“Let you look sometimes for the goodness in me, and judge me not.”
~Arthur Miller
If you would judge, understand.
~Lucius Annaeus Seneca
While the corpse of Robert E. Howard was turning over shamefaced in his grave, the 2011 reboot of the Conan film franchise died a brutal death at the box office this weekend. The movie’s tagline should have been “Heads will roll”, for that is certainly what was happening at Lionsgate on Monday morning. The 90 million dollar fantasy film stole a paltry 10 million dollars from the movie-going public over its opening weekend. And 10 dollars of that sum was from yours truly.
What was I, an avowed hater of paying full price on weekend nights at the theater, doing on a Friday night paying $10 to see Conan?
Don’t judge me too harshly before you read my thoughts on what could have been.
But before we get to that, lets talk about what is.
I would be lying if I had said I had high hopes for Conan. My gut told me what to expect and unfortunately that is exactly what I received.
THE GOOD:
Jason Momoa was really not a bad choice to step into the shoes once filled by Arnold “I’ll be back” Schwarzenegger. In looks he is much closer to the iconic Conan images painted by master illustrator Frank Frazetta. He was a slightly more articulate Conan, which is more true to Howard’s source material, and he was a convincing barbarian-out-for-vengeance.
Rachel Nichols was a nice choice for Conan’s love interest. She is beautiful, which of course doesn’t hurt, but she also did a good job of infusing her character with spunk and spirit while avoiding the cliche of being overly headstrong.
The scenery, be it CGI or on location, in some parts of the film was absolutely gorgeous. And some of the CGI created ruins and cities were top notch as well. In particular a city that was no doubt modeled on the art of Tom Kidd.
It was entertaining. For all the problems with the film, and there are problems galore, I did enjoy it. What enjoyment I derived from it lies manly in my affection for the work of Robert E. Howard and also for Arnold’s first portrayal of the barbarian. I brought those affections with me to the film. Is it a hot mess? No, but it is derivative and largely lifeless and the great travesty of spending $90 million to make this is that it could have been so much more.
THE BAD:
The story.
“What story?”, you might ask.
“Exactly!” would be my reply.
It has been long enough since I first partook of Howard’s work for me to say definitively that his source material was not consulted for this screenplay. There just might be a great deal of words and names and scenes borrowed from Howard’s work. But there is nothing of the spirit of the Conan stories in the writing behind this film. Nothing.
Conan the Barbarian is as unimaginative, unoriginal and derivative as any fantasy/sword and sorcery film ever made. This type of story has been rehashed, and much more skillfully so, for decades both in print and on screen. I won’t be spoiling anything to reveal the plot:
a. Man with lust for power kills young boy’s father in front of him while the man’s henchmen look on and participate to varying degrees.
b. Boy survives and goes on quest to avenge his father.
c. Grown up boy meets each henchman individually in a prescribed order and dispatches them violently.
d. Grown up boy has brief romantic interlude.
e. Romantic interlude becomes a damsel in distress.
f. Grown up boy rescues damsel, kills bad guy, rides off into the sunset.
I am the first to admit that I don’t always mind a hackneyed, overused plot in either books or films as long as they are fun and offer me something that sparks my interest. But this one was largely lifeless and the fact that it was based on a set of misrepresented and sometimes unfairly judged stories makes it all the more tragic that this screenplay was given the blessing of those holding the purse strings for this project.
THE UGLY:
Who came up with the idea of taking reasonably attractive women and making them look hideous in some way so that we, the idiot film-going audience, can tell at a glance that they are “evil”? Rose McGowan is this film’s “witchy woman”, daughter of the villain of the piece. I’m not sure who came up with the brilliant idea of having her be a half-bald chick, but that person should be slapped. Hard. This character’s design tries to hard to pair a warped personality with a warped outer appearance and the results are both cheesy and ugly with no reason for the ugly part to exist.
The editing. For many scenes of the film the bad guy drags an enormous boat across the land on the backs of dozens of elephants. The result is a slow moving entourage that looks incredibly silly each time you see it. Then, inexplicably, the boat is never used. Not only that, but when some of the bad guy’s henchmen actually pursue and overtake Conan’s boat in the wee hours of the morning, they do so in a much smaller craft. I have no doubt that there are big chunks of scene either left on the cutting room floor or were never filmed because of budgetary reasons. Because of this you have an elephant/boat wagon train across the varying landscapes of Hyboria that begs the audience to consider Conan a comedy rather than a “serious” fantasy film.
