical hero who transformed a Church. He is,for many, the Pagan Crist, patron of animals, bearer of Odin's stigmas,poor man, friend of sun and of wolf, who lives only like sign of God'slove. So, it is not important if the movie is a masterpiece, if thescript respects the authentic facts, if Conan or Tamara are shadows ofa old childhood's story. The truth is a insignificant detail and theessence is faith.In fact, it is a slice of beauty. The scent of time, the beauty ofnature and actors, the delicacy of gestures, the respect of tradition,the light, so important in this case makes a subtle, in his essence,portrait of a barbarian. No great ambition but a sweet respect form fora lost golden age.

Navaros 15 May 2012

Conan 2011: an easily-routed pretender to the thrones of Milius and Schwarzenegger!

Conan 2011 is a pathetic remake which attempts to ride the coattails ofand cash in on the classic John Milius MASTERPIECE, Conan the Barbarianfrom 1982.Conan 2011 plagiarizes the title, font, and basic plot of Conan 1982:the people of Conan's village, and Conan's father and mother, are slainby an evil warlord while Conan is a child; Conan then grows up and hisone goal in life is to avenge the murders by killing said warlord.Plagiarism is always evil, but *at least* they are plagiarizing amasterpiece. As plagiarism goes, they could do worse. But then they do!Unfortunately, Conan 2011 soon stops plagiarizing *just* Conan 1982,and also plagiarizes, badly, a plethora of other films, such asOnibaba, Pirates of the Caribbean, The Matrix, Prince of Persia, StarWars, etc.Momoa should go back to surfing and luaus, and leave filmicbarbarianism to appropriate actors. As Conan, Momoa is a horridreplacement for the legendary Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger is- as a true barbarian must be - a gigantic juggernaut. In contrast,Momoa is a puny weakling. Momoa might be bigger than the average guywho hangs around the beach surfing and sun tanning all day long, butthat is *not* our standard. When placed in the category of BARBARIAN,Crom and mortals alike do and must put to flight out of the realm therunt Momoa, with our laughter! Some hardcore Howard (the author of Conan books) fans make theludicrous claim that Momoa is better as Conan than Schwarzenegger,simply because Momoa is 'faster' than Schwarzenegger. It's easy to befast when you are a puny like Momoa is, and when you are carrying fakeplastic swords, like Momoa does in Conan 2011. Schwarzenegger carriesreal eight-pound steel swords in Conan 1982. Howard does say that Conanis 'agile.' However, Howard also says that Conan is a giant. Onecannot, in real-life, be *both* agile *and* a giant - Howard created aparadox of a fictional person. Any actor is a real person, and cantherefore only be one or the other. Of the two traits, for a Barbarian,giant is far more important and impressive. Those with knowledge of theRiddle of Steel do surely know that a giant juggernaut with aneight-pound real steel sword will never fail to crush a puny weaklingwith a half-pound fake plastic sword.Schwarzenegger dominates the screen. His inherent visual appeal, charmand charisma establish between himself and the viewer an empatheticrelationship with and vested interest in the Conan character.Momoa is the exact opposite in all of those regards. Momoa has zeroscreen presence, visual appeal, charm or charisma. WhereasSchwarzenegger inspires thrills and cheers, Momoa inspires boredom andindifference.Unquestionably, Schwarzenegger with his might has ousted the failedusurper and pretender to his Conan throne, Momoa.Conan 1982's majestic score by Basil Poledouris is universallyrecognized as one of the best film scores of all-time. Suffice to say,it is a masterpiece of unmatched greatness. Conan 2011's score is sopoor that to even call it a score is to give it far more dignity thanit deserves. Cheesy, familiar, and generic pseudo-musical cues is amore accurate description for the abomination that masquerades as ascore for Conan 2011.Milius fills Conan 1982 with grand, masterful shots of sweeping naturallandscapes and mountains. These shots give Conan 1982 the feel of atimeless fantasy epic. For Conan 1982's action, Milius relies on simpleyet raw shots which expertly represent the brutality of the world, andwhich always clearly show the viewer the action.Nispel fills Conan 2011 with incompetent shots that make the actionimpossible to see, and which give Conan 2011 a claustrophobic feel, aswell as the feel of a rushed, amateur hack job by a sub-par first yearfilmmaking student. For example, such shots comprise the sequence ofyoung Conan fighting off some unintentionally comedic caricatures whoare intended to be savage warriors. Nispel's incompetent cameraplacement (he places the camera close to Conan when it should be far,and vice versa) ensures that the viewer cannot properly see the action.The action in Conan 2011 is asinine. Conan, as a child, slays fouradult savages. Despite being savages, the four of them all convenientlywait their turns to be slain in a one-on-one fight with Conan, ratherthan attacking him four-on-one, from all sides, as would real savages.After being stabbed in the leg, one savage stands idle and lets Conantake his weapon so that Conan can continue to slay him and hiscompanions.To take out one of the savages, Conan uses a Jet Li-style flying jumpkick to the face. Where did Conan learn this? Is that a standardbarbarian technique from ancient times? Is the viewer really supposedto believe that a kid kicking a man in the face once would knock theman out? YES, says Nispel. This is a joke, which Nispel does not*intend* as a joke. He intends the viewer to accept that this nonsenseis realistic and believable.As a parody, the fight scenes in Conan 2011 would be the work ofgenius. But since they are not intended to be parody, they are insteadthe work of utter failure.The dialogue of Conan 1982 is brilliant, delving into deep thematicconcerns such as whether steel is more powerful than flesh, andsimilarities between avenging hero and the villain who shaped him, etc.I do not have enough space to expound on the richness of Conan 1982'sdialogue versus the total banality of Conan 2011's dialogue, but anyviewer of both will surely understand the point.Do yourself a favor: laugh at Conan 2011 as you banish it from yourmemory, and savor the immense enjoyment you will receive as you load upand watch tonight Conan 1982.

