Reviews, Interviews , News, Commentaries, My Top 5 Movies, Best-Of Lists, Filmmakers of Faith, Film ForumConan the Barbarian
In a scene leading up to Conan the Barbarian's big bloody finale, the epic warrior's love interest poses a seemingly vital question. Amid all the death and destruction surrounding her, she asks Conan: "Are we all just doomed to chaos and ruin?" After a brief pause, the barbarian shrugs off her question and shares his true feelings: "I live. I slay. I love. I am content." These words, instilled with all the ridiculousness of a typical B movie, sum up the spirit of Conan quite well. The film is dumb, hackneyed and, well, just plain bad—much like the 1982 original, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger—but because it knows and makes fun of that, it plays for a smart and entertaining ride.
Directed by Marcus Nispel, who up to this point hasn't made anything good, Conan is a stereotypical guy's movie with all the typical testosterone—sex, violence, vengeance. The plot follows the strapping Conan, played to perfection by Jason Momoa, on a quest to avenge his father's death. At the beginning of the film, a ruthless warlord (Stephen Lang in another over-the-top role), alongside his henchmen and sorcerer daughter (Rose McGowan), murders the beastly leader right in front of his young son, and the experience provokes Conan to spend the rest of his life hunting down the wicked villain.
Jason Momoa as Conan
This dimwitted revenge story doesn't drive the film. Instead, it's a mere plot device for 112 minutes of blood, guts and action—and a cheesy, slow-motion sex scene. Of course, with an opening sequence that shows the graphic birth of Conan on a blood-spattered battlefield and a title that invokes the image of one famous Austrian actor sporting stallion-like hair and a leather girdle, it's unreasonable to expect anything more. Nispel, in fact, would have been foolish to try and turn this cultic reboot into something serious. Can you imagine Conan the Barbarian in the vein of Lord of the Rings—Peter Jackson style?
So the fact that Nispel doesn't possess much talent as a filmmaker actually works in his favor, given the intentionally second-rate script and pulpy subject matter. Channeling his roots in the horror genre, he creates enthralling action sequences with gimmicky gore and cartoonish CGI. Every time a weapon slices into a victim, unreasonable amounts of blood gush out, and it's seemingly impossible to count the number of times dismembered body parts come to the screen. Given this ridiculous style, we could naturally assume that Nispel would overuse 3D, but he surprisingly takes a subtle approach, almost in the way Michael Bay perfected it in Transformers: Dark of the Moon. That's doesn't mean it's worth seeing Conan in the third dimension. It just means that its 3D betters that of most 3D productions.
Stephen Lang as Khalar Zym
Nispel's substandard talents sync well with this B-grade sword and sorcery, but there are some frustrating moments. We get numerous action sequences that move too fast and take us too close to the action, making it nearly impossible to see and know what's going on. These close-ups and swift movements may be intentional and actually mimic the visual effects of the 1982 original, but after a while, they become exhausting. We eventually yearn for Nispel to keep his camera still and zoom out to provide a sense of scope. Fortunately, he does in the final thirty minutes. When the film literally comes full circle and Conan gets one last chance at his enemy, the epic battle entails some big and bloody action.
The Latest in Movie News, June 17, 2013
It's the Thoughts That Count
Why World Relief's Jenny Yang Feared Speaking on Immigration
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 of 11 comments
See all comments
Steve Skeete
I am sure this question has been asked a thousand times, and maybe I missed the answer somewhere. But what in the world is CT doing reviewing a movie which the reviewer says is, at best, "ridiculous", "hackneyed", "dumb" and "stupid"? If a movie is that bad why waste time on it at all? Do you really have to tell the average Christian in the USA how awful a movie is? Will not the first five-to-ten minutes of viewing such bring them speedily to that conclusion? Are movie watchers these days as "dumb" and stupid" as the movies CT has to prevent them from going to see? What Mr. Roark might have said if he really felt "led" to review this film, is that "Conan" and films of its genre is a sign of the decadence and decline of a once great nation, in the same way that the "blood and circus" of the Roman arenas marked the beginning of the end of that empire. Hollywood is like a Trojan Horse in U.S culture, and like that horse once we drag it inside the city destruction follows inevitably.
Sagacity Walker
she knew that if she ever was in a life threatening situation, that Conan would be there to rescue her. So why not yield to his authority. Just as children should yield to their parents, or believers to CHRIST. We yield because we know that without HIM, we would be lost, and she would have certainly be killed were it not for Conan. But it was also interesting, to me, to see that dynamic between a man who was used to being in charge meeting a woman who has lived as a monk and was not used to being told what to do. Because she lived secluded and sheltered from society's ills, she felt as though she deserved more 'respect'. But this is what I find truly interesting. The Bible says "there is no greater love than he who is willing to lay down his life for his friends", and by fighting "the angel of death" Conan was definately willing to lay down his life for the female monk. So, was he truly being chauvenist and mysogynistic, or was he truly being a better man than most modern males?
Sagacity Walker
be willing to pay up, when the person came back to collect. But in 'collecting his bill' so to speak, Conan did not want the man to die, he did his best to keep his ally protected. And after the encounter with a sea creature in which he almost dies, the thief tells Conan that if he ever needs his help again, that he would be willing to assist him. This is despite him being dreadfully afraid and almost meeting death. But in that time period, a man would truly stand by his buddies in true horrific circumstances. Think about how different we are in our society where it is not uncommon for people to abandon friends and family when they are in financial difficulties or struggle with addiction. I also do not find the way he treated the female lead as degrading. Again, this was a different time and there was more at stake. She would have certainly died if Conan had not saved her so he said he has 'claim' to her. She was now under his protection. So in our modern terms, this is wrong, but she