Adding to the comedic elements is Conan’s birth scene. Conan’s father, played by Ron Perlman, turns out to be the most skilled obstetrician in film history. He demonstrates his skill by performing a one stroke C-section on his wife, all while looking directly in her eyes and not at her midsection, and extracts a crying Conan for his mother to see just before her death. I am not sure where all of the $90 million was spent, but none of it was wasted on making a realistic CGI baby. It was tempting to walk out right then. And after this Razzie-worthy opening scene we are treated to a long scene of Conan’s middle years merely to set up the played out storyline of his father’s death and the vengeance for that death.
And finally, we come to Rachel Nichols again. Conan the Barbarian earns its R rating in large part because of the violence, but also because of an extended sex scene in which we see more of Ms. Nichols than we see in many of her other roles. No hot-blooded heterosexual male in history will complain about seeing some of a beautiful woman’s naughty bits on screen, and I won’t be the first. Rachel Nichols is a comely lass. But she has to be kicking herself after this opening weekend disaster that she chose to bare her soul in a film that by no definition known to man could be called “art”.
And now we come to:
WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN:
I was first exposed to the writings of Robert E. Howard in late 2005 and early 2006. Prior to picking up the wonderful Del Ray reprints of the Wandering Star volumes, which restored Howard’s works to their original form, I had some definite ideas about Conan and those were formed largely from the earlier film versions. While I enjoyed them as a child I didn’t credit their source material as being anything worthy of reading. But then I gave Robert E. Howard a try and I was pleasantly surprised.
What I discovered was a man who was possibly one of the most interesting authors in the history of American Literature and a set of stories that defied all my expectations.
“As a boy and a youth in my teens, I read purely for the love of reading. I can say with confidence that no man ever loved reading for its own sake more than I. I did not read because of any particular urge for learning, or to merely pass the time, or to escape the realities of life. I read simply because I loved reading for its own sake alone. The printed page was like wine to me.”
Robert E. Howard was a practical man who wrote a whole host of stories featuring a wide array of memorable characters. He did not expect his stories to amount to much and I wonder what he would think of the life that his creations still have all these decades later.
“My sole desire in writing is to make a reasonable living. I may cling to many illusions, but I am not ridden by the illusion that I have anything wonderful or magical to say, or that it would amount to anything particularly if I did say it…I took up writing simply because it seemed to promise an easier mode of work, more money, and more freedom than any other job I’d tried. I wouldn’t write otherwise.”
Despite his practicality and blatant honesty about why he wrote, he created one of the most memorable and long-lasting characters in the history of twentieth century fantasy and is widely regarded as the father of the sword and sorcery genre. His Hyborian Age is an early example of the kind of word building in fantasy that we see continue up through Tolkien and into contemporary fantasy.
In 2006 I wrote:
“My surprise in reading the stories of Conan was that he is not the ignorant barbarian that he has been portrayed as over the years. Conan is a savage in comparison to the more cultured people’s who populate his world, his people are strong and mighty and come from a tradition of success by labor and battle, but he is not ignorant. Conan may be a man of simple wants and desires but he is also intelligent, shrewd and cunning. I was pleasantly surprised at the philosophical leanings of Howard’s barbarian. These stories are rich with action and adventure but the real treasure is the way in which Howard’s words bring these tales to life. He really was a unique and talented storyteller.”
In the various stories detailing the adventures of Conan you find a series of what are now considered very cliched stories but Howard’s talent infuses them with a unique literary style. I hardly know how to describe it. It is something you just have to experience. But given this rich and rewarding source material, I don’t understand why a successful (read: satisfying) film version of Conan couldn’t be made.
A skilled film maker with a desire to make Robert E. Howard’s work come alive on the big screen could create something that was a box office success and was memorable, a film that would stand out in the sword and sorcery genre and would join films like The Lord of the Rings in demonstrating to audiences and to film companies that a well made and lovingly crafted fantasy film is box office gold. Instead we get the kind of dreck that could have existed on screen with any character name. The 2011 Conan the Barbarian film could just has easily been called Bob the Barbarian as there is nothing but a few names lazily borrowed from Howard’s Canon to associate this movie with the work that Howard created.
