Review of Conan the Barbarian (2011) by Kof-Drop — 21 Sep 2012

I went into this movie having only seen bits and pieces of the old Arnold Schwarzenegger film from 1982. Those bits and pieces were enough to tell me that I should expect nothing more than a mindless action movie with a tiny bit of heart. I know Jason Momoa from HBO's Game of Thrones, so I figured it couldn't be too bad. Well, the 2011 remake of Conan the Barbarian is a film that tries desperately to be something it is not: more than just an action movie. Thanks to a dreadful script, it fails miserably.

Conan is a barbarian born in the midst of a battle, thanks to an improvised C-section by his father (Ron Perlman). He grows into a small, athletic punk with a thirst for blood, at which age he sees his village invaded by an army and everyone slaughtered. He further grows into a large, insanely jacked punk (Jason Momoa) with a thirst for vengeance. Throw something in there about a magical necromancer's mask and a guy with a witch for a daughter, and the need to sacrifice a pretty girl in order to obtain incredible power.

As you can probably tell from my descriptions, there is not a shred of depth to Conan's character. This was disappointing, to say the least, given Momoa's awesome portayal of the extremely hardened yet surprisingly affectionate Khal Drogo in Game of Thrones. It is as though, with Conan, he was told not to do anything meaningful whatsoever, just to be cool. It seems that there is an attempt to develop something while Conan is a boy, but it doesn't quite finish, and then when Momoa comes on screen he is nothing more than a brute.

Ron Perlman is stuck in a role that is far beneath him and does not at all suit him. One can tell that he has a very hard time taking his lines seriously, because they are just awful. This is what the script seems like to me: Two twelve-year-old boys collaborate on what they think is going to be a totally sweet action movie. They develop a very loose plot involving a hunky, heartless hero, a ruthless villain, and a pretty girl who needs saving. Then they come up with five or six one-liners, such as, "I live, I love, I slay, and I am content," and they build the screenplay around the deliverance of those lines.

The film goes through the motions: one event succeeds another, with no actual meaning to any of it. There is an obvious attempt to make Conan a dynamic character: the pretty girl is supposed to change him, make him more human. But it is far too little, far too late, and he remains nothing but a silent muscle-show. The one-liners, I think, are intended to add a sense of importance to the whole thing, but they're so cheesy and ineffective.

As far as action goes, it's not even very good. The CGI seems low-budget (except for the sand guys, but that is such a rare moment of quality in this film). Hardly a moment of action seems to be actually choreographed: whenever things get too complicated, the camera moves sporadically so as not to have the audience realize that it is all computer-generated. And the events that transpire are utterly ridiculous. The final fight scene should last five minutes, but it feels like thirty (I'm not sure how long it actually is); one conflict is overcome, and another is introduced, and it repeats and repeats so that it is not even interesting, but rather tedious.

Rose McGowan is dreadful as the witch-woman, Marique. That character is cringe-worthy from the moment she appears on screen with those stupid claws (something that only twelve-year-olds would think is cool). Rachel Nichols gives the most believable performance, which is really sad, because she plays the damsel in distress.

Everything is just plain sloppy. From writing and directing to acting to CGI, the production value of Conan the Barbarian (2011) is very low.

For a much more lengthy and in-depth review, see my blog at kofdrops.blogspot.com.