Genres

Visitors Review

marco-trigo 2012-05-25 02:47:08

Lord of the... what?

Many years ago, the Conan franchise was the first movie I ever watchedin the cinema, and I would later follow Conan in his various magazineoff-springs. I love the barbarian, his coldness and brutality, so Iwent to watch this movie with and open mind, wanting to enjoy it fully.Seriously though, my first thought was why doesn't anyone ever destroyanything? This movie starts out and ends up like a cheap rip-off ofLord Of The Rings. I mean, the bad guy loses a mask that is broken inseven fragments instead of destroyed; another bad guy falls down into alava stream wearing the mask.Doesn't it sound like something you saw before? On all levels, thismovie is a mess. The acting is unconvincing, the 3D really wasn't allthat noticeable, the clichés were too bad to even be considered camp. Imean, I counted at least three times when someone dies, so someone elselifts something in the air with an unconvincing roar. Honestly: in theopening scene I shouted "Chosen Simba!".I blame it on the script. Half the time you get the idea there's nodirection whatsoever and filler all the way, with battles that leadnowhere and really feel like the director didn't have enough script touse, so he simply inserted a couple of scenes to burn some time.They really lead nowhere and sometimes are just pointless. Why theantagonist, after having faced Conan and failing to kill him or obtainhis goal, decides to send a boat after him, when he could muster anarmy of thousands, is just beyond my understanding. What I like themost is how characters seem to disappear from the movie mid-scene forno reason, as if nobody could come up with an idea as to what thatcentral character would remain in the scene.So off it goes and maybe nobody will notice. This is not like some CGIorcs disappearing while falling from a bridge like on LOTR. No: this ismain characters crossing their hands and doing absolutely nothing.But again, what else to expect from the script? Here we have a guy whoslaughters whole villages, leads an army of some of the ugliest peopleyou'll ever see, seeks an artifact of fearsome power and lives in ahuge fortress, but for some reason you just can't find anyone with ahint at what his name is. Sure, this is not the age of CNN, but thisfoe is hardly discrete. It's not like he's disguised! It's not like oneof his servants doesn't carry a mark Conan himself left.Dumb, dumb, dumb.So then the guy gets the mask and guess what... it's painfully useless.He doesn't get stronger, bigger, faster, has absolutely no new trickswith which to save his behind and for all the trouble and thousands heslaughtered, he would have been better off buying an iPad.It would have been equally useless before the invention of Internet,but at least it would be a cool gimmick with which to impress themorons of the Hyborian age.Good grief, what a mess.

jgilliammartin 2012-05-24 07:27:35

You'll love it if you know what you're in for.

Yes, 10 out of 10. Why? Because I went to the theater (which I rarelydo to begin with) to see a Conan film. I wanted to see a ruggedbarbarian brutally slaughter a lot of people. I wanted to see lots ofviolent and bloody fight scenes, particularly involving sword-play. Ialso expected some sorcery, mild romance, nudity, and occasionallaughs. This movie delivered all of these things and then some.I understand this is not some Oscar worthy film, nor do I believe itwas intended to be. The cheesiness one would expect from a swords andsorcery flick was there throughout the movie, but it seemed to me itwas more of an homage to the cheese of bad-films-passed. Though I wasmost definitely laughing at the movie and not with it, I am pretty sureeveryone involved in making the film was laughing at it with me. Andfairly, any laughs I had were quickly followed by appropriate violenceto compensate.The plot is silly, yes. It's unrealistic. That is because it's fantasy.If you people start infesting my fantasy with reality, I will neverforgive you. Most of the people who aren't enjoying this movie probablywrote raving reviews for "The Help". But because I am the kind ofperson who prefers a film like Conan, I'll probably never see "TheHelp".My point? If you aren't into over-the-top, bizarre story-line andhacking and slashing violence, don't go see Conan, it wasn't made foryou.If you are like me and you suck up as much fantasy genre as possible,see it, and see it in the theater. But skip the 3-D, it is mostdefinitely not worth the extra money, as now I plan to go back and seeit again in 2-D. None of the 3-D in this movie made any sense (exceptthe title sequence with the embers, that was pretty cool).

goku_san02 2012-05-23 15:37:36

A great action flick, not an Oscar contender

I can't help but feel the people rating this movie down were the oneswho saw Schwarzenegger's Conan when they were teens and are now judgingthis without the rose-colored glasses of youth.I think Jason Momoa does a wonderful job on this style of Conan. Whilemore energetic overall, his interpretation of Conan is very similar tohis character of Ronon on Stargate Atlantis. He's a more youthful,brash, and hot-headed Conan than Arnold played and that's fine with me.This movie has no more and no less attention paid to the plot, dialog,and directing than many other action films both better and worse.I will take this poorly rated Conan reboot over the higher ratedIndiana Jones and the Crystal Skull any day. This movie was made tohave action and entertain and I feel that was accomplished.