In recent years the quote “Don’t judge a book by its movie” has become popular. It couldn’t be used more appropriately than when comparing this film to the printed pages that “inspired” it.
um, sorry you wasted your $10 bucks. If I do watch it, it will be for Jason Momoa’s sake. It tickled me that the entire time he was playing Ronan on Stargate Atlantis, Rodney McKay was calling him Conan…
To be perfectly honest I had a really good time seeing it with my friend Jeff and despite all that I complained about (legitimately so) I am actually glad I went and saw it in the theater on a big screen. I just hate the waste as there are good Conan stories to be told.
I feel sorry for Momoa because I did think he did well in the role and it is a shame for him that the film has no legs.
I knew it was doomed when we had about 30 people in a theater that seats hundreds.
Love Jason Momoa. Didn’t especially love anyone else, although I never hate seeing Ron Perlman. I actually didn’t think the love interest was all that great. Agree with you about pretty much everything else. Major problem? The dialogue that appeared to have been written by middle schoolers in their tree house. Painful.
I didn’t think they did much with Rachel Nichols, but I did like her in the scenes she was in. Had they cut out the hours of back story I think she would have proven to be a really good choice with a more meaty role.
Yes, the dialogue was another one of those derivative dumbed down sword and sorcery cliches.
And I like Ron Perlman too, but to be honest his presence in this one right at the beginning also destroyed any early hopes that it might be good.
hmm. never thought about Conan being based on a book.
I lack a fondness for the early Schwarzenegger film; which I mostly watched again recently with Sean who is the greater fan.
This is a great review; it fulfills my mild curiosity about how they handled the remake. I will have to pass this along.
I’d love to hear Sean’s thoughts whenever he gets around to seeing it (on DVD or Netflix). I’m not sure I would have liked Arny’s film if I had first seen it as an adult, but I enjoyed it as a young man and when I view it now it is through the eyes of nostalgia and so its faults don’t bother me.
The Del Ray versions of the Conan Canon (there are three volumes) are books I highly recommend.
thanks for the book recommends.
I watched Conan as a kid. Conan, Red Sonja, Lady Hawk, among others made their regular rotations via my eldest brother’s control of the television. (I really dug Red Sonja.) I don’t think I watched Conan again until we watched Valhalla Rising and so much of it was called to mind. And then, of course, with the announcement of this remake. It is a film that has left a mark.
I still like what I did then: the unusual lack of speaking by protagonist, the brevity of the back story, and the spare landscape–yet you understand what is going on. I guess it was a given that you would avenge your father?–has that changed? is that why Ron Perlman was so necessary?
I did hope that bigger budget would translate into something new and exciting with Conan; apparently it was misspent.
I watched those a lot as well. I liked Red Sonja too.
The biggest problem with this story is that most of it just wasn’t necessary. People at this point either know who Conan is or probably don’t care at all about his back story. Rather than tell a standard boy’s journey to avenge his father tale you have this source material that is rich with little details about Hyboria, which is a fascinating place, and all these interesting adventures, many with a supernatural bent, that Conan goes on which would have made for a far better story. The child playing young Conan did a really good job and those scenes were actually nicely done, but it just didn’t need to be that kind of story.
Ummm I will pass on this movie. I am sure I am in the lesser than low who think Arnold was actually perfect for the role ..and the less speach was right also.. (loved Mako as the wizard too! lol) So I am sort of glad to hear that it isn’t a “huge success” even if it’s “ok/ good”..
Who came up with the idea of taking reasonably attractive women and making them look hideous in some way so that we, the idiot film-going audience, can tell at a glance that they are “evil”?
You can blame that on the fact that every woman in hollywood has has so many face lifts that there are no “character actresses” left to use!
True, but even the worse face lifts leave the actress with hair on her head! 🙂
I enjoyed Arnold as Conan but loved the idea of them getting someone more like Frazetta’s interpretation. I don’t mind the lack of speech, there wasn’t a ton of it in this film, but Momoa is a lot easier to take seriously and fits Howard’s characterization of Conan being intelligent, just not in the eyes of the elite.
