Start to Download Movies in Seconds!
Downloading movies has never been so simple! Now with Movies you can easily find and download any movie you want. Our website guarantees fast download speed, no codec problems and of course - best quality. You can search our database and download the most popular hits or some rare classic movies that you always wanted to see. Movies guarantees your satisfaction as soon as you open the downloaded movie!
Buy Conan the Barbarian Movie. Watch online or Download
5.2
Genres are ActionAdventureFant Produced in 2011, USA
Available Quality: DivX, Hi Def, Hi Def
Rating: 5.2 out of 10 (30990 votes)
 |
1920x800 | 7820 MiB |
|
 |
1280x528 | 4464 MiB |
|
 |
1 | 624x256 | 702 MiB |
|
|
2 | 624x256 | 699 MiB |
|
| Actors | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Stephen Lang | Rose McGowan | Ron Perlman | Bob Sapp |
| Nonso Anozie | Nathan Jones | Raad Rawi | |
| Directors | |||
| Marcus Nispel | |||
Storyline
Plot Summary:
A quest that begins as a personal vendetta for the fierce Cimmerian warrior soon turns into an epic battle against hulking rivals, horrific monsters, and impossible odds, as Conan realizes he is the only hope of saving the great nations of Hyboria from an encroaching reign of supernatural evil.
More Movies
Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
Action, Thriller, Drama
Action, Comedy, Romance
Action, Thriller, Sci-Fi
Action, Comedy
george.schmidt
25 May 2012
Better-than-expected and brutally violent bloodletting origin story of the pulp fictionMarvel Comics warrior hero
CONAN THE BARBARIAN (2011) *** Jason Momoa, Stephen Lang, RachelNichols, Ron Perlman, Rose McGowan, Leo Howard. Better-than-expectedand brutally violent bloodletting origin story of the pulpfiction/Marvel Comics' warrior hero cum remake with Momoa fitting intoAh-nold's sandals nicely as the beefcake barbarian out to vanquish themurderer of his father (respectively Lang having a field day & Perlmanat his burliest) and saving a virginal princess (the lush Nichols) inthe process . Director Marcus Nispel gets all the graphic but none ofthe novel thanks to the flat-footed screenplay by Thomas Dean Donnelly,Joshua Oppenheimer and Sean Hood. But the film's saving grace (and no,not the hit-miss 3-D) is McGowan as Lang's sexily evil witchy offspringwith her delish Lady Ga-Ga homage if you will; bewitching indeed
manunderyourbed
24 May 2012
Should have been all about this Leo kid.
I'm sorry, but Conan the Hawaiian was a sheer disappointment. I'll giveit: 2 stars for Sex, 3 stars for Naked Breasts, 1 star for Blood andGuts - Lots of blood, but very little of it made any sense. 1 star forSurfer Conan - Arnold Conan would have wiped the floor with him. It waslike a made for TV movie before they made really good made for TVmovies. 4 stars for Kiddo Conan - If the movie was about Leo Conan, itwould have rocked. That young man brought ferocity and vigor to thetable that was believable. 3 stars for Scenery. Some of the landscapeswere intriguing and very creative. 1 star for Plot Line. 2 stars forDialogue. 1 star for Immersion. Verdict: 1 star. If it was 3 am and allI had to watch was Conan the Hawaiian, and two infomercials - DiaperGenie and Wesley Snipes uses Total Gym, I'd totally get into the DiaperGenie.
just_live_already
24 May 2012
Dont watch this movie.
