Not a remake so much as a new take on Robert E. Howard's original stories, Conan the Barbarian stars Jason Momoa (so tough as the Khal Drogo in Game of Thrones) as the ruthless warrior destined to be a king. As a child, Conan's village is destroyed by the warlord Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang, Avatar) and his weird sorceress daughter Marique (Rose McGowan, Scream), who are searching for the shards of a magical helmet. Once re-assembled, this helmet will allow its wearer to be all-powerful. The shards have been spread out between all the barbarian tribes, so Khalar goes about his business of killing them all, including Conan's father (Ron Perlman, Hellboy). Conan swears vengeance and grows up perfecting his skills as a warrior, ready at any moment to exact his avenging toll on Khalar Zym.
So what does the movie get right? Surprisingly, more than I thought. The movie looks pretty cool, with some nice sets and costumes. The movie, filmed in Bulgaria, looks like a Conan movie should look. And some of the acting is actually pretty decent, especially from Momoa, Lang and Rachel Nichols, who plays Tamara, Conan's love interest. Momoa himself may not be Arnold, but he is a perfectly acceptable Conan. He plays the part with real relish and panache. And Lang looks like he is having a lot of fun as Khalar Zym, and makes for a good, entertaining villain.
A shame about the rest of the movie then! I knew something was wrong from the very first moment when the voiceover narrator introduces the barbarous world of Conan and the narrator's voice belongs to...Morgan Freeman. Yeah, you read that right. Because when I want to hear about armies of ruthless barbarians raping and pillaging their way across an ancient landscape, the first voice I think of is Morgan Freeman's.
What were they thinking?
Some spoilers here, but do you actually care? 'What were they thinking' is that is the primary question in the movie. Nispel is improving as a director and there are moments in the movie that work. But whenever Conan the Barbarian threatens to become halfway decent, something bizarre happens and I say, "what were they thinking?!?!" When the bad guys sneak onto Conan's boat during the dead of night, how come they are fighting in broad daylight in the next shot? What were they thinking? Later, Conan and his lady love leave the boat for some smoosh smoosh time on the rocky shoreline. After said smooth smoosh time (in a little hut that happens to magically appear on the rocky shoreline, by the way), Tamara gets up and goes to the return to the boat. Well, apparently, a massive forest has also magically sprouted between the hut and the shore. Even though the hut was ON THE SHORE. What were they thinking?! How about Khalar Zym's secret weapon, the all-powerful helmet that does nothing but be heavy and make it hard for him to walk around. It is pathetically useless. What were they thinking?!
The main problem lies with the script. There is some creativity buried in there, such as when Conan fights the sand warriors, but for the most part, it is a major rotten egg. The storyline is badly constructed and the lines are pretty lame, such as Conan's life mantra: "I live. I love. I slay. And I am content." Ugh.
And I have to talk about the music. I know I said I wouldn't compare the new Conan to the original, but with the music I have no choice. The original Conan the Barbarian by Basil Poledouris is one of the most brilliant scores in film history. That's a bold statement, but I am standing by it. Full of power and passion, evoking the masters Alfred Newman and Miklos Rozca, Conan the Barbarian stands with Gone with the Wind, Star Wars, Jaws, Ben Hur, and all the other iconic titans of film scores. What Steve Jablonsky creates for the new Conan is the epitome of blah; it is so blah that I can't remember anything about it. I would prefer bad to completely unmemorable. Nothing against Jablonsky, who did admirable work for Transformers and especially The Island, but he was in way over his head here. Maybe it isn't fair for me to complain about this. Maybe I'm just picky because I like film music. I'll stop now. Moving on.
Hm, actually there is only one more thing to say - apparently, the studio targeted the wrong audience for this movie. When I saw it, I was expecting to see a lot of young teenage boys, eager for a chance to see some blood and nudity. There were indeed a few teens in the audience. But they were outnumbered by another constituency that I was shocked to see - middle aged women! There were seriously more middle aged women in the theater for Conan than when I went to see The Help, all of them swooning at a buff Jason Momoa who does oblige them with a gratuitous butt shot. This was all very strange to me.