deepfriedbadger 14 May 2012

Three stars for spelling their names correctly on the credits.

No character arch.....no interesting characters,no pace and huge holein the story lead to the boring same old Hollywood bullshit. This sorryexcuse of a film will please only the most easily entertained anddumbfound those sick to death of this tired formula.With a plethora of rich stories and textured characters from the novelsand even the decent yet vacuous springboard of the original film thisis a wasted opportunity...loads of violence and gore are lavished on us without any impact on theviewers emotions or imagination.Mamoa was OK but then again who cares.What a waste of money...are script writers being paid for thisdrivel.....even i can do better.....in fact i might!!

rojack14 11 May 2012

True to its origin

This is by no means a remake of any sort and follows the essence of thenovels. People who have never read any of the original stories arequick to judge this movie but it completely delivered on capturingConan's character which Jason Momoa did a perfectly brutal job ofportraying along with the younger barbarian. Anyone in search for abreak from the heroic type for some savagery, this is a must see! Thedirecting is superb in following the graphic action which never takes abreak for boredom in this flick and the costume design and thelocations follow true to the Hyboria as described in the works ofRobert Howard. One of the only flaws in this movie is the jumpy globetrotting with no sense of direction it could have shown a map like inthe book at times in Indiana Jones style to give the viewer a sense ofdirection. That aside this movie is a rush to watch for testosteroneand should be seen by any aficionado of fine violence.