I was amazed that, in this day and age, with that kind of budget, youcan make a film this terrible. I mean, it was the most boring thingI've ever seen. It starts off looking good, like it's going to bereally exciting and crazy, and though there is action, there's verylittle story. The most exciting thing in the whole movie, to me, wasthat in the movie, Ron Perlman somewhat resembled Metallica frontmanJames Hetfield. And there's this one part where they have a bunch ofnaked huge-breasted young women in a cage. Why this cut scene wasnecessary, I do not know. That is, however, the only reason this filmwas rated R.
derekblake
23 May 2012
How to Make a Movie in the Dark
I am struggling to actually review this movie, not because of its weakstory-line or because of its total lack of imagination, or even becauseof its gratuitous violence (most of which is hidden), but because theone thing that was missing was a lighting engineer. Yes folks, this isan object lesson in how to make a low budget blockbuster movie, thoughhow much money was actually saved by shooting seventy-five percent ofthe film in darkness I don't know. However the other cost saving wascertainly well designed, a few decent cameramen who could actually keepthe shot in focus would have spoiled the whole thing for me. Out offocus darkness was entertaining for the first ten minutes, after thatit became irritating, the big fight scene in the last ten minutes ofthe film is lost completely but then that will have saved on the costof giving the monster too much detail, rather than leaving it a a pieceof wet hose pipe. What a waste of time and money, not the productioncompanies, but mine, I can sit in the dark with some flickering lightsat home for free. There was one decent fight scene in the film abouthalf way through, but it was certainly not worth the ticket price. Oneof the worst and most irritating films I have seen for a long time.
drew_atreides
23 May 2012
The whole does not equal the sum of its parts
I have to admit i went in wanting to like this new Conan. There weresome interesting actors in place here. Stephen Lang was solid in"Avatar", Rose McGowan is someone i've had a secret love for since"SCREAM", and her participation "Grind House" cemented her status as aB-movie favourite, and being a Stargate Fan i knew what Jason Momoacould bring to the table. He had all the tools to fill the sandals andloin cloth of Conan, along with an undeniably brooding screen presence.These 3 at the core give a valiant effort, but i don't think any actorcould save this fairly poorly spliced together schlock. I think the direction is the weak point. There's definitely some solidmakeup work, and the action scenes are conceptually pretty cool. Butthe way they were executed and actually filmed left a lot to bedesired, and near the end of the film it seems like the editing went topot.Still, for gore-fiends there's definitely some appeal here. There's anundeniable brutality to the violence. I have to admit i was cringing acouple of times!Overall, though, a bit of a wasted opportunity. There was some neatpieces in place here, but it's all for naught. Too bad. McGowan's performance alone was definitely worthy of a morefleshed out character in a better film.To be honest i want to give this a 6.5/10, but I am rounding up to avery generous 7.Disappointed.
nightstalker-7
22 May 2012
Not that bad as 15K claim I would say...
Well, in general I'm not this master for writing reviews or anythingelse. But in general, I do agree with 95% of IMDb ratings, besides somespecial cases. And this is one of them.Seriously, if we put away the old Conan the Barbarian Movie with Arnie.This movie offers You "A grade" quality of picture, "A- grade" qualityof camera angles "B grade" quality of story composition "B grade"quality of actor performance and "A- grade" of sound/music quality.It's not that bad as a movie for DVD/BD @ your home, right? Andfrankly, many TV movies have much, much higher vote rating as Conan.For me, I really enjoyed some fights in the movie, I liked how actorswere masked up, also enjoyed Conan as a kid and as an adult. As I say,these guys didn't put out any blockbuster performance to Your screenbut seriously, it wasn't that bad [5/10] all in all. It really deservessolid 6/10 from a random viewer and from a fan of medieval times andfantasy good 7/10.Though, this is only my opinion and I fully respect the opinions ofwhole IMDb community...
goku_san02
21 May 2012
A great action flick, not an Oscar contender
I can't help but feel the people rating this movie down were the oneswho saw Schwarzenegger's Conan when they were teens and are now judgingthis without the rose-colored glasses of youth.I think Jason Momoa does a wonderful job on this style of Conan. Whilemore energetic overall, his interpretation of Conan is very similar tohis character of Ronon on Stargate Atlantis. He's a more youthful,brash, and hot-headed Conan than Arnold played and that's fine with me.This movie has no more and no less attention paid to the plot, dialog,and directing than many other action films both better and worse.I will take this poorly rated Conan reboot over the higher ratedIndiana Jones and the Crystal Skull any day. This movie was made tohave action and entertain and I feel that was accomplished.
