Conan the Remake

Hello all,

I caught a little movie called Conan the Barbarian yesterday... a movie that I had zero expectations for (it got awful reviews and completely bombed - only making just over 48 million worldwide on a budget that approached 100 million). From the director of the Friday the 13th remake and the awful Vikings vs Indians Pathfinder and starring a complete unknown in Jason Momea (and no, I haven't seen Game of Thrones, I know hes in there) I was expecting the absolute worst.

What I got was definitely flawed, but pretty fun and watchable... So without further ado, the good, the bad, and the ugly from Conan the Barbarian...

The Good

1) Jason Momea as Conan.

Now obviously the iconic movie Conan is Arnold Schwarzenegger from the 80s flicks, so Momea had the toughest challenge of anyone in the cast (Except the villain, but I'll get to him later). Saying that, the physicality of the part was completley nailed. Momea isn't as big as Arnold, but he was a more nimble sword fighting and brutal dude. He also seemed to do the majority of his own stunts.

I don't know the Conan from the comics/books at all but I felt like this Conan was having more fun. He had this "battle smirk" and look during the fights that seemed totally believable for a lifetime barbarian warrior. The last part of the performance was that Conan is pretty much a jerk: he's very sexist, rude, extremely brash, and fairly stupid. It was actually nice to see such a politically incorrect main character. Yet despite this Momea, made him charming and likable and an easy character to root for. Bonus points to kid actor Leo Howard for making the young Conan a similarly great character: I almost liked his section of the movie more.

2) The R Rating

Conan the Barbarian from a plot standpoint is always going to be about the same... Conan avenging and wreaking violence on the bad guys. This is a hard R with decapitations, limbs getting chopped off, blood everywhere, pretty much what would happen if a skilled, ripped barbarian with a big sword took on a bunch of mooks. The violence isn't super stylized (no Zack Snyder bullet time here) and the movie seems pretty gritty with the fighting.

Also, we get surprising amount of female nudity. One thing that a lot of the adult 80s fantasy movies delivered was topless women and it was really refreshing to see here. At one point, Conan frees a bunch of slaves and instead of wearing some togas, the ladies aren't wearing much of anything. Now Conan's girl (who's a monk) has a toga on, but there is a love scene later where she takes it all off too. For the women, you get an uber ripped Jason Momea without a shirt for the whole movie, so to be fair, the guys and girls both get some quality eye candy.

3) Ron Perlman in a supporting role

I love Ron Perlman in almost anything he shows up in, he plays an intense elder barbarian (Conan's dad) and brings some class and acting chops to the early scenes as Conan's mentor. He makes the early section of the movie (along with the aforementioned Leo Howard) the best section and provides the adult Conan some great guidance and motivation


The Bad

1) Stephen Lang as Zim

If you don't know who Stephen Lang is (and I didn't by name), he's the evvvilll colonel from Avatar. Once again he recklessly chews scenery and constantly hams it up, I could tell he got the "comic/pulp novel" feel of the movie and just went for it. Lang also did much of his own stuntwork, which I can respect and the writing for his character was pretty strong to make him a good antagonist.

However, compared to the incomparable James Earl Jones as Thulsa Doom from the original, as an antagonist, Zim falls flat on his face. For one thing, Lang is in good shape, but hes in his 50s and fights the much bigger and stronger looking Conan.. I understand skill vs strength, but I didn't buy that Lang could hold his own when Conan blew threw dozens of armored guards the whole movie. The original movie didn't have Thulsa Doom engage Conan in swordplay, his minions did the dirty work.

Also, Zim is billed as a warrior that no one has ever beaten, now he has some formidable henchmen, but I didn't get the sense of menace that James Earl Jones portrayed... He just isnt a super memorable villain and I think part of it is miscasting... if the producers wanted a more physical match for Conan, someone like a Michael Clarke Duncan type would make more sense. Speaking of which

2) The supporting villains

A big bunch of wasted opportunities here... Its odd because a movie that has two physical beasts in former MMA star Bob Sapp and former pro wrestler Nathan Jones (the giant bad guy from Fearless and the Protector) would seem to have great villains. Two problems: the supporting villains get almost no lines, no backstory, and act more like video game bosses than characters. Also, Conan beats most of them far too easily and almost comedically a couple times. Its frustrating when 55 year old Stephen Lang does better in combat than the 6'5", nearly 400 lb. Bob Sapp or the 7'1" Nathan Jones.