My friends and I quite enjoyed this movie. Yes there were flaws, and the story could have been done much better. However, I don’t feel I wasted my money, I have seen much worse films. The CGI scenery was excellent.
I don’t regret the evening because it ended with some lively discussion. Such as “What was the point of the quails egg?” and so on (I don’t want to add any spoilers here).
I’m in the same boat as you, Ian. I don’t regret seeing it at all. Part of my friendship with Jeff is intricately entwined with both the work of Frank Frazetta and Howard’s Conan, so I am so glad we saw this together and we had a lot of fun talking about the things that annoyed us and dreaming of what a “real” Conan film could be like. Well worth the $10 for me, but I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone at all unless they were a Conan fan like I am.
Um, your a-f sounds kinda like The Princess Bridge.
I’m sorry the movie stunk, but like you, that is pretty much what I was expecting! I actually enjoyed the Arnold versions of the Conan (much to my surprise) when I was a kid – although that could be because I watched them with my dad – and I’ve never read any other stories. So I think I’ll leave my memories of Conan as they are. At least until the movie hits Netflix. 🙂
I’m kind of hoping this Conan somehow gets the Arnold versions up on the Watch Instantly queue. I’d actually like to watch them again. It has been way too long.
We did have a great time watching Conan last Friday night even though it wasn’t the best film. I still thought it looked great and was worth my money because of my love of Conan.
It’s just the story they used for this movie was so basic and overdone. I knew as well right from the opening scene that they had botched the story.
Why they couldn’t make a story using the original Robert E Howard stories is beyond me. You could string together many of the REAL classic stories he wrote such as Red Nails, Phoenix and the Sword and/or Hour of the Dragon while still dropping in side stories such as Queen of the Black Coast or the Frost Giant’s Daughter. The bottom line is the reason Howard’s stories have survived so long is that the source material, just like Ian Fleming’s James Bond’s stories, is so good. It just makes me so mad that Hollywood time and time again buys the rights to books and then just uses the names of the characters and throws the actual story out of the window when they write the screen play. It drives me crazy.
Back to the film. I really liked Jason Mamoa and Rachel Nichols. For me it was worth seeing it for them. They exceeded what they could do with the material they were given.
If you love fantasy films and Conan you will enjoy the film if you go in with just popcorn flick expectations otherwise I wouldn’t recommend it if fantasy isn’t really your thing.
I’m with you on all counts. I wish the people selling film rights had the ability to negotiate a contract that was dependent on them actually adapting the work to some percentage of faithfulness rather than being able to just buy the book’s influence.
The Bond books are a good example. Other than Daniel Craig’s version of Casino Royale, I have yet to read a Bond story that in any way resembles the films I have watched. Some of the films are still okay, but they travel far and wide of what Ian Fleming wrote in the books.
I would like to see fewer adaptations and more original work on screen and would like to see the adaptations that do come out actually be ones made by skilled film makers who have a passion for the source material. At least if they screw it up from that point you can look back and see that their heart was in the right place.
Wow. I didn’t know it bombed that much at the box office. Ouch!
I’m disappointed that it is so bad. These kind of movies can be mildly entertaining and it’s summer, when I feel like watching these movies in the theater escaping the heat and normal life. You were braver than me, once I started reading reviews I decided to pass on it.
I’m sorry that you didn’t have a great time.
Actually we did have a great time but that had less to do with the movie and more with our affection for Conan and the fun we had just hanging out.
When the 7:30 p.m. movie started and there was almost no one in that cavernous theater I knew it was a bad sign. On opening weekend a film should draw people regardless of reviews and it was obvious with this one that either very few people are interested in this character at all, or the marketing campaign failed miserably, or maybe a combination of both.
I told friends awhile back that regardless of reviews and despite my expectations of them being bad I was going to for sure see Conan and also John Carter of Mars in the theater. I am a big fan of those works of classic fantasy/science fiction and although I don’t trust Hollywood to do them right I still wanted to experience them on the big screen.
Which is why my overall disappointment in the film didn’t translate into a disappointing night, and probably won’t when I see John Carter either.