Jonathan Campbell
21 May 2012
Dont see this
What can one say?...This is a terrible, terrible movie. I have waited27 years for another Conan movie, 29 for another good one, and now Ihope they just leave the character alone. I had my doubts when I firstheard Jason Mamoa would be the lead, and that Marcus Nispel woulddirect. So I went into this movie with low expectations but a lot ofhope. Sufficed to say my expectations were too high, and my hopes,slowly but surely throughout the course of 2 hours were only for themerciful coming of the end of this....whatever this was. This is not Conan, it bears little to nothing in common with thecharacter created by Robert Howard. The dialogue sounds as if it waswritten by teenagers, and what did they blackmail Morgan Freeman withto get him to do the monologue. The acting suffers from the poorwriting and the actors cant force the drivel out with any sort ofconviction. This movie could have been any generic sword andsorcery/fantasy film. I don't even know why I gave this 3 stars. Itdeserves maybe 2 for some decent scenery. What a waste.So the story is a young Conans father is killed by being bathed inmolten metal, with Conan left by the evil Karim Zim ( Stephen Lang ) towitness it. Karim Zim is intent upon reuniting the pieces of a maskmade from the bones of kings created in the ancient empire of Acheron.Well the mask was shattered by barbarians intent upon the overthrow ofAcheron and the pieces divided up and hidden so that the terrible powerwould never be able to menace again. Wouldn't you know it Conans fatherhappens to be one of the protectors of one of these pieces of thismask.So what happens once the diabolical Karim Zim gets a hold of the finalpiece and the mask is complete.....? Oh nothing not for another 12YEARS !!!!!!!!....HUH?Yes you see the reuniting of the various pieces of the mask isn't allthat is required. No, Karim Zim must find the " pure blood " of adescendant of ancient Acheron apparently to activate the masks powers,which he will use to return his wife, a witch who was apparently burnedat the stack, to life so they may rule the world. This is where RachelNichols comes in as the prospective "pure blood" sacrifice whom KarimZim took 12 years to find, allowing our hero Conan to be of an age tooppose him. I cant go on, I wish I could but it just gets worse andworse, even after Karim Zim gets the blood, without killing RachelNichols but leaving a nasty cut between her fake breasts, what does hedo with the great power of this mask? NOTHING!!!! He gets into a swordfight with Conan, he doesn't miracle any monsters or demons to helphim, what the mask does is apparently cling to Stephen Langs headlooking like the face sucker from Alien. Seriously. DO NOT SPEND YOUR MONEY ON THIS CRAP.
finn-palm
21 May 2012
It makes me sad
To have classical writing like that of Robert E Howard at yourdisposal, and make a movie that is so bad that it isn't even anenjoyable popcorn-flick takes a huge lack of talent. Having followedthe process since Paradox Entertainment acquired the rights to Conanfrom Conan Properties Inc many years ago I have time and again beenleft dumbfounded at how they completely fail to get the point.Not only is this movie not a good Conan-movie or faithful to Robert EHoward's creation. It also crushes the hopes of us Howard-fans gettingone within a foreseeable future. This is the kind of movie that has youyawning and makes you go get snacks without pausing the movie if you'reat home, or checking your watch if you're in the theater.To blame for all this is obviously several people rather than one. Manyof the producers has had their dirty fingers in it with clauses ofright to mess with the product in their contracts. None of them everthought keeping this true to Robert E Howard would be the key tosuccess, even though so many other productions have proved vastlysuccessful by doing reboots that are faithful. The worst part about allthe people in charge on this project is that once they learned that themovie didn't make as much as they hoped they blame it on everythingelse but themselves. They blame the Conan-brand, they blame the fansand they even have the nerve to make up lies for the poor actors who'veworked their asses off trying to make the movie the producers hasconvinced them that the fans want. So the actors are now left with abad taste in the mouth and from their comments on panels and interviewsyou can tell someone withheld the reason the movie bombed from them.This whole project is a mess and it makes me sad.For the actual movie and story itself it's a mix of way too much bloodspurting in very unrealistic ways, bad cgi where they haven't eventaken into account the way the light falls on the cast, an inability tokeep martial arts and parcour out of a movie that is meant to depict apre-historic age (I have nothing against MA or parcour. I just thinkthat they could have come up with something of their own, that feltmore genuine and not constructed), overly fancy and unrealisticswordplay, and finally a story that is completely unnecessary as it isnot part of Robert E Howard's work, and it even conflicts with it. Howon earth is that faithful? The answer: It isn't.This movie is utter crap. Don't watch it unless someone pays you.