aaron esmonde 11 May 2012

Less is Conan the Cimmerian more

Conan the Cimmerian Â is on a quest to avenge the murder of his fatherand the slaughter of his village.Conan the Barbarian is a violent bloody R rated sword and sorceryadventure that unfortunately carries the weight of the likes of Princeof Persia, Clash of the Titans and Pirates of the Caribbean.The story opens with a tantalising origin story that equals the 1982version, however, without drawing comparisons to ArnoldSchwarzenegger's successful outing even though Marcus Nispel'sincarnation is action packed, graphic and gory it's too glossy whichtakes the much needed edge, rawness and grounded grittiness away.Jason Momoa's Conan is very likable, talkative and agile.However,Â Stephen Lang as Khalar Zym sadly falls into Â hammy stereotypeantagonist territory, reminiscent of his role in Avatar.Â For whateverreason the striking and physicalÂ Rachel Nichols looks uncomfortable asdamselÂ Tamara. Rose McGowan's Marique has more depth to her charactergiving some needed credence but this is counter balanced by 'hired'looking supporting cast lacking any authenticity. Ron Perlman is onform in a lengthy cameo as Conan's father. Amusingly UK Bottom'sSpudgun Steven O'Donnell puts in an appearance.There's an epic score and great costumes, that said as the running timepasses the more derivativeÂ Conan becomes, amongst the disjointed flashbacks the script has an abundance of clichÃ©s and stereotypes whichstomps on the strong opening of Conan's youth - where Leo Howardnotably plays the young Barbarian.Â The sets, effects and landscapes arewonderfully shot and executed, but feeling is more He-man thanConan.Â For all the special effects, less would be more with the likesof the old school horse carriage chase more exciting and fulfillingthan the grand CGI set pieces. Overall it's a strong action adventure but too stylised lacking theforeboding heaviness that Conan requires to be fully realised.Â

MLDinTN 08 May 2012

a misguided epic adventure

This movie wasn't very good. It starts with the script that just wasn'tvery good. Then the lead actor, Jason Momoa, can't even hold a candleto Arnold's acting in the original. So, that's not very good.There was some OK battle scenes, and if you like blood flyingeverywhere, then there are some scenes for you. Plus one reallygruesome scene of a young Conan trying to keep melted steel fromfalling on his father. That's just a horrible way to die. Then a damselin distress gets thrown in, whom has very little to do. Then there isthe mean and (ugly) witch, Marique, whom I still can't believe wasplayed by Rose Mcgowan, totally unrecognizable.FINAL VERDICT: If you want to watch Conan, stick to Arnold's versions.

Stefania Rocco 08 May 2012

Do not compare with the Arnold Z. Movie!

The story is about the same character but a very different twist. Ireally enjoyed the movie. It's not really a remake of the Arnold movie(that I really like too). The start of the story and the plot aredifferent. At first, I didn't wanted to rent the movie, I was afraid totaint my vision of Arnold-Conan with this one BUT no, it didn't happen.The action keep you on the edge of your chair. I like the actor whoplayed Conan, very good looking! Overall, a good action to watch withyour boyfriend, mine love it too. Movie are made to entertain us,sometimes we judge too easy and too fast a movie that reprise anotherone. Grab some popcorn and enjoy the show!

ramjets1500 08 May 2012

Battle-Tested

The training will be hard... The battle will be difficult... However,if you can survive thirty straight days of watching this "film", youwill feel that you can withstand anything. You will learn that youcannot trust men, not women, not beasts, but you may begin tounderstand the "riddle of steel". My children, upon reaching afortnight, you will feel the need to lash out and end the pain that isbeing poured upon your mind like molten lava, however, do not give in.Never give in to the doubt or the pain for once you have started thishorrific journey, there is no turning back. You must fight as if youare an ancient god king from Valhalla, because no one and I mean no onewill be at your side to view this film with you...not even Crom.

olenyfolk 07 May 2012

Conan Conquers!

