So, can we all agree that this was an embarrassment for all concerned and just let it go? I'm sure Jason Momoa's large, craggy heart was in the right place but there's just no reason to remake a classic. Maybe if they had gone with a different title, just made it a Conan movie, instead of a reboot, it might have been simply forgettable instead of an affront to good taste. But, then again, Conan movies have never really been a bastion of refinement. So why does this one suck so hard? The plot seems pretty standard:
After his entire village is slaughtered, young Conan (Jason Momoa) searches the world for the utter bastard (Stephen Lang) who killed his father (Ron Perlman). After finally tracking the bastard to a hidden monastery, Conan realizes that he is after a young girl (Rachel Nichols) in order to sacrifice her to his dark gods. Possibly to beseech them to give his daughter (Rose McGowan) some eyebrows. Anyway, Conan takes the girl, keeps her just long enough to foster an attachment, and then loses her to the bad guys. This, of course, gives him license to storm their castle in order to rescue her.
It's gratuitously bloody, has lots of topless chicks, and the writing is crap. If it had been made in the early 80's on an Italian set with a bunch of extras who didn't speak English, I'd probably be raving about it. But it's not nearly funny or self-aware enough to be camp and not dark enough to be grittily realistic. And that, my friends, makes it utterly worthless to watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment