giannis_maggos So I heard about this movie before but I never get to watch it. I spptted Last night on Tv and I say What the hell let's watch it . I have to say the Visuals and some of the actions scenes were good but the movie overall is a Generic Fantasy film full of Cliches and Terrible Dialogues. Don't waste your time in this movie

blrnani Things got off to a poor start with Morgan Freeman's unconvincing audio introduction and the pause for Conan's father to perform a lightning C-section on his dying mother in the midst of a violent battle. Then it started looking up, as we see the young Conan as an impetuous anger-filled youth who is already skillful enough to take down a group of marauders all on his own. He is then given good reason to be angry, as a new invader destroys his village and leaves him in an impossible situation trying to save his father's life. the father has the wisdom to end it himself, to assuage any guilt. But there's always revenge as a motive. Then the youth has grown into a hulk (better explained in the Arny version), yet the rage seems to have evaporated, even if the desire for revenge still drives him. Nonso Anozie is a fun character who leaves all too soon (and will be disappointed the flop is unlikely to generate the equel he deserved). Then we meet the ambiguous Rachel Nichols, who one moment is an admirable self-sufficient match for Conan and the next is behaving like a helpless screamy slasher movie victim. Stephen Lang's villain is of Shakespearean roots, more prone to explaining his villainy than actually inspiring terror. And as for Rose McGowan's witch, it must make even the most ardent appreciators of her denunciation wonder what Weinstein saw in her in the first place (perhaps weirdness inspires weirdness). The combined result is that, for all the action, one finds oneself not really caring much about the outcome, especially as it is clearly established that good will overcome evil (ok, so Bond always wins, but at least there are convincing obstacles in his way). The whole thing makes me wonder what we reasonably expect from a Conan film. The Arny original is a classic, but despite nice touches and humour the three weren't exactly great movies, let's be honest. I suppose the closest to the ideal was Vin Diesel in The Chronicles of Riddick, with a great warrior who is also clever and whose qualities attract followers to the cause. If he has to be muscle bound then I suppose one thinks of Dwayne Johnson in The Scorpion King. The key is a good story that is convincingly acted (room for humour and romance optional).

DeadSpiderEye In truth this flick is not a complete pile of something you'd rather not stepped in. It is a teensy bit crap in places, there's an iffy cgi monster, a few crummy props and stunts that look as though they belong in a 1980's TV sword and sorcery series but those are kind of forgivable. What really wrecks this flick, is that it's Conan played gay, forget Rose McGowan's recommendation for Jason Momoa's arse, that's not even the worse part, it's the fact that Momoa comes over about as hard as a sherry trifle, wobbling on tea trolley with three wheels. I mean it's like he's looking for the mirror all the time, he even gives the camera a hair toss on more than one occasion, what is this, a Cadbury's flake ad? When you consider the legacy of the 1980's Conan, a film that broke all the rules, that caused the blue rinses in the press to wet their knickers and that still stands today as a mold breaking epic, it's all such a terrible shame. This flick puts the state of the art back to things like: The Beastmaster and The Sword and the Sorcerer.

TreeOfWolf I couldn't watch the whole movie, but I doubt it got better.I watched the 1982 version before watching it. Conan became a slave who was forced to be barbaric to survive, but then had the chance to discover the value of his own freedom, friendship... and love. Falling for a woman who helped him fight, as an equal, for revenge and everyone's justice at the same time. She ends up sacrificing herself to save him when he was helpless.The new version is completely different. It shows an arrogant guy who uses the word "woman" in a derogatory way, calling her his property and bossing her around. When she says that she doesn't have to obey him just because he's a man... he freaking gags her! That's where I stopped watching the movie. She had the dignity and courage to stand up for herself, and he wouldn't even listen, forcefully, with no respect whatsoever. That's a horrible message to give the new generation of women and men.I am ashamed that the women rights actually got worse 30 years later! Women are born to live their life, not to serve a man's life. Men shouldn't stay helpless babies needing a mommy to serve them all their lives.No amount of amusing gore can make up for this disaster. I like slasher movies with psychopaths killing sluts and I laugh while they scream. But I couldn't stand watching this respectable woman be degraded. The psychological violence was so nasty that it felt worse than murder. Weird but true. I can understand a psychopath's madness... but trying to make abusing women seem like a normal manly thing to do... it repulsed me.The story is so different that it shouldn't be called the same way, but the film makers probably tried to use the old one's fame to seem more interesting than they tried to be. Lame trick. The old movie had more depth in silent stares than anything that came out of the new Conan's mouth.Stick with the Arnold version. Terminate this horrible remake.Old crap is way better than this new crap.I guess that if you're a misogynist, you won't see anything wrong with this movie.Otherwise, don't bother.