"Hither came Conan, the Cimmerian, black-haired, sullen-eyed, sword inhand, a thief, a reaver, a slayer, with gigantic melancholies andgigantic mirth, to tread the jewelled thrones of the Earth under hissandalled feet." -Robert E Howard 2011's Conan the Barbarian succeedsmightily in bringing Howard's Conan to the screen. This was a fine filmversion, and I would hope to see another soon! I am rather stunned byany reviews that disparage the characterisation and execution ofNispel's origin tale for Conan of Cimmeria. That's who you get here:Conan, a Cimmerian, born on the battlefield -he fears no foe, andforces no friend. As a reader of the magazines once available at any80s-90s garage sale, beside the records and the lava lamps and old armyjackets, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Conan doesn't always have tolook or talk the same as he did in the "Conan Saga" you already had.He's drawn, inked, and scripted by a different team. I think the 1982Conan movie was basically a L Sprague De Camp written Conan, as drawnby John Buscema; and 2011's vision is as drawn by Tony DeZuniga orErnie Chan.Momoa is not his character of Stargate Atlantis, he is a barbarian. Hehas little to say, but he is not mute -he's thinking. I'm afraidSchwartzenegger's Conan did not appear to be thinking much -maybebarely brooding. It's Conan in his own words.The director takes a moment to show what it means to be a Cimmerian, inthe same way he showed what it meant to be pre-contact (Beothuck?)Native Americans and Colonial Vikings in his earlier movie,"Pathfinder." I greatly appreciated this unlooked for engagement in theHyborian Age. Thus transported into this past age, I believed it whenRose McGowan showed me what it was to be a witch. I have met RoseMcGowan, and she is not like that -this was a disturbing metamorphosisfor her.I was grateful to see that Conan has finally taken to the sea on film.That period of his life spent as a pirate is -in my view- critical tohis destiny as King. Conan's chapter as the pirate adventurer is ascritical to the character as piloting the Millennium Falcon is to HanSolo.-SPOILER- The Enemy is destroyed utterly, mercilessly, brutally. Thisis no milquetoast modern tripe. I felt his victory as my own, andescaped the enemy's lair with my courage and skin intact right besidehim, just like I did when I (and Barack Obama apparently) read themagazines.If we are lucky, Momoa will return, and we will see Conan begin hislong winding road to the throne of Aquilonia.

Queer-qatfm 05 May 2012

Generically Generic in Every Way

Nostalgia is a very dangerous weapon. If wielded in the right hands, itcan propel a project to unbelievably strong heights. No one reallywanted a Smurfs movie. But because the market was seriously dry in thekid's wing of the multiplex, and the formula that was most recentlysuccessfully used by Alvin and The Chipmunks was followed to theletter, the thing make big bucks. On the other hand, no one reallyNEEDED a remake of the iconic Arnold Schwarzenegger film Conan theBarbarian. But, I think there was a group of us who thought maybe we'llfind it worth checking out. With advances in technology and of coursethat omnipresent 3D forced upon us every weekend, perhaps somethingwould be decent here. Hell, I was just looking forward to seeing somehunky man meat gallivanting around in a loincloth.Jason Momoa (Game of Thrones) is certainly easy on the eyes. And I'mhappy to report that he is included in the MPAA's warning of nuditywithin the film. But while he is similarly as terrible of an actor asour lovable Govenator, he does absolutely nothing extra to make thisrole his own. He's simply hunky man meat gallivanting around in aloincloth in hot pursuit of the guy from Avatar (Stephen Lang) who has,as usual, murdered Conan's father and decimated his village. Yes, eventhe plot is generic.Slightly more interesting is Rose McGowan (Charmed) who vamps it up notunlike how Mary-Kate Olsen did in Beastly. Yes, it's a completelylaughable role, but considering how cut-and-dry the rest of the movieis, I was kind of grasping at straws at what to like. So completelyover the top is everything from her wardrobe and hair to her nearincestuous desires to replace her mother. While I wasn't exactly lovingher she was at least something interesting.So we have a pretty boring story, where Conan travels from location toyet again Bejeweled inspired location, not containing any charm orcharisma nor adding anything of significance to the concept of thelegendary Barbarian. He slays lots of WETA cast-offs, including a hordeof silly looking sand zombies. Also problematic right from thebeginning is the rubbery looking infant Conan who is held up to thecamera as if daring us not to giggle from the word 'Go.' At leastalmost immediately following that, we're re-introduced to our titlecharacter as a young boy who, for a while, kicks almost as much ass asHannah in the snowy forests.I guess if the multitude of Russians who made this film (seriously,check the credits) wanted to strictly remake a generic 80â²s fantasyfilm with lots of gore, action, and nudity, they pretty much succeeded.But to call it Conan the Barbarian is really audacious since it doesn'treally feel like the icon we know so well. So it basically boils downto what's the point? While the motion picture is indeed constantly inmotion with action sequences piling up right up against one another,it's not really all that engaging.(Note: I didn't see this film in 3D as thankfully I still have a choiceat my theater.)

alaskan51 05 May 2012

Really??