Also, Rose McGowan as the evil witch... the makeup is ridiculous, the acting is odd and not frightening, and the "magic" seems really up to the script. Watching the movie, remember what this character can do at the middle of the movie compared to what she does in the climax, and the problems in the script become really apparent.

3) The love interest

Rachel Nichols is attractive, but seems far too "Hollywood" in her makeup and looks and general attitude for a barbaric fantasy world. I also don't buy her fighting prowess: she's a pacifist monk yet can still handle a knife.

The Ugly

1) The production values

Now if 100 million was put into this movie, I want to know where most of it went. The sets felt like sets, there are some blatant matte painting/blue screens for the big vistas, and the whole didn't feel particularly epic. I hate to say "R rated Hercules the Legendary Journeys (the Kevin Sorbo show) episode"but it felt like that at times.

Now I read that the film was actually shot in Bulgaria and South Africa, so I'll the blame the director to show some establishing shots of how epic and huge the world is. I don't want to say "rip off the Lord of the Rings helicopter shots" but I never felt this huge fantasy world was anything more then some backlot sets and forests.

Also, despite most of the fighting being pretty realistic, there were a few too many obvious "stunts" where people fell huge distances onto "rock" and didn't get hurt. Also, the CGI at hand was pretty bad (the giant monster sequence, the mummy rejects, and the silly looking mask Zim wears) for a 100 M production.

2) The Story/Editing

This aspect was the most frustrating about the movie. I can't tell if it was the nine producers or 3 screenwriters (between them, they wrote Cursed, the Crow sequel, Dylan Dog Dead of Night, Sahara, and the awful Sound of Thunder) that were responsible for the weird script and pacing.

The best part of Conan is the opening 45 minutes or so, especially the stuff with the young Conan and Perlman. It almost follows a similar pattern to X-Men Origins Wolverine, where the longer the movie goes, the dumber it gets. The main plot thread about redemption was good enough, but the subplot with the villain being the necromancer king trying to resurrect his dead witch wife with the helmet of the MacGuffins... It just felt totally pointless.

Also, when the Macguffin is donned, Zim doesn't seem any more powerful. There's talk of him "conjuring up undead warriors and melting flesh" but he gets less accomplished then Disney's the Horned King during the climax of the Black Cauldron (throwback reference to my top villains blog post).

Finally, the movie is a hour and 45 minute before credits, but it seems too long and too short at the same time. All the characters except for Conan and Zim (and Conan's dad in the early going) are completely one note and underdeveloped. I'd have liked a little more backstory or dialogue for some of the supporting bad guys or the big dude whos Conan's buddy (who conveniently disappears often) or the "thief" character (who I think is in there just because the original movie had a thief).

However, some of the fights get really redundant and silly. Special note is the part towards the end when Conan enlists the thief character (who's also miscast and doesn't look nearly experience or old enough to be a master thief) to break into Zim's castle. There, he encounters a giant octopus (that looks like the kid brother of the moat monster from the first Lord of the Rings) and this big, shark man henchman. The whole sequence is purely filler, the thief is screaming the whole time like an Indiana Jones love interest, and this occurs in the last half hour of the movie!

Its especially jarring because the movie has been going for gritty realism for the most part (except for how Conan can get his ass kicked, fall incredible distances off a cliff, and then apparently be healthy enough to swim a half mile to a boat - but you can quibble with action hero invulnerability in many movies) and to see a SciFi Channelish CGI monster, it doesn't make any sense. I understand the original Conan had the giant snake in the temple scene, but there's no octopi anywhere else in the movie (except I guess the MacGuffin kinda looks like an octopus). Furthermore, the octopus isn't explained or used in the climax at all... I usually don't spoil an ending sequence like this, but it has no impact on the story whatsoever.


Final Verdict

Conan the Remake knows what it is (a gratuitious R rated 80s throwback) and has a more than capable leading man. Problems with the script, editing, and some weird casting choices hold it back from its ceiling.

I give it a 5.5/10... worth a redbox on a slow dayor a look on cable, but that's about it.