7/10
Pretty good, wish it had a different cast though
25 January 2015
Yes, we have to remember this is a movie from the early 80s. Also, the original stories, written for pulp magazines, weren't exactly deep, yet Conan and his stories still are beloved all around the world - for a reason. Howard was able to dream up a quite believable world, full of myths and secrets, a dangerous place to be in. And he dreamed up a character that was more than just a brute. He wasn't running around in a loincloth 24/7, and he used his brains just as much as he used his fists. He was cunning, ironic, funny, and definitely not a mere brute.

While this movie does a good job (considering its age and the era it was made in) at showing us a world quite similar to what is described in the stories.

However, what kills it for me is Schwarzenegger. While he physically surely is able to portray a barbarian, with a very muscular and well-toned body, his accent, the bland look on his face and the totally emotionless delivery of lines make Conan look like some grinning, stupid mountain of muscles, which does NOT do the stories justice at all.

I am sorry, I know Arnie polarizes a lot, and I guess there is a certain "trademark" thing he has with the accent etc, but he surely makes Conan look totally sad here.

As much as I think the recent remake (from 2011, I think?) was pretty much a failure regarding acting and plot, the Conan in that movie seemed to have at least a tiny bit of intelligence, slyness and wit.

This movie has its moments, and I wish they could do another remake with some of THIS movies atmosphere plus a less "hur hur I beat you to a pulp, puny little man" type main character, but an actor who is able to portray Conan better - as someone who was a powerful fighter, yet also a smart, cunning man.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed