data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/870f6/870f6b098e3e4bdbac497145744cecba78b09386" alt=""
• The new movie reads like one of the original Conan stories by Robert E. Howard. They are fast-paced tales, laced with lurid action, without much emotional depth. They are adventure stories. In this vein, the movie emulates its source material very well.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/86e74/86e745d7cf340111723f7900065786fb0d610062" alt=""
• Momoa’s Conan is more true to Howard’s original hero than Arnold Swarzeneggar’s, classic though the 1982 Conan the Barbarian is. Too many people think the 1982 movie is the “original,” when the original is pulp fiction written in the 1930s. Arnold’s movie has many virtues, but it is no sacred relic. I disliked how Arnold played Conan as slow-witted. Momoa’s Conan is smart and wily.
• Likewise, Momoa is physically a better Conan than Arnold. Howard often described Conan as having the supple grace and power of a big cat, like a panther. Arnold was awesomely powerful as Conan, but he lacked the barbarian’s fluid, cat-like movement. Momoa is like a deadly dancer with his sword, combining his imposing bulk with lithe lethality.
• The athletic young actor who plays Conan as a boy, Leo Howard, is great! He is expressive, conveying Conan’s intelligence and confidence, as well as his precocious physical prowess.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b954/0b954e9ac643a7434dfdaf0274fffd7a94503624" alt=""
• Some of the slave girls who Conan rescues in the movie are appropriately attired, in the manner of Conan stories. Which is to say, they are appropriately and pleasingly unattired. The actresses are officially credited as “Topless Wenches.” This I applaud. In fact, if the movie was really true to Howard's vision, the leading ladies would have dressed more like the women of Frank Frazetta’s paintings. A Frazetta woman typically looked like she was going to a Brazilian beach wearing a few bronze earrings for a bikini.
• One of the snarky reviews of the movie said it was like being hit on the head for two hours. By this the writer apparently means that Conan isn’t boring. The movie is unburdened by tiresome chick-flick parlor dialogue. Bloody, frenetic action sustains it.
A Few Disappointments
Conan the Barbarian is a satisfying action film, and a solid foundation to restart the Conan franchise, yet there is room for improvement:
• Momoa, while perfectly cast as Conan, rushes across some of his dialogue and is sometimes hard to understand. I would fault the director for failing to recognize this problem and have Momoa deliver Conan’s growls a bit more slowly and deliberately, with suitable barbaric enunciation.
• Rachel Nichols is a beautiful actress who is fiery and splendid as Scarlett in G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, but she seems miscast as Tamara in Conan the Barbarian. She could have been made up as a wild, Celtic priestess, but as she was presented, she was too waspish. An actress with a more exotic, sultry look would have been more fitting. There seemed to be little chemistry between Momoa and Nichols, so their characters’ relationship fails to fuel much emotion in the latter part of the movie.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6b15c/6b15cd637cf4706fb34a3d2338ce195d7acf4381" alt=""
• The story needed more epic weight. The story needed to be bigger and grander.
Overall, though, the disappointments are minor. Conan the Barbarian is a fun film. Jason Momoa is born to play Conan. He has the mighty thews. Live, love, go see Conan, and you will be content.
No comments:
Post a Comment