avfanatic
20 May 2012
Disappointing
Conan the Barbarian reboot was disappointingly average. The acting wassolid, but dialog was often weak, art direction was uninspired anddirecting was poor at best. Not one single good transition betweenscenes in the entire movie. Only the first fight sequence was verygood, the rest were meh. The director and writer should go see Rise ofthe Planet of the Apes to see how a franchise is rebooted well and withnods to the original. The "mystery of steel"? Really? And theramshackle Cimmerians with stick and hide huts but a well built forgeand a reputation for being great smiths couldn't make nails for betterhousing? I had no problems with Momoa as Conan and his dialog aboutwomen and fighting was the only thing truly Conan about this film. Icould go on about the dropped subplots and the inconsistencies withstory, but that would just show my ire at not seeing what I hoped for:a new start for a great character.
mandelmanden
20 May 2012
Lighthearted but fun.
I went to see Conan the Barbarian in 2D (naturally) after a few beersat the end of a long day. I had seen a couple of reviews, heard a fewopinions, and it was apparently the worst garbage to come out ofHollywood since forever. So, I was very pleasantly surprised when thismovie turned out to be quite a lot more fun and probably pretty coolfor a handful of kids in their early teens. But we had good fun,despite being rather a lot older than our early teens. At the end of the day, you don't get much more than you could'veexpected to get from a movie that's basically only about a guy growingup to kill the guy who killed his father. The plot starts out flat andremains flat. In between the start and the end we see a bunch of coollocations, a lot of fighting, a couple of fun moments, a random sexscene, and it sticks pretty true to Conan lore.I wonder if it's at all feasible to make this movie. You have acharacter that is basically only from a couple of handfuls of pulpshort stories from the 30's. A teenage boy's hero, exciting adventures.It's not for the mainstream cinema, at all. It's something for kids intheir room, playing Dungeons & Dragons or Descent: Journeys in theDark, or a sword & sorcery video games.To adults, it's either horrible, or something fun to remind us of atime where we were more easily impressed by the world and its sights.But then, as a person who very much enjoys movies that are so badthey're good, a movie in that category that's also nicely made ingeneral, is a rarity. For those points, I'll give it a 7/10. If you'rethe nerdy type and dip into a couple of beers, you'll probably enjoythis. Your 13-15 year old son and his mates will also love it no doubt.
