Conan the Barbarian (2011) Review

The original Conan the Barbarian is a fondly remembered schlocky fantasy adventure made in 1982, based on a series of sword and sorcery books by Robert E. Howard. It's best remembered by most people as the film that introduced Arnold Schwarzenegger to the general public and by fantasy geeks as a filmed that spawned several enjoyable, similarly schlocky desert-based fantasy features. While it's certainly no great work of art, people liked the original Conan the Barbarian. It had a good cast, some gory action, and the occasional nice pair of breasts flashed on the screen. Its sequel, Conan the Destroyer, is not so fondly remembered. It still had the violence, and the breasts, and the Arnold, but fans didn't welcome it so well, and it spelled the end for the Conan movies. Now, in the early 21st Century, some heartless businessman said "Hey, remember that first Conan movie everybody liked? I bet if we make that with super CGI and modern day sensibilities, people who fondly remember the original will pay out the nose to see it, and just because we're not quite rich enough, let's put it in 3D so people will have to pay more for tickets!"

And so now, we have Conan the Barbarian 2011, a completely soulless attempt to recapture the immature, fun romp of the original. The setup hasn't changed much from the original, Conan is a young Cimmerian whose life is thrown into turmoil when his village is raided by vicious bandits who kill both his entire family and pretty much everyone he's ever known. Conan grows up and is still thirsting for revenge, and he leaves a trail of blood and guts on his way to claiming the head of the man who murdered his father. It's almost impossible to come up with a simpler setup. It wouldn't surprise you to learn that the story manages to keep this simplicity, which is why it should surprise you that it doesn't. There's all this stuff about a super powerful mask that the guy that murdered Conan's father wanted to get so he can summon the spirit of his dead sorceress wife so she can share the wisdom of the afterlife with him, and they can use the mask and her power to take over the world, but he needs someone who has "pure blood" which means they're descended of the sorcerer that made the powerful mask, and are you bored yet? As ludicrous as the story is, it's actually one of the best parts about the movie. Brace yourself.

The acting is pretty bad at times, staying in the dull Limbo of "not bad enough but entertaining but nowhere near good." Jason Momoa, of Game of Thrones fame, is the natural choice for the titular role, but he fumbles ineptly around with a poorly crafted script. As a result, his Conan feels rather schizophrenic, shifting rapidly back and forth between Captain Jack Sparrow and Kahl Drogo. This isn't really Momoa's fault, but you can tell he's confused in a part that should come naturally to him. Rachel Nichols has a downright dull performance as "the girl." You can practically see the paycheck glimmering in the eyes of talented actors, Stephen Lang and Ron Perlman as they wearily go through the motions. The only one who seems to be having any fun onscreen is Rose McGowan as the evil guy's witch-daughter, and even her performance can't really be considered great.

We can't really fault the actors for giving dead performances, though because the screen writer is clearly inept at his chosen profession. The writing sounds like it was done by a horny, lobotomized twelve year old after repeat viewings of a Pirates of the Caribbean box set. Nothing else to say about the script except that it's tripe.

Before I talk about the effects, I feel I should state that I didn't go see this in 3D, but, even watching the 2D version, you can tell it was intended for 3D. Maybe the 3D is fantastic, or maybe it's awful, I have no idea. But the special effects in general are pretty slapdash. Especially the blood. They went for the bright red, stylized, Spartacus: Blood and Sand type blood, which looked great in Spartacus: Blood and Sand, but the difference is that the people making Spartacus took a little pride in their work. The biggest and most obvious flaw we see is splashes of blood coming off the canon fodder Conan fights with no persistent wound damage. I've seen better effects on episodes of Deadliest Warrior.