You have got to be kidding me!! I've been a fan of Robert E Howard, andhis writings (not just Conan) for over 30 years. This is the worstattempt at an accurate (were they even trying to be accurate?)portrayal of Conan I have ever seen.Even if you'd never heard of Conan,and saw this just for fun, it barely hinges on just so so. All throughthe original writings by Howard was mentioned the "Sack Of Venarium"when Conan was only 15. No mention of it in this farce.And severalinaccurate pronunciations of cities, for example....Hyrkania is notpronounced "Higher Kania" It is in fact "Her kania or even Hurk ania.you get it I'm sure. Jason Momoa was athletic enough, but the realConan (you know, the one with "glacier blue eyes and a square cut blackmane"), would have snapped him like a twig. The only accurate thing inthis joke of a movie was the name Conan. And all this cost $70 millionto make?? Glad I waited to see it til the movie ticket was only $3. AmI ranting? Yep, you betcha!

cantinaklen-miroslav 04 May 2012

A fancy Iron Maiden Video

I haven't yet seen the Movie,but seeing the trailer,i have nointention. I'm sure that movie will gross a lot of money in USA andhave many teenager boys going' wild about it,but the older audienceshould feel revolted like me by this horrible travesty that could onlyruin a memory of a fantastic movie by John Millius,not follow in itspath. That 1982 Conan was mystic,plot was developing slow,it reallycaptured your attention. This one looks to be packed with effects anduseless over the top-action,something made for kids and grown kids,thatdon't need an interesting story,but are satisfied with just a big bodycount. It's like they didn't want to attract older audience. This couldonly be a fancy Iron Maiden video,never a Conan movie. And,by theway,Hollywood studios should have some European and Asian producersthat would give them insight to how movies like this one could bepercept ed in those markets,not caring only about the US audience.Hollywood makes not more then a few good movies a year,the rest are allthe same,like made for dummies,such as this one. There ignorance isreally disappointing. Damn shame.

ghasl1 03 May 2012

Poor Directing, Script, Narration and Imagination

Morgan Freeman ruined it by being the narrator I felt like he was goingto say march of the penguins. The beginning of the movie starts offgood from Conan's childhood then fast paced to having bodacious babes,barbaric towards jailkeepers and then using a trebuchet, that was thefirst 30mins est.The whole movie itself was poorly directed its like they didn't planout a storyboard and just made it up along as it goes. The scenes werebeing random or as if Conan was a teleporter from fighting sandwarriors, to boat scene, water lair prison and then to skull mountain.Also they had elephants with an ark on its back (don't explain why) andthey didn't have henchmen near the end they just disappeared. Theactors seemed to work little with what they had because of the poordialogue. I would of like to see Momoa exactly as he was in game ofthrones (physically and acting) and implement that onto conan butinstead he look flaccid as well as his performance. The conan swordlooked clunky, even the hilt looks too big and spelt as the letter 'c'for conan and the environment was not immersive enough to make it feelfantasy because of the cgi.One thing that was really crucial to the conan films it didn't have'heart' by that there was no emotion from the actors, there's nopersonality and importantly no backdrop of a story behind each andevery character, even the villains. They left out Crom, conan's beliefsystem. Imagine Lone, Wolf and Cub and take away his whole identity andwhat he stands for. If you think this movie is like scorpion king itsnot as good/par as that, it could of been a lot better if they had adifferent director. It's not worth seeing in theatres but as a straightto DVD rental.

xternalfixator 03 May 2012

Conan 2011 is a Barbaric movie ...

