Conan the Adventurer
Conan the Adventurer
| 22 September 1997 (USA)
SEASON & EPISODES
  • 1
  • Reviews
    Protraph

    Lack of good storyline.

    ... View More
    Matialth

    Good concept, poorly executed.

    ... View More
    Robert Joyner

    The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

    ... View More
    Geraldine

    The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

    ... View More
    sam_authier

    I had no idea what the tone of this show was like till I actually watched it I actually thought it felt more like the movies than the actual book which for some way I kinda like a little bit better Seen the 1982 movie was even popular. It sucks that it lasted only one season but only because me & other people found it very non detail & Cheesy. Even though I Feel a little unplaced with this show I actually really like for what it is in fact I'm a fanon writer but I haven't post any of my work yet I basically I'm doing more seasons for this show I would say about 12 or 11 ones as so I could imagine if this show was something like I doing it would may or may not be as popular as Xena warrior princess was.

    ... View More
    evg103

    This series was disappointing on numerous levels, many of which were quite adequately covered by other reviewers. So, rather than dwelling on the obvious cheapness of the series, its apparent lack of writers or fight choreographers, and a soundtrack that, at my most generous, I could only describe as "medieval Yanni," I'm just going to dive head-first into what killed the series for me: it wasn't Conan. Oh sure, they had some loincloth-wearing bodybuilder with an impenetrable accent that everyone kept calling "Conan," but he bore little resemblance to Howard's original character. I recall one scene in particular in which "Conan," having vanquished some foes, raised his sword to the heavens and bellowed some nonsense about being the servant of Crom. Anyone who had ever even skimmed over Howard's stories would realize that this is NOT something that Conan would ever do; he frequently stated that it was useless to call on Crom, for he was a god who hated weaklings. Conan didn't serve Crom, nor did he worship Crom. He swore by him and otherwise made a very conscious effort not to attract his attention. Any idiot claiming to be a "servant of Crom" was more likely to get killed by a bolt of lightning than enjoy any kind of divine blessings. In addition, aside from the name of the titular character and periodic mentions of Cimmeria, there were practically no references to the incredibly detailed world Howard created. No supporting characters from the original stories were included (Karela is a character from the Robert Jordan pastiches, and Red Sonja is comic-book creation only loosely based on a non-Conan Howard character). Why do Conan fans put up with this kind of rubbish? The original material was almost exclusively short stories, with little or no connection aside from all being about Conan; they could have been adapted into television episodes easily. I can only come to one of two conclusions about this series' creators: that they thought they could do a better job with Conan than Robert E. Howard did (and failed miserably), or (more likely) they realized that by tacking Conan's name on their crappy series, they could trick some viewers into actually watching it.

    ... View More
    lordzedd-3

    Now I got to admit this Conan series wasn't perfect. But if "Prison Break" and "Battlestar Galactica (2004)" can get a second season, then why not Conan. Which is way better then both those above mention crap fests. I tell you why, the Neilson rating, where minority rules. One person gets to be one million people is just wrong. We need to do away with the Neilson rating system to save good shows like Conan. Back to Conan, I think it is just as good as HERCULES: THE LEGENDARY JOURNEYS monster wise. But I do think that Ralf Moeller was just a little harder to understand then Arnold was. Which may have been one of the problems and they should have at least stop Zul at least once before the series was over. But that's a shame. Anyway, Conan is a good series and deserves more then it got and I say 8 STARS.

    ... View More
    TheVid

    All the episodes of this sword and sorcery series simply capitalize on the formula that made the HERCULES or BEASTMASTER TV shows successful; but a couple of these in syndication is enough. What was needed here was something more edgy with a fantasy/noir atmosphere. Bodybuilder Ralf Moeller is ideally cast, but his character is decidedly too friendly and heroic to be taken as a barbarian thug, which is the proper way to develop the Conan character. Where is the stimulating eroticism and fetishistic bondage situations that make a loinclothed hero satisfying. Even on TV, you can push the envelop to reasonable limits in these two critical areas. What we don't need are cutesy, self-righteous sidekicks or a little-man buddy (reminiscent of many a schlocky Italian peplum pic). Another thing that keeps this kind of thing interesting is a cool, sadistic villain, and this series fails miserably here, too. The key wizard villain is far from sinister and his bantering interludes with a "potted skull" slow down the proceedings irreparably. Not nearly enough bang for your buck here.

    ... View More