Johnny Hollywood 2012-05-23 02:03:37

A meandering cluster of 'been there's' and 'done thats.'

Another month, another pointless, Hollywood, cash cow remake. But thisone is a little different. As is the case with most uninspired reboots,the audience leaves the cinema, agreeing almost in unison that no manor woman should have ever attempted to remake such a classic film inthe first place. This is not the case for Conan The Barbarian (a remakeof its 1982 namesake starring The Governator), only because theoriginal isn't exactly considered a masterpiece in its own right.Unfortunately, that doesn't mean we ought to treat this modernadaptation with any greater leniency.Conan (Jason Momoa) was always destined to be a warrior, born on thebattlefield and raised to be a skilled fighter by his father Corin (RonPerlman). After he is forced to watch the murder of his father at thehands of Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang), we fast-forward twenty years, atwhich point Conan continues to seek revenge. This leads him on aperilous journey on which he must save Hyboria and seek personalrestitution against the man who slaughtered his family and village.The quality of the script is almost a moot point at this stage, and Ifear such a criticism is becoming a recurring theme every time I reviewa film of this nature. I don't need to go on about the excess ofclichés and failure to use dialogue as a means of character developmentbecause, quite frankly, it's all been said before. I'll just start andend by saying it offers no food for thought, nor was it expected to.If the title of the review hasn't already given it away, I didn't enjoyConan. But in fairness, the only aspects blockbuster films like thistry to leave in the mind of the viewer are the set pieces. In thatrespect, the action scenes were not terrible and, at the risk ofpointing out the obvious once again, you can definitely see where mostof the seventy million dollar budget went. All action scenes show a decent amount of technical production andattention to detail, but they are let down by lazy camera-work,employing the old 'zoom-in-really-close-and-leave-the-audience-disoriented' trick (not unlikethe style employed in fellow swords and sorcery remake Clash of theTitans). But for anyone going to see this film just for the stylisedkillings, you'll be pleased to hear gore is on high enough supply togarner an R rating. And trust me, it is justified.Conan The Barbarian's flaws range from minor to significant as the filmprogresses. For instance, Perlman makes no (or at least, minimal)effort to shed his American accent for the role of Corin, while earlyscenes depicting the birth of Conan and the way he fights off half adozen seasoned warriors on his own as a teenager require a hugesuspension of disbelief. Which, by the way, is the polite way of sayingthey make no sense. Some time later, we are treated to a'mentor-protégé' training montage that manages to rip off Star Wars andBatman Begins in the process. I know, I of all people am often guiltyof crossing the fine line between discerning adaptation and plagiarism,but the blatancy in this instance is almost laughable.As the film draws to a close, the sheer mundanity of the plot gets tothe point where, in retrospect, my eyes, ears and mind have been takingin and understanding the events of each scene, but I have never trulyengaged with the story. Throw in a predictable ending to finish andyou've got one of the most unnecessary movies of the season, and maybeeven the year.*There's nothing I love more than a bit of feedback, good or bad. Sodrop me a line on jnatsis@iprimus.com.au and let me know what youthought of my review.*

TheLittleSongbird 2012-05-22 19:10:24

One of the weakest movies of the year thus far

I enjoyed the 1982 Conan the Barbarian, and went into this movie notexpecting a film as good but one to be entertaining. Alas, this Conanthe Barbarian only has the costume and set design going for it.Everything else is pretty much a disaster. The music score is not asmemorable, or as epic or as haunting. The direction has inconsistencieswith the tone especially all over the map. The dialogue iscliché-ridden and as much as I am starting to dislike using the termanachronistic the term applies to me here, the story is dull andsluggish and the characterisations feel little more than stockstereotypes. The acting doesn't help, Stephen Lang has good presencebut has nothing to work with. The lead on the other hand has nocharisma whatsoever. Overall, disappointing and weak. 2/10 Bethany Cox

GarySeven2011 2012-05-22 10:35:35

Conan the speed demon?