."Civilized men are more discourteous than savages, because they knowthey can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a generalthing." So profoundly and prophetically said Robert E. Howard nearly threegenerations before there was internet trolling on message boards. When i saw Conan 2011, I left Civilization along with mypreconceptions, intellectualism and comparativism at the curb, andaccepted the movie for what it was ... and i liked it a lot, (period)PS1. Lionsgate, the Distributer of Conan 2011, is historically a verysmart company run by intelligent people who make very good decisionsmost of the time. However, their wanting, and putting up the money for,a 3D conversion of this Millennium/NU Image production after shootinghad ended, did not help this movie at all.2. Seeing the movie on an extra wide-screen format changes the frameratio from the way the movie was originally shot. It's obvious Conanwas shot tight. But viewing this movie on extra-wide screen formats,crops the frame at the top and the bottom by as much as 15%. Theresults are that approximately 30% of the vertical image and the actionis missing, exacting in extreme close-up grainy images and croppedforeheads, that were not the intentions of the Director or theCinematographer.On both accounts ... distracting and disturbingyes, Conan is a barbaric movie ... Viewing the 2D version in smallertheaters is a 100 times better, allowing one to fully absorbed andenjoy all the film has to offer. .

Steve Austin 02 May 2012

Loud, Bloody but extraordinarily mediocre

Hollywood has never really gotten the hang of making fantasy films andthis is no exception. It's big, loud, and sweaty with an abundance ofmuscular men and buxom maidens but you never feel connected to any ofit. The filmmakers tried to cram too much of Hyboria into one movie andthe result is a fast paced mess that never really finds itself.One big problem I noticed is that not enough time was spent making theprops and sets look convincing. Many times you are so incredibly awarethat you are watching a movie you wouldn't bat an eye if Conan beganclashing steel with the boom mike. Swords are swung as if they weighmere ounces, sets often look rickety, and even the rocks appear to bemade of foam. These kind of mistakes were forgivable is TV shows madeon a shoestring budget but are entirely inexcusable in a majorHollywood production. If they had spent more time polishing the look ofthe sets and working on the actors handling of the prop weapons itwould have made it much more convincing.One the other hand, despite it's flaws there is some fun to be hadhere. Conan does feel like a throwback to the low-budget fantasy filmsthat were common in past years. Plenty of attractive women thatinexplicably walk around topless. Drunken bar fights with the bad guyshenchmen. Characters that exist only as plot devices. Best of all,Stephen Lang looks to be having fun providing more overacting than Ihave seen since Jeremy Irons graced us with his performance in Dungeonsand Dragons. So, if you are a fan of those B-grade fantasy flicks (Iknow I am) you will probably find this at least enjoyable enough towatch once. To be honest, I wouldn't mind seen Jason Momoa play Conan again in abetter written and produced movie. Alas, I don't see that happening andI really think that's a shame.

user-828-592263 01 May 2012

Not enough to be Good

1. Don't let your kids to watch this movie, this is not a fairy tale:they will see rivers of blood and ridiculous violence almost everyminute. Plus, all this is pointless in this case. It doesn't add to thebrutality of the title.2. Jason Momoa is not a great choice. Conan is too soft, clean, sweetand handsome. He tries to be brutal, but it doesn't work in my opinion. 3. I don't like the word "remake". This is a different movie. Iwouldn't compare. It is as bad/good as it is. 4. Script is a bit shallow. This could make an average TV show for acouple of seasons. Acting & directing is average as well. 5. Overall looks pretty cheap, even knowing the budget. Final thoughts: average movie, could be much much better. Many thingswent wrong.

Pekuvi 01 May 2012

A worthy remake: Very Strong start, entertaining middle and.......questionable end