If you're not already convinced to avoid this garbage, allow me to explain the absolute worst thing about the movie. The action. Not since Transformers 3 hav- no, you know what Transformers Effing 3 was directed better than this, not since Transformers 2 have I seen worse direction in an action movie. The camera cuts literally every half second in a downright lazy attempt to hide the horrible CGI. Director Marcus Nispel, I can say, without reservation is one of the worst action directors I've ever seen, which makes sense, as he comes from the horror genre. His two most prominent other movies were the Platinum Dunes remakes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Friday the 13th, so he may very well have picked up some of his worst habits from Michael Bay himself, who is affiliated with Platinum Dunes.

I don't think I need to tell you any further to avoid this. It's badly written, horribly directed with bad special effects and mediocre performances. It's the pinnacle of a summer movie that begs not to be watched.

30 Minutes or Less Review

One of the things I hate most about modern cinema is when good premises are wasted on bad movies. I mean, it's one thing when a bad movie is made about something inane, like Monte Carlo or Birdemic, but seeing an idea with genuine potential is turned into an ineffectual suck-fest, it truly breaks my heart. Recent examples of this include The Adjustment Bureau, Sucker Punch, and, more recently 30 Minutes or Less.

You can be forgiven for not even knowing this movie exists, as the only reason I knew was from a late-night MTV advert that showcased all the funniest moments of the movie into a one minute timer. The movie centers around Jesse Eisenberg playing "lovable" slacker, Nick, and- Wait. Stop. I don't usually find something to complain about this early. Okay, I really dislike Jesse Eisenberg, but even I have to admit, he plays the obnoxious douche-bag very well. It's too bad that's the only thing he plays well. 30 Minutes or Less seems to be trying to make him seem likable, but he's clearly not comfortable in the role. He comes off like less of a lovable slacker and more like what would happen if Mark Zuckerberg from The Social Network started smoking a lot of cheap weed.

Anyway, another slacker, played by Danny "I Am A Funny Stoner Please Laugh At Me" McBride, who I honestly cannot tell if the movie wants me to like, needs money to order a hit on his dad, so he straps a bomb to Nick's chest, and tells Nick that he will explode if he doesn't rob a bank. This first act comes across very, very weak, mainly because the purpose of a first act is to tell me who I'm rooting for, and I honestly cannot tell who the good guys are in this movie. I'm fairly sure it's supposed to be Nick and his Indian friend, Chet, played by Aziz Ansari (who turns in a downright awful performance as the Indian version of Ken Jeong's character from The Hangover), but this really falls rather flat. McBride and his buddy get almost as much screen time and are only portrayed as slightly less sympathetic.

Also, I don't think this should bother me as much as it does, but the story has no defined three act structure. One would think that the payoff to this movie's dramatic question would be the bank robbery, right? Wrong. The bank robbery just kind of happens, and we're left with about half a movie of McBride screaming, "Give me the money!" and Eisenberg screaming "Take the bomb off, first!" I've legitimately never seen a movie that can have such a long third act and yet no third act at all. Nothing in the movie has any closure! It just ends. The lives of two major characters and two minor characters are left completely in limbo. I don't believe I have ever seen an ending quite so dissatisfying.

I could go on about the absurdly short, under 90 minute runtime that still leaves the movie feeling about thirty minutes too long, or about how none of the actors in the whole thing feel like they're enjoying themselves, or even about the shameless lack of effort put into the effort by director of dubious value, Reuben Fleischer, of Zombieland fame, but I really don't think you need any less reason to watch this movie. It's already getting murdered at the box office by other movies that no one really cares that much about, so it'll probably just be shoved in to the armpit of cinema's annals alongside Miss March, Sex Drive, and all the other uninspired R-rated comedies.

I'm not going to say it was humorless. There were a few scenes that made me crack a smile, but they really only serve to piss me off, because all the funny parts served to do was remind me of much better movies, which you should rent for half the price. However, if you're absolutely adamant about wanting to see a comedy about people with bombs attached to their chests, I've got good news for you. Go OnDemand and look up Four Lions. It's downright hilarious in a dark, nervous laughter kind of way. Give the tripe that is 30 Minutes or Less the shaft it deserves.