A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Blistering performances.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

They didn't have to make this bout Conan. Could have done any other hero n it wouldn't have changed anything. Didn't seem anywhere close to Conan. Alot of boobs in this movie. Not bad. Some cool action scenes.

Despite a flat performance from Ron Perlman I loved the opening. Leo Howard stole the show, and laid a solid foundation for a great Conan. Jason Momoa was a great choice to follow Howard, too bad the screenwriting and direction failed to utilize him to his full potential. The cgi was poorly executed and overly relied upon instead of a solid story telling. This movie felt like it was made more as a marketing tool for the video game that followed and less as a darkly brutal sword and sorcery throwback.

I first watched this version in a movie theater in 2011 which only played it in 3D. I remember at the time I thought they had focused too much on digital effects and that the film was over the top. But since I am a Conan the Barbarian buff and I like Jason Momoa as an actor, I eventually decided to give it another chance and see it on DVD, this time in 2D. It was almost like I was watching a different movie and I can't for the life of me understand why I disliked it so much the first time I saw it. I remembered it being a clean, kid- friendly reboot with lots of over the top action scenes, sort of along the lines of the Marvel superhero movies, but the production design is actually very similar to the John Milius version and it's not far behind on violence and nudity. Of course, it does make use of digital effects, but by far not as often as I got the impression it did when I watched the 3D version and most of the action scenes are actually along the lines of those in the 1982 version or other more traditional sword fighting movies. Maybe I just wanted them to make a sequel to the Schwarzenegger films so badly I never gave this version a fair chance. I still think the original Conan the Barbarian is the superior movie, but now that I have watched it again without any expectations or prejudices (and in 2D), I have to admit this reboot is actually not bad at all and definitely better than the 1984 sequel they did make to the first film.

he is the only realistic motif to see this bizarre film. but a flower does not a season. the good intentions of an actor, the hope to resurrect a brand, the darkness in new nuances are not the good choice. first - the theme is part from another cinema age. then , Jason Momoa does his the best.the presence of Stephen Lang and Ron Pearlman is symbolic. maybe, to act in a film who could be reduced at few fight scene, eccentric costumes and a lot of clichés is not a good option. except colors and remind of old fairy tales theme, Conan has nothing interesting.because the script is a joke and the respect for poor Momoa is high scene by scene because except his physical virtues, far being by a new version of Schwarzenegger, he tries to do a decent work. but nothing helps him. so, a film for a too precise target . for the others, convincing invitation to return to the original Conan.