kosmasp
19 May 2012
Mindless
There is many reasons why you shouldn't like this movie. It's dialogue,the acting and the story as it is. But while all those things appearvery mindless and barbaric, this might also be something might somehowappeal to you. I thought it was so senseless that it kinda was fun towatch in a strange way.Of course Momoa will not delete Schwarzenegger from our memory and thelatter will be remembered as the ultimate Conan yet. But while I haveno idea how the Comic Conan is, I can tell you that you are better off,finding something to cling on in this, then just wince your way throughit. Plus you have to give them kudos for going R-rated from the get-go(could you imagine a PG-13 Conan? Exactly!). So while not really good,it kinda can be fun
scott-136-375769
19 May 2012
Very poor 3D best to see in 2D
I just got back from the cinema from watching Conan the Barbarian. Ireally tried to enjoy this film but was put off the whole time by thevery poor 2D go 3D rotoscope and depth card trick. I normally enjoy agood film shot in 3D but in this film it was so distracting that itruined the whole experience. I just couldn't help but focus on all theglaring errors where parts of the same object were both in theforeground and back ground at the same time! This is the same for theedges of characters and objects. After a while I was starting to feeldizzy from trying to work out what was meant to be where! I'm sure Iwould have enjoyed this film in 2D, I nearly walked out half way withthe intention to swap my ticket. But alas the film was ruined for me bythat stage. I just hope I can save a few poor souls from seeing it in3D. I'm giving this film a 3 but it might have been a solid 6 if seenin 2D. Film makers need to shoot the whole film in 3d from the get goand stop trying to deceive the viewing audience with this poor mans 3Dachieved in post production. It look so bad and will ruin any filmevery time.
khalazdad
18 May 2012
Back to Robert e. Howard
If you like the Conan story as developed by Robert E. Howard and thelater novels, you will love this film. It has all the elements of theHoward Conan - he' smart, arrogant, and powerful. I don't know why themakers of this movie created such an awful trailer that misleads youinto taking it for a remake of the Schwarzenegger movie - this isanything but.The 3-D is good enough that I eventually forgot about it, although itmakes some of the action sequences muddy. And some of the drama couldhave been played up more - we never got the sense of the world being inperil that the narrator tried to suggest. Even so, this is anintroduction to the character - a reintroduction that has to undo thework of the Arnold character (not Conan).Overall, a very likable movie with a lot to offer. I hope there will besequels.
El_mensagero_no_es_Importante
17 May 2012
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
It begins by looking like an epic (an poor one) and changes to what itlooked like an episode of the TV series Hercules or Xena. To me they lost an opportunity to be quietFilm with a lot of color, which should be and look like a bloody andbarbaric time (as in the films 82 and 84) seemed at times that I waswatching the "Scorpion King 2" or something like thatAs to characters, I prefer not to extend the comment ... , lackingexactly that to them, character. So poorly explored, and what was theproblem with the evil characters? Not even a 10 year old would buythat.It's just sad too see
thekarmicnomad
17 May 2012
Tried much too hard to be epic, failed epicly
This should have been quite a good hack-and-slash movie and the firsthalf an hour looked promising with a good dose of decapitations andtopless maidens.But then it tries to be too big and bold.One minute they are walking across the desert, then the forest, thenthey stop for lunch on a cliff top, now they are having it off in abarn, then they're on a boat. What the...?Captions flash up relentlessly declaring we're now in the City ofThieves or the Forest of Shadows, The Cave of Lost Toothbrushes orwhatever. These places have no meaning, no scope and quite often onlyprovide a platform for some sparse dialogue or a crafty stabbing.The combat scenes are good (kind of) but mostly make no sense. Theymake a big deal about attacking some impenetrable fortress; walk in,kill nine minions, chop up one of the hopeless bad guys, knock somefurniture over and its job done, queue the caption guy.What this film lacks is good old fashion craftsmanship and heart. Thescenes roll out like a factory production line; the characters appear ,have a fight then move on. None of the characters are developed ormemorable in anyway, and this really isn't me being all arty, you couldhave replaced the cast half way through and I wouldn't have noticed.On top of that some of the blood affects are laughable. One guy hits arock and it looks like he was wearing a backpack full of tomatocup-a-soup. Classic!
rockguru
16 May 2012
Conan the accountant
I was really looking forward to see that. Yet after the first 15 min itwas painful to watch how Conan 2.0 crashed and burned.No amount of special effects can hide the awful dialog, the ridiculousscript. The worst of all is Conan's lack of charisma. The barbaricspirit Ahnold introduced is replaced with a tamed nicer Conan.With few exceptions - young Conan and Conan's father the acting wasbelow average. The whole premise feels like made from accountants who were wonderinghow to recycle Hollywood gimmicks and it is as interesting as balancesheet. The story looks confused and broken introducing too manyinsignificant side elements. I wonder who was the "genius" behind thefemale Freddy Krueger?Conan number two is just that - it stinks.Boring boring boring...