Jason Momoa is not Arnold but then again who really wants to be thesedays anyway?A new spin on the classic Robert E. Howard material. Visually the filmis quite fantastic the locations photographed beautifully. Jason Momoaon the other hand at times i felt didn't physically have the build tobe as intimidating as one tends to think about when drifting into theeither about barbarians. The film is quick perhaps too much so. Maybe just maybe this filmshouldn't have been called Conan The Barbarian at all but Conan ofCimmera's bogus journey, I feel like we got into a phone booth andskipped over some important and interesting stuff.All in all Conan The Barbarian is a swift action filled boot to thehead, love it or hate it but it's here.

Andrew Columbia 2012-05-21 20:15:56

Conan The Terrible

First of all, before I say anything about the movie I want people toknow a little bit about me. I went into this movie with an open mindwanting to see it anyway despite the horrid reviews it's been gettingfrom critics. (I generally tend to ignore the critics especially formovies that I personally think will be worth seeing in theaters) thetrailer looked pretty cool for this one, so I went in expecting at theleast an awesome super gory action flick. What I got was the totalopposite and a huge disappointment for me. The critics are right. Conanthe Barbarian is overall an absolutely terrible movie.To be fair, the movie actually starts out with some promise showing usyoung Conan and a really brutal kick-ass action scene with young Conanin the beginning. After the beginning sequence though, the movie startsto fall apart rapidly. The dialog is extremely weak and uninspired. Ikid you not, Conan probably says a maximum of forty words or lessthroughout the entire movie. Whoever wrote the script seemed like theyjust stopped trying and gave up after the promising beginning scenes.Another thing that I found really disappointing was that Conan himselfwas just not brutal enough. Only for short moments here and there hedid some barbarian like things but not at all on the level that you'dexpect from a movie titled "Conan The Barbarian" The action scenesthemselves were just not filmed well at all. It was filmed using veryfast paced cuts and it was very confusing to keep up with what washappening on screen. The camera always seemed to be lagging behind theaction, and just when it finally catches up with Conan to see what he'sdoing, the bad guy is already dead. Great. The plot was a jumbled mess and the acting pretty much on every level,was completely horrendous. Personally I am a fan of Jason Momoa. Afterhis performance as the savage Khal Drago on the hit show "Game ofThrones" I thought he would be absolutely perfect to portray Conan, butsadly he is very weak in this role and really adds nothing new orinteresting to the character. One more thing to be mentioned is thatthe 3D in this movie is non-existent. (Yes I saw it in 3D and don'tthink I am bashing the movie just because the 3D was horrible) The sadtruth is even if I saw the regular 2D film I would still think the sameabout it. It is just that bad of a movie. I dare to say that even 10,000 BC was better than this movie. (And thatmovie was terrible) At least in that movie you could tell what washappening during the action scenes. I strongly felt the urge to warnpeople not to waste their hard earned money on this movie. Trust me youwill thank me for saving you the money. But, if you are dead-set onseeing it for yourself anyway despite what I have to say DO NOT see itin 3D it really is just an extra waste of money. Think "Clash of TheTitans" not one thing in the entire film is 3D except for the endingcredits. Avoid this film at all costs. 1/5

capone666 2012-05-21 04:04:50

The Vidiot Reviews...

Conan the BarbarianThe best part of wielding a broadsword is that, no matter what the sizeof the envelope, you'll have no problem opening it.And while the savage in this fantasy film doesn't use his blade to openletters, he does use it to open his enemies.Born in battle, Conan (Jason Momoa) is raised by his father (RonPerlman) to be a warrior.But when a warlord (Stephen Lang) looking to resurrect his dead wifeusing a magical mask slays his father, Conan vows revenge.Meanwhile, the despot and his daughter (Rose McGowan) seek out a pureblood to unleash the mask's power. With a splintered storyline that strains under the weight of dreadfulacting, Conan the Barbarian is a slapdash adaptation of Robert E.Howard's anti-hero.Unfortunately, when body-builders see the type of muscle mass that canbe gained from barbarism, they'll likely add rape to their workoutroutine. (Red Light)

ymsyctai 2012-05-21 00:55:16

Great Rental if you want action and bloooood

The best way to see a good movie is to go into it knowing as littleabout it as you can so I try not to include details about the movies inmy reviews. If the movie sucks then I'm not shy about including detailsand/or spoilers.This is really a 7/10 movie but I had to give it an 8 just because somany people are hating on it. Why do people want excellent acting froma movie that is made to be an action movie? Come on people! This isabout blood and guts and action and.. that's about it. What I likeabout this movie other than the action is that it doesn't try to remakethe 80s Conan movie. It is a different storyline and a different Conan.Sure this movie does drag like for 5 minutes somewhere in the middlebut other than that it is all action and a ton of it. It is just a pureaction movie that was made to be.. let's say it together now.. anaction movie! Come on people, enjoy the popcorn flicks for what theyare and don't get all film school on a movie that is just about givingyou bloody entertainment.