Jason Momoa and the cast - The cast was refreshing. At least, DwayneJohnson (The Rock) didn't play Conan. I like The Rock but after seeinghim in Scorpion King, I felt he lacked authenticity and had too keen anose for where the cameras were at all times. Fast forward to JasonMomoa, unless you're a fan of the Stargate Atlantis series or a truefan of his, I don't believe that you have had too much exposure to him.In my opinion, he can definitely carry the Conan franchise into thefuture. The rest of the cast also fits in quite well. The runaway starto me was "young Conan"......watch out for him.The story - This version of Conan focuses more on blending differentstory lines than reprising the Arnold version so fans looking forsightings of Thulsa Doom and his gang of snake charmers need notbother. The opening is really strong with a young tempestuous Conansetting the ground work for a believable adult Conan who truly goesabout "living, loving and slaying". Ron Perlman provides a morein-depth look at a parental figure in Conan's life than is shown in theArnold version. The first 20 - 30 minutes of the movie are filled withpoignant fight scenes and colourful villains that could just as easilyhave been in "Last of the Mohicans" as they were in Conan. If you likea good dose of violence, especially the gratuitous kind, the openingdoes not disappoint. The middle of the story really focuses on acheck-off list. Conan goes on a tear looking for all the people whowronged him and his family and eliminates them one by one. This iswhere, in my opinion, Jason owns the Conan character. His injection ofcharisma into a rather blunt character as well as his creativity indispatching all villains adds yet another element that is not shown inthe Arnold version. I became a little more vested in his antics and Iactually looked forward to how he would creatively dispatch the nextbad guy. Then there is Tamara (Rachel Nichols) who replaces Valeria(Sandhal Bergman) from the Arnold version. Here, Valeria, to me, is abetter character. Granted, Tamara is a priestess and Valeria is awarrior so I'm comparing apples to oranges here but, I feel a strongbattling beauty would have gone a long way. The supporting cast in thisConan is more like sea fairing marauders as opposed to the minimal crewof three thieves and a wizard from the Arnold version. The end was abit of a letdown to me. The leviathan/giant squid or whatever was underwater was as pointless and useless as I've ever seen. SomeonethoughtÂlet's throw something in here from Clash of the Titans orÂ.heythis allows us to put in something with undulating limbs. This wouldpay homage to the snakes in the Arnold version. Complete waste ofbudget. Then, a lot was made about a mystical mask, its powers and thisand that. Yet once dunned, it did absolutely nothing or at best, verylittle. To have this much story around that mask as there was aroundConan himself and see nothing really happen was kind of a letdown tome. Pros: After all that I've had to say about the movie, I still feel itgets a solid 7 of 10 score. It is entertaining, and unlike movies likeThe Mummy and The Scorpion King, it does not shy away from showingviolent scenes, Jason Momoa is as far from Arnold as it gets which tome is not a bad thing. The major actors all do good jobs and some ofthe minor characters actually steal their scenes. Young Conan is quiteimpressive. The battle scene on the marauders ship is worthy of Piratesof the Caribbean (the first two). Jason's sword work is ratherskillful. I thought it was better than Arnold's. The use of variedlandscape gives the story a broader panache and appeal. Rose McGowancomes off as certifiably crazy which isn't bad really.Cons: This is a personal gripe. I would have loved to see them remakethe Arnold story. I thought it was a much better story. To see ThulsaDoom morph into a giant snake and shoot snake arrows would have beengreat to see with modern graphics. The end's fight scene made littlesense to me. It seemed liked the writer got tired and couldn't wait toput "The End" and "Fade Out" or perhaps the writer wrote a strong endbut the director and/or producer(s) decided to stick to some sacredtime quota which lead them to truncate the end of the movie. Whateverthe case, when you have a bad guy like Col. Miles Quaritch (Avatar)playing Khalar Zym (I'm referring to Stephen Lang here guysÂ), you oweit to the audience to put him in the mother of all fight scenes at theend. He deserves to inflict pain and be taken out the manliest of ways.The Arnold version has Conan assuming the throne, a scene of solitude.He's lost his Valkyrie. In this version (which seems poised for asequel) Conan leaves Tamara and rides off into who knows where. Don'treally get itÂÂÂÂMy Opinion Â Is it theater worthy? YES, in August and vs. Fright Night?Sure it is. It's not a bad way to spend $10.00 (even better ROI if yougo and see it at the MatinÃ©e showing)Is it 3-D worthy? NOPE, I don't think you diminish your experience fromwatching it in 2-D. I just happened to watch in 3-D during a freescreening. The 3-D part didn't impress me at all. I wouldn't pay $12.00- $15.00 for the 3-D version.

Download, Watch online Conan the Barbarian Movie.