Synopsis: “A quest that begins as a personal vendetta for the fierce Cimmerian warrior soon turns into an epic battle against hulking rivals, horrific monsters, and impossible odds, as Conan realizes he is the only hope of saving the great nations of Hyboria from an encroaching reign of supernatural evil”.
If you want to know what I thought without spoiling yourself, scroll down to the ‘Final Word’ at the bottom of the article...
Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s breakout role as Conan in the 1980’s, the infamous loincloth of the Cimmerian has been stowed away, waiting for another who would take up the mantle of the world’s fiercest barbarian. 30 years on, Jason Mamoa has teamed up with director Marcus Nispel for a reboot. But does it deliver?
Regrettably, Conan fails as a movie on many levels. But it gets just enough right to make it enjoyable. Jason Mamoa is the perfect choice for Conan – he looks the part and handles the sword-slinging well. There is not that much dialogue for him to deliver, and what little there is amounts to lines such as; ‘I live. I love. I slay. And I am content’. But Conan is in his element when he is on the battlefield – he was literally born on it, as the film dramatically depicts – and it is here where the film thrives with some good action scenes.
The standout sequence of the film emerges when Conan is ambushed by sand warriors who appear out of nowhere. Although it wasn’t very original – Spider-Man 3, anyone – it was without a doubt the most memorable scene in the film. Unfortunately the action does not keep with this standard throughout – the final battle fails to deliver the climax the film deserves. Additionally, some of the action is hard to follow as it is plagued by poor 3D. It is really unnecessary, augmenting only fleeting shots if that, and there were many times I found myself wishing I was watching it without those damn glasses on! As a result, Conan joins an ever increasing line of films for which the 3D format has not worked.
Ron Perlman also delivers a solid performance as Conan’s father and leader of the Cimmerian tribe, Corin. Although the interactions between him and Conan at a young age as he teaches him about sword making and becoming a warrior are acted well, it can be easily confused as a mentor / mentee bond at times. Upon learning that Stephen Lang, whom I immensely enjoyed in Avatar, had been cast as the villain Khalar Zim, my excitement for the film swelled. It was mostly warranted with another impressive turn by Lang, who performs admirably but trips up on some bad script writing. The same applies to Rose McGowan’s Marique, Zym’s daughter, in one of the strangest on-screen relationships I have ever watched. I won’t spoil it here, but there was one very odd scene mid-movie which the two characters share that left me feeling utterly perplexed.
Worst of all however is Rachel Nichols’ Tamara as the pure blood Zym needs to power the Acheron mask, and whom Conan will inevitably fall for. This is as underdeveloped a character as you’re ever likely to see – even Conan’s sidekick Artus, played with gusto by Nonzo Anozie, gets arguably more back-story than her. To sum this script up, when Lang’s Zym is reduced to sneering his way through scenes, you know there’s a missed opportunity somewhere. It’s that much more of a disappointment because you feel that Conan could have been so much more than a slightly above average action adventure flick. But that’s all we end up with.
Final Word: Conan ticks all the boxes you would expect it to – violence, blood, and gore feature heavily in generally good action scenes. Suffice to say, the title warrants Barbarian. But it fails to overshadow what are the films many shortcomings. If you are looking for a generic story, with good action and little else, look no further. But watch it in 2D.