If you understand the reference made in the intro line above, then know that this will be a negative review. The 1980s saw a surge of Sword & Sorcery movies, some good (The Sword and the Sorcerer) and some abysmal (Ator the Fighting Eagle, et seq.). The vast majority fell in the latter category, but the one that stood far on top, the one that started the entire genre, or rather latter day incarnation of it, was Conan the Barbarian from 1982.
The movie had two things going for it: It was directed by John Milius, and scored by Basil Poledouris. Milius had an R-rating to work with, so didn't have to tone down anything, and was given enough free reign to allow characters to develop, some Zen anarcho-fascist philosophy to support the reasons as to why all the violence was necessary (honor and vengeance, that kind of thing). It had a great villain in James Earl Jones, though purists would, and have, taken a disliking to the movie for departing from Robert Howard's books (Thulsa Doom is a Kull bad guy, and not in the Conan books).
Conan the Destroyer, on the other hand, seeking to follow up the massive success of the first one, jettisoned Milius. They brought Poledouris back, and the music is quite good, but other than that, the entire thing was a mess. It was dumb, the comic relief was relentlessly vapid, and they blur who the bad guy actually is -- Wilt Chamberlain might have been an interesting choice, but looks and acts mostly buffoonish throughout even as one wonders what he's supposed to be doing there at all.
Hence, all that, being said -- the 2011 movie learned none of the lessons from what made the first one good and how they screwed up a good thing. They instead decided that they could keep the first one's violence, since they figured, that must have been the mistake made by the process of "Destroyer". No, that wasn't it. They might have learned by the second try at redoing the Conan franchise, though it was "Kull the Conqueror" in the late 1990s, and also failed to figure out what made the first one so good and all the imitators so dreadful.
In this one, Jason Momoa has the size and physique, but does not manage to overcome the lousy script. He is very good in other things, and had he managed the better performance he gave a few years later as a semi-similar character of Drogo in "Game of Thrones", he might have improved the Conan attempt, but to be honest, there was no saving it. Ron Perelman shows up as Conan's father, and the one that could have managed William Smith's appearance in the original, but he's given nothing to say or do. He just throws out bad lines and may have decided a paycheck was worth dressing up in furs and spending some time reading lines that mean nothing.
The plot meanders on, and I won't go into the spoilers since without much of a plot it's hard to spoil it. There's a mask, the bad guy is boring and appears once in a while, to do mean things, but his daughter is a little more appealing in the dark villainous area. Oh, and the comic relief is relentlessly vapid.
This was a well motivated attempt, but they keep trying to figure out what made people want to see Arnie with sword in hand, and they haven't even scratched the surface. Part of it is that they don't know how to tell a story, part of it is that they don't care at all about the characters they create, and part of it is that the fantasy world they create seems a variation on our own, without the techno-gizmos. In the 1982 version, Conan has a short conversation with his friend Subatai the archer/thief, where they talk about the Gods. It doesn't last long, but contributes an enormous amount to the story, it tells us who they are in a small way, and no, not a serious conversation, but one that is in fantasy world. Here they don't really have conversations, but they have gory violence and stupid bad guys doing rotten things for no apparent reason.
I'd say it's a must watch for Conan fans, just to get it out of the way, and see the failure in all rich detail. For the everyday movie fan, who really doesn't care about the backstory of Robert Howard or the genre, or this kind of alternate world, but just wants an decent action movie, then there is nothing for you hear. Even Jason Momoa fans will be disappointed, since, while not familiar with everything he's ever done, I've never seen him put in a less convincing, less committed performance. The entire exercise was a waste of time, and a waste of chance to reinvigorate an ancient story concept -- one that has appeared since the beginning of Western Civilization with the Nordic Sagas, the Greek Epics, the Medieval Chivalry, one that has appeared in stories like Beowulf and the Song of Roland. Unfortunate.
The movie had two things going for it: It was directed by John Milius, and scored by Basil Poledouris. Milius had an R-rating to work with, so didn't have to tone down anything, and was given enough free reign to allow characters to develop, some Zen anarcho-fascist philosophy to support the reasons as to why all the violence was necessary (honor and vengeance, that kind of thing). It had a great villain in James Earl Jones, though purists would, and have, taken a disliking to the movie for departing from Robert Howard's books (Thulsa Doom is a Kull bad guy, and not in the Conan books).
Conan the Destroyer, on the other hand, seeking to follow up the massive success of the first one, jettisoned Milius. They brought Poledouris back, and the music is quite good, but other than that, the entire thing was a mess. It was dumb, the comic relief was relentlessly vapid, and they blur who the bad guy actually is -- Wilt Chamberlain might have been an interesting choice, but looks and acts mostly buffoonish throughout even as one wonders what he's supposed to be doing there at all.
Hence, all that, being said -- the 2011 movie learned none of the lessons from what made the first one good and how they screwed up a good thing. They instead decided that they could keep the first one's violence, since they figured, that must have been the mistake made by the process of "Destroyer". No, that wasn't it. They might have learned by the second try at redoing the Conan franchise, though it was "Kull the Conqueror" in the late 1990s, and also failed to figure out what made the first one so good and all the imitators so dreadful.
In this one, Jason Momoa has the size and physique, but does not manage to overcome the lousy script. He is very good in other things, and had he managed the better performance he gave a few years later as a semi-similar character of Drogo in "Game of Thrones", he might have improved the Conan attempt, but to be honest, there was no saving it. Ron Perelman shows up as Conan's father, and the one that could have managed William Smith's appearance in the original, but he's given nothing to say or do. He just throws out bad lines and may have decided a paycheck was worth dressing up in furs and spending some time reading lines that mean nothing.
The plot meanders on, and I won't go into the spoilers since without much of a plot it's hard to spoil it. There's a mask, the bad guy is boring and appears once in a while, to do mean things, but his daughter is a little more appealing in the dark villainous area. Oh, and the comic relief is relentlessly vapid.
This was a well motivated attempt, but they keep trying to figure out what made people want to see Arnie with sword in hand, and they haven't even scratched the surface. Part of it is that they don't know how to tell a story, part of it is that they don't care at all about the characters they create, and part of it is that the fantasy world they create seems a variation on our own, without the techno-gizmos. In the 1982 version, Conan has a short conversation with his friend Subatai the archer/thief, where they talk about the Gods. It doesn't last long, but contributes an enormous amount to the story, it tells us who they are in a small way, and no, not a serious conversation, but one that is in fantasy world. Here they don't really have conversations, but they have gory violence and stupid bad guys doing rotten things for no apparent reason.
I'd say it's a must watch for Conan fans, just to get it out of the way, and see the failure in all rich detail. For the everyday movie fan, who really doesn't care about the backstory of Robert Howard or the genre, or this kind of alternate world, but just wants an decent action movie, then there is nothing for you hear. Even Jason Momoa fans will be disappointed, since, while not familiar with everything he's ever done, I've never seen him put in a less convincing, less committed performance. The entire exercise was a waste of time, and a waste of chance to reinvigorate an ancient story concept -- one that has appeared since the beginning of Western Civilization with the Nordic Sagas, the Greek Epics, the Medieval Chivalry, one that has appeared in stories like Beowulf and the Song of Roland. Unfortunate.