That was a tangent there. Sorry about that, but the tangent was more entertaining then the movie itself. It is time to reboot this franchise again. You don't even have to go back to the drawing board. Keep Momoa and art team, dump Nispel, Jablonsky, and definitely the writing staff. Just re-arrange some pieces and try again. You might come up with something worth watching.
TRIVIA:
Brett Ratner was the original director, but dropped out. I'm not the biggest fan of Ratner, but he has made some entertaining movies (the first Rush Hour) and he would have been an improvement. Still, for the next Conan, they should really go after someone tough and ruthless. Neil Marshall (Centurion) or Nicola Winding Refn (Valhalla Rising) would both be good choices.
MVP:
I'm actually not going for Momoa, but for Stephen Lang as Khalar Zym. Momoa is a good Conan, but he can't rise beyond the ridiculous dialogue. But Lang owns his scenes. Recognizing the stupidity of what he is saying, he makes the right choice and goes all out. It's a lot of fun watching him chew the scenery into chunks. He breaths some life into the otherwise lifeless proceedings. He even almost saves the worst scene in the whole movie, when Marique tries to seduce him. Lang pushes her off and the look of disgust on his face is awesome - not only is he horrified at his daughter's depravity but in his own bad decision of being in this movie. Maybe that's not what he was going for, but that's what I got out of it. And it was cool. Go Stephen Lang!
BEST LINE:
I am going to reverse this into the best worst line. Time to bring back the "I live. I love. I slay. And I am content." It makes me laugh. It certainly doesn't have the badass ring of what is best to Arnold's Conan: "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women." Ah, good times.
And speaking of the lamentations of the women, have you guys seen Conan the Musical? If not, you need to. Check it out!!!
Re: the audience of middle-aged women. Though not middle aged, I'm right there with them. I will put up with a lot of crappiness in a movie if it features a half-naked, sweaty Jason Momoa.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about "I live, I love, I slay, and I am content" is it's from the original Robert E. Howard stories, specifically, "Queen of the Black Coast." The difference is it's part of a much longer passage where Conan explains exactly what he means by that:
ReplyDeleteConan, do you fear the gods?”
“I would not tread on their shadow,” answered the barbarian conservatively. “Some gods are strong to harm, others, to aid; at least so say their priests. Mitra of the Hyborians must be a strong god, because his people have builded their cities over the world. But even the Hyborians fear Set. And Bel, god of thieves, is a good god. When I was a thief in Zamora I learned of him.”
“What of your own gods? I have never heard you call on them.”
“Their chief is Crom. He dwells on a great mountain. What use to call on him? Little he cares if men live or die. Better to be silent than to call his attention to you; he will send you dooms, not fortune! He is grim and loveless, but at birth he breathes power to strive and slay into a man’s soul. What else shall men ask of the gods?”
“But what of the worlds beyond the river of death?” she persisted.
“There is no hope here or hereafter in the cult of my people,” answered Conan. “In this world men struggle and suffer vainly, finding pleasure only in the bright madness of battle; dying, their souls enter a gray misty realm of clouds and icy winds, to wander cheerlessly throughout eternity.”
Bêlit shuddered. “Life, bad as it is, is better than such a destiny. What do you believe, Conan?”
He shrugged his shoulders. “I have known many gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom’s realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer’s Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.”
Unfortunately, because this is a screenplay based on acid-fueled non-ideas by hare-brained producers instead of an adaptation of one of the great fantasy stories of the 20th Century, those lines lose all their power and meaning when taken out of context and just lumped as they are. Instead of being an encapsulation of Conan's worldview formed by many wanderings and explorations of spiritualities, it comes off as an almost uncaring "who cares, I eat, I kill, I screw, and that's all." It truly depresses me how one of the most powerful lines in the original stories could be so misconstrued.
I truly hated this film.
Hey Taranaich, thanks so much for the context of that line. It makes sense and sounds good in the text you pasted. In the movie, that line was pretty ridiculous and made me laugh. But as part of Conan's overall philosophy in life, it is pretty cool. I have only read a few of the Howard stories...I need to read more of them.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the good comment! Yeah, there were small things I liked about the movie - costumes, sets, Lang, but for the most part it was really horrible.
It was better than Outlander, though. I'll give it that.
Hello
ReplyDeleteamazing post.
thank you