octoberartist 2012-05-20 04:06:17

The title is Conan, but the movie is not.

In order for Conan to be successful, it needs to be epic and dramatic.Unfortunately this movie is neither. Think along the lines ofBraveheart, Gladiator or Lord of the Rings. The plot to Conan theBarbarian is a very bad rip-off of Lord of the Rings littered with someelements of the 1980's version of Conan. It is all action and specialeffects and little else.It's as if the producers and director were totally unfamiliar with theConan universe or character and were just trying to make bank off thename. They would have done well to read Robert E. Howard's essay on theHyborian Age before undertaking this movie instead of just making it upas they go.For example, the map is wrong and the place names are incorrect andsome of the landscapes used aren't as Howard described. The score isutterly unmemorable. Much of the dialogue makes no sense. For instance,Zym saying, "Behold and Despair" to a gathering of his own people? Werethey drunk when they were editing this? There is also a lovely shot ofyoung Conan doing a kata? Who knew that an ancient barbarian tribe cutoff from civilization had developed Japanese martial arts almost 10,000years before it existed? Certainly not me. One of the core elements ofConan is man's ability to overcome through sheer strength of body andwill. You won't find that in this movie.Ron Perlman did a great job acting, as always. He wasn't the rightactor for the role though, because he has no resemblance to either theyoung or old Conan. Whoever made the decision to make him a blondCimmerian is retarded. Leo Howard makes for a fine young Conan, does agreat job acting but is much too small for the role. The real youngConan was much larger than his peers. It also would have been a bitmore believable had he left the martial arts moves out. Conan was not ablack belt.Conan's trademark is his square cut black mane and volcanic blue eyes.Neither will be found in this movie. Conan did not have little patchesof stylistic facial hair, a perm or brown eyes. Nor did he wear a red,'kilt'? With those fixes and another 20lbs of bulk, Momoa could do aconvincing job as the Barbarian. Given a different director, I'd givehim another chance.Stephen Lang did awesome and Marique stole the show for me. Tamara hadthe weakest acting in the movie, some great costumes, but she wasunable to create interest in her character. Conan and Zym's henchmenwere terrible, straight out of a b-rated S&S flick.Really disappointed as I've been waiting my whole life to see Conan theBarbarian on screen and it just isn't happening. I keep getting made uporigin stories. Guess I'll have to be content with the the books. Someday, I hope Lionsgate discovers how to visualize a story. Perhaps theycould watch Game of Thrones on HBO and pick up a few pointers. ThanksLionsgate for making a mockery out of my all-time favorite characterand fictional universe.On a positive note, my wife, who knows absolutely nothing about Conanenjoyed the movie. I think the highlight for her was Momoa's ass.Pretty sad when that's the most memorable moment.

azel123 2012-05-19 18:33:30

sparing the empty time to sleep is much better than watching this junk.1982 version is an epic compare to this.

This movie totally sucks compare the one made in 1982 played byArnold.No 3D as it was mentioned.Horrible acting,horriblemusic,Horrible screenplay.Honestly the original one was an epic compareto this junk.In that one Arnie could not act well but still he wasfitting on to that role and the musics and the screenplay was much muchbetter than this piece of waste of time.i still could not understand ,how did they manage to spend millions of dollars to make this movie. Soif you did not watch this movie, trust me you saved 2 hrs from yourlife.If they made a remade with Arnie and 3D CGI , trust me it would bemuch better.

Richard Bellamy 2012-05-19 02:01:10

Conan remake that should never have been

Conan the Barbarian is born in war, a product of blood and steel. Thusthe film should be a visceral, violent portrayal of a warrior setagainst the fantasy backdrop of Robert E. Howard's Hyboria. Whatemerges on screen is a set of one dimensional characters placed in aworld that feels half heatedly brought to life.The film has been accused of being like viewing a video game. I woulddisagree. The nature of video games, particularly those of the fantasyand RPG genres, is immersion. There is no immersion here. We flit fromplace to place in a lame attempt to show the vastness of the worldthrough a mediocre CGI backdrop of a castle or slave camp or piratecity. None are ever fully realised before Conan jaunts off somewhereelse. The violence itself is the most disappointing. Nispel manages tocreate fight scenes that lack the kinetic quality of a dance. Thecamera is misplaced, the editing focusing on the wrong points. Younever feel the hits, the power of the blows or Conan's qualities as awarrior. It feels clumsy.There are more grunts and warcries than lines of dialogue and thosespoken feel like the actors are running them in rehearsal for the firsttime. There is no commitment to the lines so again the audience failsto immerse in their characters. McGowen in contrast overly plays thesorcerer.Given this is a reboot, the film does not feel fresh, but instead feelsdated. It's almost as though Nispel wanted it to feel like the 1982version, but taking only the worst qualities and none of the charm.Conan reinforces the assertion of refraining from producing rebootswhere there is nothing original the writers or director bring to thetable. Conan is a stale rehash that will offer no reward to itsaudience.

mario-277 2012-05-19 01:40:02

Brilliant fast paced action movie

I just returned from cinema watching this movie and I give it a 8 of10.I'm a Conan fan since Schwarzenegger's "Conan - The Barbarian" from1982, I read all Robert E. Howard's Conan novels and played the "Age ofConan - Hyborian Adventures" MMO for a long time. So my review maybe abit biased.This Conan movie got all what the heart of a Conan fan desires:Beautiful landscapes, sexy women, black humor and sarcasm, violence andgore, strong and honorable men, fierce enemies and monsters and lots offighting scenes.Yes, it may be not perfect and has some flaws. But nonetheless Ipersonally found it very entertaining and exciting. For me there was nomoment of boredom or the desire that the movie will hopefully end soon- rather the opposite.If you like movies which touch the relentless warrior and hero withinyourself you'll probably also like this Conan movie.

lafunterr 2012-05-18 15:13:24

What a Disaster

I have only one world to say about this Movie. Disaster it is joke with Original TitleFirst of All this guy Jason Momoa never look like a Hero his looks andimpact are perfect matching with a Villon (badguy).This Movie was a inspire from "Prince of Persia" The Director was in hurry to wind-up climaxIf this Movie has another Title except "Conan the Barbarian" may be ittakes little appreciation from viewersI m wonder about IMDb ranking how it gets 5.6 because in my opinionit's real ranking blew 3.0

theycallmemrglass 2012-05-17 19:22:38

Fun for a short while but gets tiresome very quickly,

Saw this at a preview screening in London This being a fantasy filmwith the most basic of plots imaginable, its fair to say that we shouldat least expect a menu of sex, gore and mindless fun with a film likethis. To some extent, we do but there is a lack of invention to it alland I cant help feel that this is being processed by a computer programthat's ticking boxes. Its a film that simply goes with the motion.Momoa's lingering ass shot, check. Bare breasts check. Magicallyconjured monster soldiers, check. Sword fighting (of course), check.Beautiful damsel in distress, check. Sex scene, check. Limbdecapitation, check. Multiply violent elements by 10, check.Originality...oh sorry that was not on the list. Also missing from thecheck list were Tongue in Cheek or Sufficient Level of Humour.Jason Momoa is however, a charming lead as Conan. Perhaps more so thanSchwartzenegger of the original though less iconic. Perlman makes yetanother small appearance as a mentor. But as I said, originality wasnot on the list, so I leave you to guess his fate. Not a spoiler asthis is part of the movie's synopsis.The action is pretty relentless but lacks excitement. It got verytiresome from early on, I am afraid. While Momoa valiantly carries themovie with his anti-hero charm the rest of the cast are not given muchto do but to exhibit basic expressions and cheesy dialogue.Stephen Lang gets a little more to do as the main villain. I suspectthe poor fellow may perhaps be forever type-casted since Avatar but hedoes it well.I am not sure if this film is a disappointment because I wasn'tconvinced by its trailer in the first place.Finally, the soundtrack was relentlessly bombastic without any subtletyor sense of identity. It was just very loud background noise.Lower your expectations, I mean really bring it down. If you likeMomoa, you may enjoy this but don't look out for too much else.

rrchon 2012-05-17 12:20:14

A terrible way to waste your time, even if you are looking to waste time.

