Jason Momoa is the lucky hunk chosen to star as this generation's Conan the Barbarian. Played famously by Arnold Schwarzenegger in 1982, the tale of the legendary warrior begins with him as a young man with a traumatised childhood.
With his mother having died giving birth to him, and his father Corin (Pearlman) murdered in front of him amid his village being pillaged and slaughtered, Conan believes that he was born on this Earth for one reason and one reason only; to become a fearless warrior.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that all this makes the perfect recipe for an epic vengeance mission, and so our hero must travel across the continent of Hyboria to find sorcerer Khalar Zym (Lang), and destroy him by any means necessary.
Conan the Barbarian's story is as predictable as the formula suggests, yet this is not its biggest downfall. Even the sometimes interesting journey of the protagonist's rise to valour is as two-dimensional as you're likely to see. We aren't naive enough to expect major character depth in a film like this, but there's almost no character arc with Conan; there is little change in his character throughout, and so there is little about him to make us root for him.
Moving on to the cast we must of course start with Momoa. There's no denying that his rough, good looks and sculpted figure make him great for the part (see him in television shows Stargate: Atlantis and Game of Thrones). Unfortunately, that's as far as it goes; as soon as Momoa uttered his first words, we knew we were in for a long hour-and-a-half. Usually anything would be an improvement on Arnie, but at least he's entertaining to watch; even if it is for the wrong reasons.
As for the supporting cast, Rachel Nichols appears as nothing but a peripheral accessory, with nothing special to offer. Another disappointment comes in the form of Stephen Lang, who fails to channel the same bad-guy qualities into his role as Khalar Zym as he did inAvatar as the wicked Colonel Miles Quaritch.
All this aside, this might be one for those who love a bit of blood and gore. However, the action scenes are cluttered and hardly discernible. The poorly choreographed scenes are noticeably inferior to those in Clash of the Titans and 300. Even the 3D effects can't save the laboured visuals.
It'd be unfair to call this a failed attempt to revive what was actually quite a popular franchise, because in truth, the original wasn't that much better. The 80s were a much simpler time inHollywood, and the modern film-goer can no longer be fooled into enjoying something as shallow as this film.
About the AuthorStaff Writer for Cairo 360
Original article on:Cairo360
No comments:
Post a Comment