reviews

36
Based on 29 Critics
critic reviews ( 3 )
fan reviews ( 27 )
  • There is no purpose to the film other than random blood splattering amid scenes of bondage, primitive savagery and S&M eroticism. The film is numbing and dumb with its hero indistinguishable from its villains. show more

  • There are swords and sorcery, pirates and monsters, taxed bodices and taxing mythology. In other words, there's the bare minimum necessary to summon this dismal movie into existence. show more

  • The movie's look is artificially grainy, and most of the scenes are encrusted with CGI - you'd have to chip it away with a chisel to get to anything human or interesting or even remotely fantastical. show more

See all critic reviews on metacritic.com
  • March 06, 2012 ym00000000110767
    Report This User

    Great

  • December 10, 2011 pt00000000108784
    Report This User

    Horrible, pass away from this film, is one of the worst remakes I\'ve ever seen, completely offended the history of classic character. A movie trash that is best done by this succession of horrors, awful story, horrible special effects, fights evil tested, only the actor Jason Momoa is saved well by incorporating the role of Conan. For the rest go away from this film

  • November 25, 2011 Roger Collins
    Report This User

    I\'m 55 and went to see Arnold\'s version back when I was in my 20\'s. Although I enjoyed his version better. I still enjoyed this one. I was in the mood for action and that\'s what I got. I went into it realizing that the action would overshadow the acting (it usually does in strong action flicks) so I was not bothered by it. Despite this I thought the movie was still pretty good.