Friday, April 04, 2014

Cult-Movie Review: Conan the Barbarian (2011)



Times have undoubtedly changed since 1982, and that fact is clear from a screening of the 2011 Marcus Nispel fantasy film, Conan the Barbarian. 
The re-boot -- like many films produced in the last decade -- is virtually awash in CGI imagery, often at the expense of its sense of realism.
By contrast, John Milius’s 1982 Conan featured real locations, and marshaled symbolic imagery to express the nature of Conan’s life, from the Wheel of Pain to the anti-family cult of Thulsa Doom.
Many movies made today, however, can’t be bothered to think in symbolic or resonant terms. Instead, filmmakers labor under the delusion that symbolism is unnecessary because digital imagery makes all things possible.
But more than anything, the constant and oppressive use of digital creatures and imagery in this Conan the Barbarian tends to make the picture look identical to every other fantasy movie of recent vintage.
Therefore, the production loses some crucial aspect of Conan’s indomitable essence: the singularity of his personality and even his very physicality. 
In short, there are moments in this film when you can’t be certain if you are watching Conan the Barbarian, The Immortals (2011), Clash of the Titans (2010), a Stephen Sommers Mummy movie, or  a film I genuinely liked, John Carter of Mars (2012). 
There’s just no visual distinction here. There’s nothing that screams “This is Conan!” like you hope the movie would, or the way that 300 (2007) shouts “This is Sparta!”
Therefore, by the time of Conan’s digitally-larded climax -- which features characters hanging onto impossible, computer-generated precipices by their finger-nails -- all human interest and danger has long since bled out of the picture.
At about the 45-minute point of the film, you may just find that you have stopped caring…about anything related to Conan.
And that’s a true shame, because brooding, saturnine Jason Mamoa seems absolutely right for the part, both in appearance and demeanor.  With a better script and a more realistic and distinctive visual canvas, he would likely have made a great Conan instead of a Conan few people saw, and fewer cared for.
Outside Mamoa, this Conan features a few strengths worth mentioning.
Ron Perlman is a perfect choice to play the warrior’s father, and the script does, at the very least, feature some nice call-backs to Howard’s literary Conan, namely the barbarian’s vocations as thief and pirate.


 “I live. I love. I slay. And I’m content.”
Young Conan, the son of Corin of Cimmeria (Perlman), undergoes a difficult training exercise in which he must navigate the hazardous woods and overcome all kinds of physical challenges without breaking a delicate egg. The training is interrupted by marauders, but still Conan endures.
Soon after this exercise, the hordes of Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang) invade Cimmeria.  Zym is in search of a piece of the legendary “Mask of Archeron,” which he believes is the key to the resurrection of his dead wife.  Zym finds the piece in Corin’s black-smith tent, and leaves Conan an orphan.
Some years later and now a pirate, Conan encounters one of Zym’s henchman and renews his quest for vengeance.  He learns that Zym and his sorceress daughter, Marique (Rose McGowan) are seeking to re-assemble the mask, but require the pure blood of a hereditary princess to do so. They believe they will find their quest at a nearby monastery.
There, beautiful Tamara (Rachel Nichols) learns of her true nature and Zym’s nasty plan for her. Conan rides to Tamara’s rescue, but Zym is relentless, and re-captures her.
Now Conan must save Tamara, with whom he has fallen in love before Zym and Marique can conduct an occult ritual which will rob the woman of her very soul.



“Come…time to forge a blade.”

Well…this will likely go down in the history books as one of my shortest reviews here on the blog, and that’s because there simply isn’t much good or interesting to talk about in regards to this cinematic iteration of the Conan legend. 

Reviewing the film is actually a struggle for me, because there’s relatively little to latch onto. Conan the Destroyer (1984) looks like an example of layered and nuanced filmmaking by comparison.

Not unlike other fantasy movies of recent vintage that I watched but never reviewed -- Snow White and the Huntsman (2013) and The Wrath of the Titans (2012) to name them -- this Conan the Barbarian is a remarkably empty viewing experience.

Technically, all these films are competently wrought, yet they recede from memory almost immediately after their end credits roll. They are incredibly disposable efforts, expressing no deep thoughts, and possessing no real visual style to distinguish them.

After a while it all looks like the same CGI castles, monsters, and backdrops to me, and a kind of digital snow-blindness occurs.

So Conan the Barbarian is eminently forgettable, which is sad given the nature of this particular character and franchise.

But in addition to being forgettable, this re-boot is often laughable too. 

For example, a scene early in the film in which a pint-sized, pre-adolescent Conan dispatches a horde of giant attackers -- yet is able to keep an egg intact (per his training…) -- might sound fine on paper, but on screen it plays as merely ludicrous. Conan isn’t Superman, but this scene exaggerates his abilities to cartoonish levels.

It doesn’t even make sense on a character level when played out on-screen: why would Conan even care about the egg once a real battle is joined?

The nature of the love story here is also, largely, underwhelming. Tamara is one of those all-too familiar female characters who starts out a movie as indulged, pampered, and reluctant to get into a scrap. But then, by movie’s end, she is dispatching bad guys with flair and expertise. 

One element of the Milius version that this iteration probably didn’t need to revive, anyway, was the romance.  In the original film, Valeria and Conan formed a bond based on their mutual love of battle, and few words needed to be spoken.  Tamara is hot (and – yay! -- there’s a sex scene here…) but she never seems like Conan’s true match or equal.  She’s a nice distraction, though, but that’s not how the movie treats her. Instead, she is True Love material.