I’ll be there with you to see John Carter of Mars as well my friend. 🙂
I REALLY can’t wait until we go see The Hobbit films. Now that will be something. Only 17 months to go until An Unexpected Journey comes out I believe. Howdy Hoo! I’m already excited about them.
Me too. Whether or not Peter Jackson and company recapture the magic, that is an adaptation that I feel confident is being made by people who care about the source material and also care about making good films. I’m not thrilled about them making up a new elf character to put in the films, but I suspect I’ll find Evangeline Lilly cute enough as an elf to be forgiving of the writers.
I highly suspect we will forgive as well. 😉
I’m purposefully not reading The Hobbit again until after these two films come out. I had started to read it earlier but decided that my vague memories of it will better serve me so that I can just enjoy Jackson’s interpretation and then can re-read the book again.
I didn’t even know that they were making this movie, so maybe the marketing team dropped the ball on this one!
Its possible. I don’t watch live television at all outside of football season and Castle and the occasional Masterpiece Mystery so I have no idea what movies are being pushed via commercials. I see stuff like this a lot simply because I visit a lot of SFF websites or see stuff about it on Twitter.
Awww….man you’d be an awesome movie consultant!
Thanks!!! 😉 Now if only I could get them to consult me BEFORE they made the film! 😉
Wow, that was quite the brutal review.
I’m glad I didn’t go along, plus, I was working. 😛
I don’t think I have even seen the Arnold version.
Had to be honest. I know it sounds crazy after all that to say that I still enjoyed the film, but that is the truth as well.
How could you have possibly gotten through your formative years without seeing Arnie as Conan?!?!
I know, it sounds crazy, right?
I feel like I need to host a Conan party!
I was about to type “loincloths optional” but then imagined how that might be interpreted. LOL!
Yeah, let’s save that for the actual invitations.
You need to see the original “Arnold” version. It’s actually pretty good.
You would have enjoyed this version too James. It’s funny because everyone in the comments keeps thinking Carl hated it from his review above but that’s not the case at all. If nothing else Carl’s review has lead to some pretty hilarious comments.
A very thoughtful review, Carl, which I’ve passed on to my husband, a huge Robert E Howard fan who had been trying to persuade me to see this but was beginning to have doubts. We saw the trailer when we went to see Cowboys & Aliens and it looked spectacular but I was unconvinced. I suspect we will watch this at some point but not necesarily on the big screen!
Bride: I have talked to Jeff, of course, who I saw this with and also our friend Jerry who saw it earlier this past week and we all three have the same thoughts: we really enjoyed seeing it, were glad to see it on the big screen, felt Momoa was an excellent choice for Conan, and yet also know the movie could have been so much more. I’ll be interested in seeing what your hubbie thinks of it. I suspect you guys might actually enjoy it and have that same reaction. Had it not been a Conan film I’m not sure I would have judged it so harshly.
I’m mostly sad because it not doing well means that a sequel (which might mean a chance of actually using Howard’s work and doing it right) is unlikely.
Interesting review. I have never read a movie review like this. All the points needed to know is here.
I haven’t seen it yet, but I would love too. The story is that bad, huh? well I guess I have to watch it for the visual effect only.
thanks for the review Carl
It isn’t great, Novroz. Or at least it would have been okay on some level for a B grade film but not for Conan when there is such rich source material to mine.
I totally agree with everything you said. I made a similar point on Facebook. What happened to a film that combines a great story with the action? The Lord of the Rings films accomplished it so why couldn’t this one. I was vastly disappointed. Even the original film had more story than this one did. I agree that Momoa did a decent job and he does more closely resemble the look of Conan. Too bad his big screen debut had to be a tanker. 🙁 I am also a major fan of the books. I haven’t read all of them, but I read many in my early twenties and they have stuck with me. My appreciation of Howard’s books led me to acquire a couple omnibus editions of his Conan books so I have more Conan to look forward to. This is the Conan I know and respect.
I’m with you Michelle. Even though I had fun watching this I cannot muster any respect for it and I cannot imagine ever watching it again unless I’m in a mood to laugh at elephants carrying a boat across great land masses.
There really is no plausible excuse for this not at least making the effort to combine great story with action. It isn’t like they had to go out and make something up from scratch.