Conan the Destoyer (film): a bit of a disppointing follow-up to "Barbarian"
I still think the movie is incredibly fun, don't get me wrong. It is also impossible to follow-up something as groundbreaking and legendary as Conan the Barbarian so let's cut them a break.
Basically Conan and his thief companion (which is played by a different actor because of health reasons) are wandering the countryside when approached by a royal family and offered riches for them to go on a quest escorting their daughter to some castle. They need to just make one stop along to way to gather some magic relic. Initially Conan declines the offer, but it is promised that if they complete the quest that Conan's woman interest, Valeria, from the first movie, can be brought back to life.
So off they go, gathering a a group of other individuals along the way, which include Zula (played by Grace Jones) a warrior who is the last of her tribe, and also Bombaata who is played by Wilt Chamberlain - who actually did a very good job considering this was his first acting role ever.
The movie is reasonably entertaining but is also a bit silly at times and this was intentional. It is also what I think is the biggest problem with this movie: It was decided that the movie could be more profitable if they toned down the sex and violence in order to achieve a PG rating. They had to cut a great deal of the content in order to achieve this. Basically, they wanted to market to kids. Unfortunately, for me and many other people, the ultra-violence of the first film is what made it so epic and without the violence parts of the film just seemed kind of dumb.
They also really went for it with special effects and well, it didn't really work out for them, and when you look at those scenes today they seem particularly silly whereas most of the puppets from Barbarian still hold up pretty reasonably well in modern times.
maybe if his mouth moved at all during the fight it would seem less dumb
Also, this was relatively early in Arnold's career and his English wasn't exactly up-to-scratch, so to speak. If you recall, he said very little in the first film and the narrator provided most of the necessary dialogue. In this movie, Arnold speaks quite a lot and I don't think that was a good idea.
I do want to share this picture because Andre the Giant is also in this film but is not credited because he was in a costume. However, we all probably think Arnold is massive but this pic kind of puts things in perspective.
This movie was nominated for 2 Razzies, which you may know is not a good thing. The poor box office results was a major catalyst in the shelfing of the 3rd movie in the trilogy, which was never released.
My brother and I would rewind and play the sword twirling sequence over and over again on our VHS copy of this movie. Cracked us up every time cause of his facial expression and the comical sounds. Good times... Also when the princess talks to Conan while he's rubbing his arm or whatever in healing salve and he talks about Valeria from the first movie - she says like: "Could there ever be... Anyone elssssssssse?" That drawn out S, oh my God was it inexplicably funny. Thanks for bringing back the memories of this amazing movie. That mirror-wizard-orc-monster was kind of scary to me though. Practical effects like that have the ability to be uncannily haunting..
This movie is just a nice action and adventure movie, and I can forgive the fact that Conan was turned into a PG film; however, the one thing that annoys me the most is Arnold doing the sword twirling. It's way too much, he even did it on his horse! I would have been afraid to hit the horse! Lol!!!!!!
But my point is that though this movie has a good story to it, the fight choreography is really bad this time around. In the first it looked pretty legit, like you could believe that Conan and Rexor were really going at each other with an intense desire to kill each other. In this one you can all but hear them watching their foot placement and counting the number of sword strokes before the next move. Again, I like the movie but the choreography of the fights were pretty subpar compared to the first.
As a boy, I preferred this movie to the original, saying this one had more fun and fantasy, whereas the original was slow and boring.
But since all reviews are basically reviews of the reviewer, as well as the subject of the review, I discovered that as a man, this kid flick paled into comparison with the grand epic that preceded it.
Some spoilers follow. . .
You see, the left wing George Lucas and the right wing John Milius were pals at USC film school, worked on each other's student films, and both shared a fascination for myth in storytelling.
So when George Lucas took Joseph Campbell's ideas about myths, and blended them with his sympathies for the socialist Viet Cong's fight of the little guys against the big ole US, and came up with "Star Wars," Milius set out to blend myth with a more right-wing individualist ideology of self-reliance and standing on your two feet.
In "Conan The Barbarian," just as in "Star Wars," Joseph Campbell's mythology sees the hero orphaned, and set up for a quest against an ultimate evil. In Conan, amusingly, the villain is still basically Darth Vader, or at least his voice, but unlike Lucas' Luke, Conan does not use rebel terrorist tactics, but must ultimately defeat his enemy all by himself, standing on his own two feet, a self-reliant man and a Nietzschean warrior. Despite being crucified, and praying for the first time to Crom, Conan ultimately is by himself, telling his God defiantly "Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you! "
It is the combination of Campbell's mythic quest, with Milius' self-reliant ideology, that gives the original Conan such a primal power. That and Milius' extreme political incorrectness, that sees Conan's macho ethos amusingly stated as to "crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."
Ultimately, both "Star Wars" and "Conan The Barbarian" benefit from the underlying passion and ideology of their respective filmmakers, even though their philosophies differed.
In "Conan The Destroyer," Dino de Laurentis annoyed Schwarzenegger by employing the old adventure movie maker, Richard Fleisher, who made Disney's ""20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and "Fantastic Voyage," and dumbing down the whole thing into a simple fantasy adventure for boys.
As a boy, I loved the magic, the comedy sidekick, the feisty girl, the princess, the magician, the monsters, the quips, and I never realized that the deep quest for Conan's very soul, that defined the first movie, was missing. Now I realize. And so did Schwarzenegger, and he pulled out of the third adventure, "Conan the Conqueror" as soon as his contract with De Laurentis expired, and made the closest thing he could find to the first movie instead: "Predator." :)
Wow, great backstory. I love reading your movie reviews within movie reviews here. Love these movies, too!
Hiii...gooddream
Great Post with perfect review
I love these old movies, but Weird Al ruined it for me. Every time I see Conan all I can think of is this:
i love UHF and wierd al. good call!
yep, I had front row seats at a Weird Al concert for my 40th
The movie was a big let down.
It is cool old film... books are also good :)
Although I have not seen this movie, but being a great fan of Arnold, I love his terminator movie, and he also inspires me to go to gym and keep my body fit. He is a complete package.
My goodness I never thought I would say that ‘Arnold looks small’! Woah!
@gooddream I actually watched this first before Conan the Barbarian. Now that I think about it, you're probably right it was not as good. Still, it was a classic though