I’d like to go on record saying something very important: I love Conan.
Conan is the archetypal fantasy loner. A brooding, savage warrior with great intelligence and charisma to match his muscles, who just happens to be the last of his warrior people. And, being the last of his people, he does what any man would do and takes up whatever job he can. So long as that job involves picking up a sword or battle-axe. Luckily for him, he lives in the Hyborian Age: a period between the times when the oceans drank Atlantis and the empires of the ancient world. This period is more or less a melding of various time periods, with established cultures carrying new names. It is a savage time, where gods, devils and wizards rule over mankind and wild barbarians roam the countryside. In other words, it’s a good time to be a barbarian. During his career, Conan has been a mercenary, a pirate, a chieftain, the lord of an alliance of tribes, a general, and a king. And these are just choice bits from his impressive resume.
Created in 1932, by pulp fiction writer Robert E. Howard, Conan has since made appearances in short stories, anthologies written by other authors, Marvel comics, video games, roleplaying games, an MMORPG, movies, TV shows, and a cartoon show which was my first introduction to the Conan character when I was around six years old. Conan’s history has been the source material for many a fantasy action hero, and even seems to be the influence for Riddick. While most people today who have heard of Conan probably first caught sight of him in the 1982 movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, my first encounter was in the aforementioned cartoon, which in my opinion still holds up well to this day. If you don’t believe me, check out TJOmega’s review of the series, here.
Why bother with all this setup, you may ask? Well, because I’d like for you to know where I come from as a fan of Conan. And also to let you know, that this review is NOT going to be a comparison to the 1982 movie. And oh yes, I intend to review those as well one day. The thing is, back in the eighties, fantasy was still in its infancy and the vast majority of fantasy movies (Conan included) were fine sheets of camp wrapped around an oiled-down muscle-bound shirtless man carrying a big sword while everyone runs around in furs across Styrofoam sets. Fantasy has become a much darker and more foreboding place as of late, especially with the coming of A Game of Thrones and the Lord of the Rings movies. Which I think makes it possible to make a more appropriate Conan movie, as Conan is a dark and gritty character.
So, is the movie what is truly best in life, or should we tell it to follow Krum’s example and TO HELL WITH YOU?!
The basic premise is one very common to the Conan short stories, as told by Morgan Freeman: a warlord named Khalar Zym, played by Avatar’s Stephen Lang (though I preferred him as Pickett in Gettysburg), raids Conan’s home when our favorite Cimmerian is a young boy and slaughters his people in order to take back part of a shattered crown that Zym intends to use to restore his dead wife. This dead wife also turns out to be an evil sorceress, who had plans of taking over the world before she was summarily burned at the stake. And so, with his family dead, Conan spends his life as a mercenary and pirate, all the while still looking for clues to his peoples’ murderer. Little does he realize that his life will soon be intertwined with an attractive monk named Tamara, whose blood is the key to the rebirth of Zym’s wife.
The plot is one very similar to any of the Conan short stories, and this is where the movie is both at its strongest and weakest. The success of this Conan movie is that it remains faithful to the very spirit of the original Conan short stories, by featuring Conan rescuing (or kidnapping in many cases) an attractive young woman who is central to the plot of an evil and corrupt wizard who is almost always involved in some form of necromancy or bringing a dark god or necromancer back from the dead. Another part of the success for this movie is the general aesthetic: heavy emphasis on fur and leather, with characters wearing costumes that look like something a barbarian would be seen wearing. Some of the armors look ripped right out of the illustrations from the short stories, and the action scenes are quite well choreographed.
That being said, the plot is paper-thin, the action scenes follow so closely to one another and are so frequent that they all just sort of blur into a collage of monotonous scenes that don’t stand out in any way save for locations. I went the whole movie only knowing Conan’s name because none of the other characters are given much development, much less names. Zym’s minions serve more or less as bosses for Conan to fight, with the only one getting any real screen time is his daughter Marique, who’s played by Rose McGowan. Even so, Marique’s main goal on screen is to look evil, run her fingers along people’s necks, and serve as the general sorceress for Zym.
Conan is not free from having scenes that are just plain ridiculous. The primary scene that comes to mind is Conan’s birthing scene. Here’s a question for everyone: if your wife is well into her third trimester, to the point that she is ready to give birth at any moment, would you dress her up in armor and let her fight along your men in combat? If your answer is no, your name isn’t Ron Perlman. Much like the villains, none of Conan’s friends are terribly memorable, though we’re treated to two of them. Jason Momoa plays a decent Conan in the action scenes, but he doesn’t really carry himself with the kind of charisma that you’d expect the character to have.
If there’s one other thing I have to point out about this movie, it’s this: The movie does not shy away from blood and bare breasts. So if you’re a bit on the sensitive side when it comes to the female body, or if you don’t like women being presented merely as set pieces, then this won’t be your kind of movie. Also, the blood looks kind of silly when it spurts out at random.
Overall, the movie is a fun little ride through the spirit of the Conan adventures, but if you were iffy about this movie before then there isn’t much that would persuade you to part with your money. If you go in expecting a real thrill ride or something in line with the 1982 movie, then you’ll likely walk out disappointed and I wouldn’t suggest wasting your money. However, if you’re not expecting more than straight-forward action and some amazing set pieces for the cast to fight on, then you’ve come to the right place. Perhaps the final nail in the coffin would be whether or not you want to see a 3D movie. At the moment, Conan is only available in 3D, and 3D really doesn’t work on me, so I can’t be one to judge the gimmick.
Now if you excuse me, I still have a review to pound out in due time. By Krom!
Scores
Heroes: Conan is in his usual sword-swinging glory, but I didn’t hear a single “BY KROM!!!” – 4/5
Villains: The general from Avatar seeks to do more than nuke the blue Cimmerians here, but his minions bring the score down. – 3/5
Plot: If you’ve ever read a Conan story, then you can follow this one. – 4/5
Narrative: The narrator is Morgan Freeman? Yes, please! But other than that the plot and dialogue just sputter along as thin excuses to move onto the next set piece for a battle. – 2/5
World: The Hyborian Age is full of wondrous cities and ruins just waiting to be used as locations for new battles. If anything the world is pretty. – 4/5
Magic: Magic is not a component of the arsenal of good, which again keeps in line with Conan. There are very few instances of magic being used, and when it is it’s more a supernatural element and one of mysticism. – 4/5
Overall: 3.5/5
Julia Kitvaria Sarene