After much anticipation, this weekend will bring us the new Conan the Barbarian. The property is best known for introducing movie goers to Arnold Schwarzeneggar in 1982; And almost 30 years later, Jason Momoa has taken over the role and is looking to get his big break.
Conan is full of camp, gore and violence and film critics have various opinions about it. Some love it, some hate it, while others appreciate it for what it is: good, over the top fun! Check out some of reviews from the nation’s top critics below.
The problem with “Conan the Barbarian,” a computer-graphics-heavy remake of the 1982 sword-and-sandal classic that cemented Arnold Schwarzenegger’s star power, is that it doesn’t have enough gratuitous violence. – The Salt Lake Tribune
A gleeful throwback to the not-even-hugely-popular-in-its-day subgenre of ’80s R-rated fantasy, the kind of movie a 13 year-old boy may lap up now and be embarrassed about years later. Not that there’s anything wrong with that—it may be ridiculous as all get-out, but the fact that the exaggeration is so irony free is charming in its own way. – EOnline
The Schwarzenegger movies from 30 years ago looked like someone put a Stretch Armstrong doll inside a lava lamp, so here, Nispel tries for a grittier style. But that, plus Momoa’s stony expressions and a moronic script, only helps slay the fun from this overlong fantasy. – The NYDailyNews
Alas, blunt-force acting rules the screen with everyone grunting, snarling and posturing to ludicrous effect. Dialogue is at a premium as this impedes the killing game. Indeed, at one point when Nichols character threatens to get chatty, Momoa stuffs a rag in her mouth. The only actors who actually make an impact is Nichols, who displays just enough nervy grit to stand out, and 13-year-old Leo Howard, a first-degree black belt who plays young Conan as a feral animal ever looking for prey. – MSNBC
Will you be seeing Conan the Barbarian this weekend?
