|
www.kevacho.com
©2002-2024
Kevin Michael Vance
Writer - Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Go Back To Reviews
Title: CONAN THE BARBARIAN
Director: Mike Nispel
Year: 2011
Reviewed: December 07, 2011
| Rating: |
|
 | |
 | |
| |
| |
Rice Cake-Lowest Rating |
[Rating Definitions]
|
|
|
Conan the Barbarian -- the remake.
Allow me to set this review as it should be, a direct comparison to the very first Conan the Barbarian the 1982 movie starring the ever entertaining (whether you like him or not) Arnold. I loved the first film with James Earl Jones as Thulsa Doom, and Arnold grunting his guttural way through every scene with the aplomb of a mastodon. The production value is incredible: from the set design to the swords (which are functional works of pure talent and art). And the story is a dark depiction of one mans journey for revenge, and a descent into religious madness.
This new film is pathetic. Gone are the incredible production values. Gone is the style and the attention to detail. Conan the Barbarian -- the remake looks more like an episode of Xena, Warrior Princess than a full blown movie experience. The gore is laughable, with one splatter scene after another. The makeup is atrocious; uneven, rubbery and fake looking; the fake teeth are of special hideous note. Some of the acting is okay, but the players muddle through horribly written dialogue that, once again, sounds as if Sam Rami wrote it, or rather, written for a modern cop drama as opposed to a fantasy piece; way too modern, with zero style or form or even simple panache. The costuming looks very stage-like, with no sense of age or use. The swords are pathetic and huge (kind’a like the film). However, the real problem with Nispel’s film is the utter lack of any coherent story, or any character structure of any kind. Conan jumps an leaps through Hyboria lopping off heads and hands, fucking wenches, foiling sorcerers and guess what? I don’t fuckin’ care! We know much to nothing about who he is as a man, and his motivations are so trivialized that it simply doesn’t matter. There is no beauty in the remake as there was in the 82 version, and the score is a pail comparison to what Basil Poledouris produced.
As any reader can tell, I was highly disappointed with the remake of Conan the Barbarian. Just because there are computers and C.G. and you have a butt-load (that’s a scientific quantification, by the way) of money doesn’t mean you can make something better. Story, story, story! Character, character, character! These are the aspects that make a good and compelling movie. I have had many discussions as to why Hollywood is continually producing horrible remake after horrible remake. And I hold to what I’m about to say, it is not that no one can write an original idea and compelling story. No. It has nothing to do with the writers, and everything to do with Hollywood’s lack of vision. Believe me when I tell you this, there are hundreds of original, brilliant pieces of work sitting atop some production companies shelves jut waiting to see the light of day. It is the undeniable fact that Hollywood lacks the prerequisite balls to spend money on anything original. Conan the remake is sugary sprinkles on a cloying frosting already spread across sickly sweet cake. It is shlock. It is eyes candy that makes you want to puke if you see too much. Therefore, it gets my lowest review, RICE CAKE.
Do yourself a favor. Do NOT see the remake. Instead, rent the 1982 version written by Oliver Stone and John Milius.
|
|
