Conan, a barbár

Egy méreg drága bolgár DVD-köpés, filmes lélek, képzelet és fantázia nélkül. Rosszabb, mint bármelyik nagyon rossz történelmi B-kategóriás film, nem jobb, mint a Mortal Kombat legrosszabb epizódja. Mintha az alkotója gyűlölné a filmeket, mintha utálná a nézőket, és ki akarná szúrni velük. Az egyetlen érzés, amit a film közvetít az unalom, a bosszúság és undor az öncélú erőszak miatt. És az egyetlen tény, amit (A Barbár - Legenda a szellemharcosról után) megerősíti, hogy Nispel jelenleg a hollywoodi filmművészet legrosszabb rendezője. Csak egy dolog lehetett volna rosszabb, mégpedig a maszkok és a jelmezek - ezért egy csillagot adtam. (2011.08.30)

Conan the Barbarian? Don't let anyone laugh at you. More like Cohen the Barbarian for Cosmopolitan readers in an amateurish performance by the director, who should only participate in A-filmmaking as a passive observer. By far the worst film of the year - buy Solomon Kane instead, which is light-years more exciting, darker and more brutal, and not these races in casting raspberries on the ground. (2011.08.18)

A Conan that’s a little better than Conan, but at the same time a Conan considerably worse than Conan. A C-movie to the core, full of confused editing and disjointed shots, non-actors and zero story... But luckily it doesn’t attempt to be anything more and there’s more fighting than talking here, and at a solid pace. If this had had the same energy as the magnificent introduction from his childhood all the time, I would have been absolutely content. But then it’s just too... Well, just neither (laughably) bad nor (really) good. And the result is more an average imitation of Werewolf (and dozens of other movies; what Nispel liked in some movie, he put into this) than a continuator of the original Conans. (2011.08.18)

I was brought up on Howard’s Conan books and so I’m disappointed (again!) that the movie focuses just on the main hero and the world where the story takes place. It would have been so easy for the creators to borrow one of the countless already written stories, but they didn’t (ok, there’s a mention of the Elephant Tower, but nothing else) and all they did was stuff a couple of action scenes (miserably filmed by Nispel) and a couple of dialogs (that sort of make sense) into the clichéd template. The only positive thing here are the actors, headed by the superb Momoo who at last is a honest to goodness Conan who looks like he has stepped out of the cover of one of the books in my bookcase. Both Lang and McGowan made respectable villains. The third star is for solid production design and special effects, and the blood spurting from cleaved heads also made me happy. I really hope there will be a sequel, but please with a different screenwriter (one good one would be better than three cooks) and with a brand new, better director. (2011.08.20)

At the time, I was quite excited for the new Red Sonja they were promising with Rose McGowan in the lead role. But obviously it's better that this version of Conan didn't make any headway. Momoa and Perlman did their best, but the result is so... awkward. (2021.11.07)

One of those few movies where it’s clear that it would be a low-quality experience already from the trailer, which is silly but perhaps more entertaining than the entire film. The only things that stand out are the action scene with the little boy in the forest, right at the beginning, the decent production design, and that's about it. The music is all sorts of random – the composer must have thought that putting fast strings together would mean monumental, epic, and action-packed music; unfortunately, he got a bit confused. The actors are nothing special either. It shows pure commercialism and no passion or love for classics. And that's what buries the whole project. (2011.11.27)

The second time around this movie is a reasonably sized and very, very entertaining fantasy piece. It took me nine years to change my mind, during which time I really got into Howard's world and got to know Conan in other ways than from the Arnold Schwarzenegger movies, but it was worth it. (2011.12.03)

A great Conan; not a great film. I didn't believe Momoa (who on earth made up that name?) and he turned out to be a very likable Barbarian, and please I absolutely did not find this movie believable. Except that I really started enjoying the grand celebration of violence right at the beginning. Out of all his options, Conan always chooses the most brutal, to the point of being hilarious, and after all the sappy tough guy pretenders in other big budget movies, this was such a nice axe to the face. All the problems of this film hang on the shoulders of the director, who not only apparently only knows two types of shots (close-up and long shot), but more importantly, quite predictably, was not very capable of stretching the space beyond a horror film (a genre that mostly operates on a few square hectares) to a grand imaginary landscape. As such, the film breaks down into a couple of sub-segments, even divided by a pathetic title telling where the scene is currently taking place. Still missing was the 9:50 zulu. The action scenes aren't especially bad, but they're weirdly cut and not exactly pleasing to the untrained eye, so I’m still not really sure how the final action scene turned out. Sorry. Oh, and the film could have done without the special effects, for example, notice that the digital blood spatter is repeated and looks almost ridiculous when Conan gets hit in the back, sprays the same two liters as when the protagonist chops off some poor guy's head with a sword, then has a thorn scratch on his back. Plus, the special effects studio is most likely not exactly at the top of its field, because the bungling of the perspective on some of the special effects shots wouldn't be forgiven even by the ancient Egyptians. Anyway, compared to the disgustingly faggy and horribly sterile Thor, it's fun to the point where I'm considering four stars. (2011.09.14)