Conan the Barbarian

As the marketing material states, this cinematic version of Conan the Barbarian is born on the battlefield. Literally. When his mother is run through with a sword in the midst of battle (probably not a good idea to be sword fighting when pregnant, but whatever), an emergency C-section is performed while blood and guts are hurled around her. She quickly succumbs to her injuries, but not before seeing her tiny son and bestowing upon him the name of Conan (nice of her not to add the Barbarian part yet). This brutally violent opening proves a fitting birth for the barbaric hero and a promising reintroduction to this particular world. It establishes a standard for bloody mayhem and successfully sets this remake apart from the beloved 1982 original (no C-sections in that one). It's a solid opening for a gory action flick about a dude who discovers barbarism, but it's also the highest point in an otherwise mediocre update.

Following the promising start, this Conan settles into a rhythm that is quite similar to its predecessor. Conan grows up on screen pretty quickly and ends up gaining a thirst for revenge when his village is decimated by a nasty villain and his vicious army. This portion of the remake skirts quite close to the original and the inevitable comparisons don't do this new version any favours. After doing such a good job of crafting a unique and refreshing cinematic identity with the crazed opening scene, this Conan begins to lose a lot of ground as it adopts a safe, simple approach to the story.

Director Marcus Nispel keeps the energy up, though, and the volume is cranked as high as it can go in order to unleash a furious soundscape that is dominated by the boom of galloping horses, clanging steel, and screaming victims. The heights of the violence are certainly befitting of a Barbarian and it almost looks like Nispel is on the right track with this remake. After all, his previous directing credits include remakes of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Friday the 13th, so this kind of gory modern update is nestled directly in his comfort zone. But while Nispel knows how to excitingly execute the extreme ferocity of the titular character, he weakens his movie with a horde of horrible casting decisions.

Going into a Conan movie expecting great acting is a little like hoping for a gourmet dinner at Burger King. It's idiotic and obviously so. The original movie didn't feature great performances by any stretch of the nostalgically forgiving imagination and its 1984 sequel Conan the Destroyer starred Wilt Chamberlain without a basketball in sight, so make of that what you will. But while the original movie's cast didn't exactly achieve a high collective calibre of performance, the actors did manage to keep things engaging with hefty amounts of charisma. It's tough to deny the strength of Arnold Schwarzenegger's iconic screen presence and it doesn't help this remake that his performance in the first Conan movie marked the true beginning of his decades-long reign as a Hollywood action star.

But just because topping Schwarzenegger is impossible doesn't mean that this updated Conan can't emerge victorious with someone new in the role. Although maybe it does mean that to Nispel, because he chose Jason Momoa to play the lead role and the result isn't pretty. Momoa is a block of wood (not oak, though) who only comes alive when it's time to slice open some bad guys. Momoa has a spark of fury in his eyes and he's intimidating enough to pull off the Barbarian look. But the moment he stops swinging his sword, he transforms into a beefy bore. There's no charm in his performance and there's nothing commanding about his presence. He's brawny and he relishes a good slaying via sword, so it's not like Momoa is completely off base with the character. He's just so cinematically uninvolving to the point that only minimal enjoyment can stem from his portrayal of the brutish hero.

The rest of the cast just follows suit. Stephen Lang plays villain Khalar Zym and gives the audience and onscreen characters little to fear. He's a bit demented at first, but he seems to grow bored rather quickly and little becomes of his overall performance. Zym has some very personal motivation and is quite different than ancient cult leader Thulsa Doom, who was played by a chilling James Earl Jones in the original Conan movie. It's a wise choice to separate this new villain from Doom, since Jones delivered the closest thing to a really good performance in his movie and recasting the memorable role would only lead to more unnecessary frustration. But while it's good to see a new villain be the source of Conan's desire for revenge, casting Lang and giving him little to do is certainly the wrong way to go.

Lang is joined by Rose McGowan, who plays his witchy daughter. The usually beautiful McGowan has been given an unflattering receding hairline, presumably for no better reason than to allow the audience to distinguish between her and the good women of the movie. Apparently, to be evil in this world, you also have to be ugly. McGowan is no stranger to campy silliness and her role should be juicily over-the-top, but she fails to have any fun with the creepy possibilities. I actually quite like the decision to cast her in this role, because it seems like something she would excel at. But there's something in this Conan that completely drains the cast of their abilities to light up the screen.

The final considerable nail in the cast's coffin is hammered down by Rachel Nichols, who plays a ridiculous excuse for a damsel-in-distress role. The character pretty much goes out of her way to fulfill the cliché, so while Conan always requires a woman to rescue at some point, this particular one remains a tough sell. And with Nichols in the role, the character couldn't be any duller. Her performance may just be the most useless one in the entire movie. The role requires little to no effort and she still manages to slog through the whole picture while half asleep.

The seemingly endless parade of bad casting decisions and flat performances is the ultimate undoing of this Conan and it's a shame that the actors are such a bland bunch because Nispel has otherwise crafted a very boisterous action flick. The battle sequences are heavy on the bloody violence and all of the sword-wielding is fun to watch. Certain locations and sets appear to be quite true to the character and some are even inspired in their visual potency (a giant skull carved into the rock of a mountain makes for a grand image).

This new Conan the Barbarian was born into battle and he's been surrounded by it ever since. Nispel piles on the carnage with his eye on excess, often capturing a blast of blood and many fatal wounds and even such gory details as a man's nose being chopped off. It is here, in the gory chaos of battle, that Nispel is able to succeed in delivering a fun product. But even then, the entertainment is tainted by the cast of dullards, who keep dragging the movie down with their startling lack of charisma. The vigorous action sequences try hard to impress on their own and they do somewhat accomplish their goal, but when the people enacting the sequences are so lame, it's tough to care about the outcome. With its beheadings and mutilations and locations and battlefield C-sections, this remake is certainly loaded with barbaric qualities. If only the cast could find a way to make it interesting.