Conan the Barbarian (2011)

 

When you're stuck for ideas as a studio, there's always the attempt to reboot an older franchise. The original 'Conan the Barbarian' starring Arnold Schwarzenegger is still a pretty great film (not to call it epic on every scale), whereas the sequel 'Conan the Destroyer' was, well, less than stellar. Now, the entire idea of rebooting Conan could make sense if the property was incredibly popular again. 

Alas, it wasn't. Not really. So this failed, as it was more directed to fans of the original films and maybe the comics, but it didn't really hit the mark, good intentions notwithstanding. The end result is an enjoyable, yet ultimately forgettable film. 

This is not a remake, so some things are altered in contrast to the Schwarzenegger/Milius version. Here, Conan is literally born on the battlefield, as his father had to cut him out of his mother's womb because she was mortally wounded in battle.Talk about a brutal start... Conan grows up to be a brooding kid, and when his village is slaughtered by the invader Khalar Zym, he - of course - vows revenge. 

Years pass and Conan is now a pirate who likes to party but still has a sense of right and wrong. When he discovers one of Khalar's henchmen that raided his village, the quest for vengeance is on. Turns out Khalar now has all the pieces of a mystical crown that is supposed to grant him powers of necromancy, so he can bring back his wife who was a witch and follower of Acheron: a death cult of sorts. 

What is it with Conan-stories and cults? This time, it's not snakes but something resembling an octopus. Go figure. 

Anyway...

Khalar now needs a pureblood descendant of Acheron, which turns out to be a hot female monk called Tamara. Conan sort of protects her, but grows fond of her and is then off to face Khalar once Tamara is - naturally - captured. 

There are good ideas present, without a doubt. Overall, this film feels a lot closer to Robert E. Howard's stories of Conan than the Schwarzenegger-classic. The pirate angle is also very present in the books and here, it works. It's a different take and there's nothing wrong with that. The casting is passable most of the time. Jason Momoa does a decent enough job, but he was still relatively green here and it shows. Stephen Lang as Khalar Zym seemed like a good idea on paper, but he overdoes the snarling military madman a bit too much. Heck, sometimes it feels as if the man was only cast to play this type of character. Everyone else is pretty forgettable, except maybe for the always enjoyable Ron Perlman who gets to play Conan's father in the first act. 

And it is in structure that the film starts to unravel a bit. The opening act is excellent, with a young Conan and lots of blood and guts. Seriously: this film earns it's rating, as disembowlments, decapitations, dismemberments and all around brutality are everywhere. It gets toned down a little for the remainder of the film, though. Oh, and copious amounts of boobies. But the problem is that the first part is so friggin' good, the rest pales a bit in comparison. What is also bizarre is that the first part has a large number of references to the Schwarzenegger-version, including the opening narration, this time done by Morgan Freeman instead of Mako. It's a bit like betting on two horses at the same time. Either you go full blown remake with references, or try something new and this one falls somewhere in between. 

What also doesn't help the film, is that it is constantly loud and frenetic. Seriously, there isn't a single moment of rest. It's all high octane, pedal-to-the-metal all the time and that becomes extremely exhausting after about twenty minutes. It doesn't help that the music is constantly bellicose and very VERY loud. The environments look nice and are varied, but they often feel fake (because they are as "Hellooo CG!"). 

Part of why the Milius-version works, is that it is - at heart - a simple revenge tale where the images do most of the storytelling and dialogue is optional. The music did a lot as well and it was kept rather small, all things considered. Here, it is supposed to be the same type of story, but it is too much, with way too many elements from the books being crammed into a relatively short film. And I hate to say it, but these characters are pretty bloody bland despite the best efforts of the makers to give them some personality. It doesn't work, not really. Lots of fun swordfights, though, even if they feel a bit hyperjuiced in that overly complicated martial arts' style that was all the rage back then. Think 'The Matrix' but with swords and flashy editing. 

I can't really hate on this film, as it does have its merits, but except for the first act (which is top notch) it falls a little flat on its face. So give it a try if you want, but don't set your bar too high.