Conan the Barbarian (R)

Those who only know of Conan the Barbarian from the 1982 Arnold Schwarzenegger film might be surprised to learn that the character has been around for nearly 80 years. Writing in early pulp publications like Weird Tales (best known as the publisher of the works of horror writer H.P. Lovecraft) in the 1930s, creator Robert E. Howard envisioned his Cimmerian warrior as one of the forgotten kings of prehistory. Howard combined a love of history and anthropology with a flair for dramatic action; his two dozen Conan stories are considered the seminal works in what would become a subgenre of historical fantasy, dubbed sword & sorcery. Conan has appeared in comic books continuously for more than 40 years, as well as in popular video games, role playing games, and television series.

Despite this popularity, Conan has been absent from the big screen since the underwhelming “Conan the Destroyer” in 1984. The latest incarnation of “Conan the Barbarian” is a sort of reimagined rendition of the first Schwarzenegger Conan film. It isn’t a direct remake, but enough story elements are carried over (particularly ones that are absent from Howard’s stories) that it seems to have been inspired by the 1982 film. So, does the new Conan slay the old? Unfortunately not. The Conan redux is noisy, busy, blurry, and an ill-conceived mess that insults the work of the late Robert E. Howard.

The film’s production got off to an inauspicious start when the director’s chair was offered to Marcus Nispel, the man behind the nauseatingly incoherent actioner “Pathfinder” (2007). The role of the titular hero went to Jason Momoa, who recently appeared in the HBO series “Game of Thrones” in a similar role as a barbarian chieftain. Momoa certainly has the musclebound physique necessary for the role, but brings little else to the table. Rachel Nichols appears as the obligatory woman in need of rescue. Rounding out the cast is Rose McGowan as an evil sorceress, with one of the goofiest, most misbegotten combinations of costume and makeup in recent memory.

The story is even thinner than might be expected from a film that revolves around a muscled hero stabbing lots of villains. The young Conan’s father (played by the venerable Ron Perlman) is killed by a warlord with a silly name, Khalar Zym. Zym escapes after burning Conan’s village, so the young warrior sets out after him for revenge. Cut to a few decades later, where an adult Conan is hot on Zym’s trail. Zym is looking for some ancient magical McGuffin so he can resurrect his evil dead wife, and it’s all very pointless. Conan spends the balance of the film (an interminable 112 minutes long in total) running from place to place, stabbing everything that moves.

If the constant action sequences were entertaining, the film might have at least been somewhat watchable. Instead, Director Nispel indulges in the worst tendencies of modern action filmmakers. Every fight scene (and there are dozens of them) abounds with rapid cuts and shaky, blurry shots. It’s clear that something very exciting is going on, but just what that might be is left to the imagination. Many of the sequences serve no narrative purpose, either. The worst offender is a battle on a boat, in the midst of a trip from one fight location to another. Enemies sneak onto the boat during the journey (and we never see any vessel of theirs; they just appear in the middle of the ocean). After another dizzying bit of combat, the film continues to lurch along, with no changes to the plot or any of the characters.

So if the action – the film’s main selling point – is lousy, what does “Conan the Barbarian” have going for it? It’s hard to find anything positive about this film, as there is far too much wrong with it to fit into one review. Here’s just a handful of other major shortcomings: The script could have fit onto a napkin, as what passes for dialogue is 95% grunts and howls, with the rest mumbled, hackneyed, and unintelligible anyway. The score is incredibly bland (a real shame, as one of the best features of the first Schwarzenegger Conan film was the lush, memorable score by the late, great Basil Poledouris). Jason Momoa makes Arnold Schwarzenegger’s portrayal of the character look like an acting master class.

The excessive gore and hordes of topless women make the film feel like it was designed to appeal only to 14-year-old males; a little restraint in that department would have gone a long way (though a PG-13 rating might have broadened the film’s audience, and if it ended up being profitable we might have had the horror of a sequel on our hands in a few years). The pronunciation of character and place names is horribly mangled throughout (Rachel Nichols is the worst offender, but it’s on the director for not correcting her, or worse, being too ignorant of the source material to know better). The worst slap in the face to fans of the source material comes when a character mentions the classic Conan story “The Tower of the Elephant,” the plot of which would have made an infinitely better film.

In short, “Conan the Barbarian” has absolutely nothing to recommend it. If you’re desperate for a muscled barbarian baddie-slaying fix, just watch the 1982 film, or any of the cheesy ’80s rip-offs it inspired. If you have to have Conan himself, stick with the original stories or the reasonably-faithful ongoing comic book adaptations. Skip this horrendous film, and your eyes, ears and brain will thank you.

– by Demian Morrisroe