There is not really much to say about this movie, since there is nomovie (there is no story.)Too many fight scenes and not enough depth, hard to believe but evenArnold Schwarzenegger limited acting range delivered more of acharacter than Mr. Momosa (which is a much more accomplished actor evenif he getting more and more typecast into one role.) The cast had thetalent to deliver a story, the writing it seems was crap and directionwas even more crap then writing. Now the casting (not the cast) wasalso a POS failure.It seems like nobody other than the actors wanted to actually make thismovie and honestly I can't even tell there. Bottom line for somethingso thin so shallow, with a storyline that could have been written bythird grade primary school boy you must blame the Director and thestudio for letting it even get as far as hiring someone to do thesketches for the scenes.There is always a lot of talk about how too many movies just are notprofitable to make anymore and if movies like this keep being made theblame cannot be put on the audience. Bottom line, too many prettypeople (which is not bad in itself), the wrong kind of people, nostory, crap direction, sound scoring was crap, Morgan Freeman soundednice, costumes were crap, I am sorry I wasted a part of my lifewatching it, though I did watch it till the end always hoping it wouldhave some redeeming moment that never came.Having been an action movie fan for the 30+ years I have been on thisplanet I am considering just being done with the genre all togetherjust because of this movie; perhaps the straw that broke the camel'sback.It's as bad as Kull the Conqueror, if not worse since Kull never reallygot the budget or the credit this film did.

deepfriedbadger 2012-05-16 22:24:05

Three stars for spelling their names correctly on the credits.

No character arch.....no interesting characters,no pace and huge holein the story lead to the boring same old Hollywood bullshit. This sorryexcuse of a film will please only the most easily entertained anddumbfound those sick to death of this tired formula.With a plethora of rich stories and textured characters from the novelsand even the decent yet vacuous springboard of the original film thisis a wasted opportunity...loads of violence and gore are lavished on us without any impact on theviewers emotions or imagination.Mamoa was OK but then again who cares.What a waste of money...are script writers being paid for thisdrivel.....even i can do better.....in fact i might!!

spideyhenk 2012-05-16 05:49:16

Awesome!

I am not making this review long as I don't think it is needed. Thismovie was old fashion 80 style movie. Everything was in it, all the oldingredients to make a classic 80's movie. I know people will eitherlove or hate me for this comment, but I thought the movie was justbrilliant. You don't see a lot of these kind of movies anymore. So muchis made with computers that it looks fake and most of todays moviesdon't have the blood and gore anymore which they deserve to have, whichwill make a movie so much better. I just love that there is a directorand writer out there that dare to make these sort of movies where theycan hack and slash in it. I just loved it and my friends did as well,we cheered and laughed about it. Brilliantly done!

Turtle Heart 2012-05-15 21:32:42

Unwatchable insult to Robert E Howard

Unwatchable. Why producers of film with money and no talent at allcontinue to defame and insult the stories of Robert E. Howard is agreat curiosity. Howard was such a visually powerful story teller. Thisis yet another attempt to re-write and re-visualize nearly perfectstory telling into the ego of yet another displaced group ofHollywood's idle rich. There is not one shred of Howard's Conananywhere in this film. Why Howard's epic character is associated withthis film is the question. The young actor playing Conan does not. Hisrepresentation of the hero of the Howard stories is pablum, a paleimitation not worthy of crediting a name to it, with all due respect.The absolute failure of the people involved in this project tounderstand Howard is sad. Though I tried to watch the Blue Ray releaseof this film, I could not watch more than a few moments of it. I seenothing to recommend this film or anyone in it.

Hulio999 2012-05-15 13:10:25

Excellent, though not Conan the King

This movie was as good as it could be, given Arnold wasn't in it. Itsno 'Conan the King' (which I'd love to have), but exceeded myexpectations.Jason Momoa did a very nice job as Conan, and showed more emotionalrange than in Game of Thrones. Rachel Nichols also stood out, showing atough side as Tamara. Ron Perlman was excellent as well.Well worth going, though I'd prefer a non-3D version, which I'll getwhen I buy it on Bluray. The story was great (who can't like somethingrevenge oriented), good amount of action and violence as it should be.The only shortcoming was not enough attention paid to Crom.If you can't decide whether to see it, check out the vote breakdown.Lots of Conan haters out there giving 1s and pulling down the score.Real men like this movie. Its not Driving Miss Daisy.