Conan the Barbarian
Conan the Barbarian Preview
A vengeful barbarian warrior sets off to get his revenge on the evil warlord who attacked his village and murdered his father when he was a boy.
Conan the Barbarian Subtitle Brunei
Conan the Barbarian
A vengeful barbarian warrior sets off to get his revenge on the evil warlord who attacked his village and murdered his father when he was a boy.
Many years ago, sorcerers crafted the Mask of Acheron and dark forces of Acheron conquered the world. However, the barbarians vanquished Acheron warriors and broke the Mask into pieces and divided among the tribes. The barbarian Cimmerian village of chief Corin is attacked by the evil warlord Khalar Zym that wants the last piece of bone of the Mask of Acheron to resurrect his wife. When his witch daughter Marique finds the hidden piece, he slaughters the villagers and the Corin's son Conan is the only survivor. Conan swears revenge against Khalar Zym. Years later, the warrior Conan is a pirate and he decides to release slaves from a field. When he is celebrating in a tavern with his friends, he sees a thief being chased by a guard and Conan recognizes him as Lucius, the Khalar Zym's soldier that he cut the nose out. Conan let the guards capture him and once in the prison, he forces Lucius to tell him where Khalar Zym is. Meanwhile Khalar Zym attacks a monastery where Marique believes ...
User Review
I've just picked myself up off the floor, after rolling around in hysterics at the pretentious, self-serving waffle that characterized several of the user reviews that I read here. I'd hate to think any reader believed that negative bilge and skipped the movie as a result. I read the efforts of a film student who seriously suggested that the director undertake a movie-making university course so that he might gain as much knowledge and skill as the reviewer himself. Then another egocentric reviewer challenged every input from editing, to CGI, to --- wait for it -- "fight scenes that lack the kinetic quality of a dance" !! No, really! It actually claimed that! Another lectured the director on lighting. Some would-be scribes seem to think it's all about THEM. I cannot understand how reviewers seem to feel an obligation to be mean-spirited and attack the director and cast -- as if their opinions form some self-evident truth. For myself, Marcus Nispel's film is far superior to the '80s releases. The dark and stony/sandy sets are great, the bleak landscapes very well-adapted from the texts, the savagery of the age grasped, the pace and transitions spot on, characters are well delineated and differentiated, and the spirit of Robert E. Howard's writing captured and respected. Howard's Conan is a man of "gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth" - with both aspects, rather than unrelieved brooding - and Nispel gets this balance right. The environment itself effects this, even though the only occasions with some color are brief glimpses of ocean blue and forest green. At this time in his life, Conan is a young man. He is not the world-weary King of Aquilonia. He is a wanderer among ruined landscapes where killing is the way of things. The taverns and castles are presented exactly as they should be. The characters - thieves, mercenaries, pirates, sorcerers, comely wenches and harlots - are well-crafted and believable if you understand Howard's world (and even if you don't). I could watch "Conan the Barbarian" several more times and, each time, gain more insights to how well the movie works. Don't accept my word for it; watch the movie yourselves. And if you genuinely love and enjoy film, be generous to it. On the other hand, if you agonize over some obscure technical concept that some professor wept over in class, do yourself the favor of getting an enema and then some sleep.
