Conan

1982 Conan - The Barbarian was the big breakthrough for the then still quite unknown Arnold Schwarzenegger. The adventure film based on the stories of Robert E. Howard was not necessarily a critics' favorite, but was well received by audiences and has since become a real cult film. Now, Texas Chainsaw Massacre director Marcus Nispel is attempting a reimagining of the material and taking on a tough legacy.

The story tells of the Cimmerian Conan (Jason Momoa), who has known only one emotion since childhood: revenge! Revenge against the warlord Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang), who once killed Conan's father (Ron Perlman) in front of the then young boy and slaughtered his entire home village with his entourage. When he meets the beautiful nun Tamara (Rachel Nichols), Conan sees his chance has come. For Khalar Zym is desperate for the young woman, whose pure blood means he needs her for a ceremony to bring his dead wife back to life. And so Conan uses Tamara as bait to finally quench his thirst for revenge. But Khalar Zym also has a few trump cards up his sleeve.

Marcus Nispel's Conan is truly not a very good movie. The dialogue is extremely flat and often unintentionally funny. Lines like I live. I love. I kill. That's enough are truly anything but award-worthy. With such templates, the actors also remain rather wooden. Jason Momoa, who is very sympathetic in interviews and tries his best to play a solid barbarian, can only put this intention into action in a few moments. Rachel Nichols isn't allowed to be anything more than a constantly shrieking attractive accessory, and Rose McGowan is also only mildly convincing as the daughter of Khalar Zym, despite her respectable magical powers. Even Stephen Lang, who had shone as a villain in Avatar, is not much more here than a parody of himself.

But since the 1982 film by John Milius was also no example of intelligent head cinema and could rather entertain in a brute and sometimes trashy way, the question now naturally arises whether the 2011 Conan is not somehow fun despite its weaknesses in content and acting? The answer to that could well be yes under certain conditions. The most important prerequisite is that the film is not taken too seriously. But this only works if there is no special affinity to the '82 movie or the literary model. For only those who don't feel that a cherished original has been trashed here can enjoy the successful aspects of Marcus Nispel's slaughter platter.

While the dialogues come along as already mentioned rather unintentionally funny, the sometimes very crude fight scenes are quite obviously deliberately overdone brutally staged. Noses and other body parts fly into the viewer's lap in a neat 3D look, beheadings are done for all they're worth and gallons of computer-generated blood are splattered all over the place. But especially when Conan flexes his muscles against sand demons or an octopus-like monster, the entertainment value of the film increases significantly. It's also at moments like these that it becomes clear that Conan itself, and Jason Momoa in particular, could have had potential to provide much better entertainment for the viewer, and much more satisfying entertainment for the fans, than it did under Marcus Nispel's direction.

So if you can take the film for what it is, fun barbarian trash, you will be well entertained by this reinterpretation of Conan. But those who were hoping for more, and especially love the Schwarzenegger version of the barbarian, will definitely be furiously wielding the battle axe!

An article by Frankfurt-Tipp