Finally, one wonders why the makers of Conan movies feel it necessary to keep re-inventing his origin, only with different bad-guys killing his family members each time.


Unequivocally, the best thing about the film is Mamoa.

He looks good -- faintly sinister and pissed off -- and he moves well.

If the James Bond saga has taught us anything about such matters, it is that sometimes an actor deserves a second (or third…) chance in a make-or-break role, because he can grow into it. 

By giving the actor a chance to do just that, a franchise maintains its own internal integrity.  In the 1980s and early 1990s we had three Batman actors in four films, for example, and so the fabric of that movie universe seems frayed to me.

So if a new Conan the King movie arrives with Arnold Schwarzenegger back as the elder Conan, there’s absolutely no reason why Mamoa can’t be brought back as young Conan too…in a hopefully far superior effort.

Then again, I felt the same way about Brandon Routh.

In a world of instantly disposable movies, this is part of the problem.  As Conan the Barbarian fails before your very eyes, it’s hard to register even much disgust about it. The bloody thing will probably get re-booted in five years anyway....

Maybe that movie will be a better one.  

5 comments:

  1. Surprisingly, I enjoyed this one a bit more than you did. I think my expectations were so low, that this film surpassed them. I agree that Mamoa was a excellent choice for the character and does a fine job with this script. I also enjoyed Rose McGowan vamping it up and chewing whole chunks of scenery.

    But I'm really sick of all this origin story nonsense. Especially for a character like Conan. We all know who he is, do we really need an origin story at this point? And do we need one that is a rehash of the older film (and nearly every other fantasy film) where the main character's family/village/favorite chicken is destroyed and he seeks revenge. These revenge plots need to go!

    I would be fine with Conan doing this for the girl, no prob. But like you mentioned, love was never something Conan seemed drawn to. He was always protecting the women he ran into, unless they were kindred spirits. Then there was a deeper connection. Tamara is more of the protecting type.

    But a couple things really hurt this movie. It is edited poorly, and the music is abrasive. The editing rendered some of the action scenes completely nonsensical. This is a terrible crime in any action film. And the music... ugh. Well I hold Poledouris' work so highly I guess anyone else would suffer by comparison. But man this score is really a misfire.

    I don't have a problem with CG. If used correctly it can create some amazing images. But as you mentioned this movie just abuses it. The whole mummy rip off (sorry, homage) was just plain bad. I felt embarrassed for the movie at that point.

    All that said, it was an average fantasy film all the way around. Some stuff worked pretty well. Momoa really carried the film. But I was entertained in the end. But like you said, it was so middle of the road, that I haven't felt a need to revisit it. Unlike "Conan the Destroyer" which is also middle of the road, but so goofy in places that it adds to the fun.

    Missed opportunity. Sick to reading the Howard stories instead.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ugh.

    I really only have one, faint praise to give this movie. And it ain’t Momoa. I have to disagree you and Roman: I don’t think he makes a good Conan at all.

    1. He’s too pretty

    2. He’s too modern. Too fashionable. Too much Blue Steel.

    He’s like a bulked up Brandon Lee, or CW heartthrob. And his performance was all wrong. He offered no personality in the role (admittedly, with zero help from the script) as he spends the whole of it forcing his voice too low and growling all of his dialogue à la Bale as Batman. Howard’s Conan could be moody and sinister, yes, but he wasn’t an early aughts rock video. He was, eh, how to describe it ...he was like your dad’s Conan: big and brawny and handsome, but equally unglamorous, and with a more well-rounded, straightforward demeanor, who spoke frankly in a booming voice. Less Hawaiian surfer grunge, more Marlboro frontiersman-like. Think Clint Walker.

    I know it sounds like I’m in total nitpicking mode here but after reading so much from the source material, the resulting impression of the character is hard to shake. Arnold made it work because, well, Arnold is Arnold. But to be perfectly honest, I don’t think the actor type ideal to play Conan exists anymore, which is not to say that no actual person out there could embody the character; only that Hollywood no longer deals in such personas. The very tone of it all has changed so much. Momoa certainly has an impressive physique and he made a fine go at all the stunts. He’d be fine in a Conan movie as a side character or end-level boss or something.

    Anyways, the only good thing I have to say about this 2011 reboot is the nice establishing shot matte-paints of landscapes, seaports, cities, outposts, fortresses etc. I’m not sure if these were entirely digital or merely digitally scanned, but they maintained that painterly quality evoking fantasy artwork. Much of the locations in general were at least well-scouted and there were a few nifty sets. That’s about it. The rest of this movie blows. It felt like a WWE production.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see where you're coming from. And to an extent I agree. Hollywood isn't casting guys who would make an ideal Conan. But I still hold that Momoa was giving it a fair try. I think he had the chops to pull it off, but the script and perhaps the direction weren't there to make it all come together.

      In a way I wouldn't think making these types of films would be that hard, but I have yet to see one just fire on all cylinders. Some stuff works, some doesn't, but the whole just never comes together. Kinda sad actually.

      Delete
  3. Jason Momoa and Ron Perlman are the only good things in this mess of movie, I'm sorry to say.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Momoa is fantastic in this flick. He's the Conan I always pictured in my mind's eye whenever I read the Marvel Comics run as a kid. Shame he didn't have a better movie wrapped around him.

    ReplyDelete

My Father's Journal, Epilogue: "My Cancer"

My friends, we have reached the final entry in my father’s journal of his battle with cancer.     I want to thank all the readers who have c...