KittyGreco
16 May 2012
Silly, but entertaining
I wasn't expecting too much from this movie, and it was certainlynothing exceptional, but I still found it pretty entertaining andenjoyable. The visuals are stunning, and the fight scenes excellent.But I could have wished for a better storyline, and less time spentstabbing, slashing, punching, kicking, beheading, torturing anddisembowelling.Conan himself is rather boring, unfortunately, but at least Jason Momoalooks fantastic in the part. The good girl, played by Rachel Nichols,is instantly forgettable, but the bad girl (Rose McGowan) is cool, andStephen Lang makes a suitably sinister and formidable villain. It wasalso good to see the ever-reliable Ron Perlman, as Conan's father, butI wished he could have had a bigger part.I particularly enjoyed the fight scene with the sand warriors, andlater with the giant octopus-thingy in the dungeon. I would have likedConan to have had more fights with fantasy creatures like these, tocreate more of an atmosphere of myth within the movie.So all in all, not a brilliant movie, but still a decent entertainmentIMO. Sit back with the popcorn, relax, and don't take it too seriously,and I don't think you'll be disappointed!
agingrich-dotnet
15 May 2012
A Perfect Waste of Budget Dollars
Rose McGowan's performance was somewhat within the "ballpark" of thetype of character called for by such a story.I had been eagerly keeping up with the development of this movie for 2years, only to finally arrive at the tragedy that became of such awonderful story line.This was a waste of time. Otherwise great actors' reputations werelikely destroyed by this movie. I doubt any of them will look back onthis one with pride. Even Ron Perlman, an established actor who isknown for playing exceptionally high-quality action roles, suckedduring his 20 minutes.The scene with the serpent was one of the most boring sequences ever,and just seem to drag on and on. But hey! I can say that Conan tellingEla-Shan, "You scream like a girl," made me chuckle. Yes, I paid the $14 dollars for the 3D experience; that did not helpone bit.
Christina West
15 May 2012
Very Promising.... Equally Disappointing
I loved the old Conan film. But let me make it clear that I did not gointo this film expecting an exact replica of the old film. When I watchthese remakes of old 80's films I watch them as an independentexpression of the story. Much like a film based on a book.Now that I've made that clear, I must say this film was not in any waygood.Now I'm not going to run through every detail of the film, but I willlist the points that detracted most from the film: -Let's start withsomething good, the first 15 minutes were great. Ron Perlman wasamazing, and having to see him die actually brought tears to my eyes.At this point I had high hopes.-The script is terrible. You can almost feel the spelling mistakes. Butwhat do you expect when the script was being rewritten DURING filming.-Conan doesn't come across as a level headed warrior, but as a whinyboy. Running every where saying "I must find the man who killed myfather." Okay, I get it... Stop saying it.-Tamara (who plays the female protagonist, and Conan's love interest)is unbearable. There are many things I could say about this character,but the number one thing was the screaming. She would not stopscreaming. Every time she shrieked at the top of her little lungs I wasripped out of the story. At a major point where I should be rooting forthe character to live I sat there hoping she would die so my ears wouldbe spared for the rest of the film.-Marique is okay. The over the top Gothic outfit and feel worked in myopinion. Seeing as she is supposed to represent such evil, and blackmagic. The only thing that could have been better here was the speech.She spoke so openly American, a subtle accent would have carried thischaracter farther.And finally...-The Boss Battles. That is all I could call them. Conan fought bossafter boss, until he reached the final boss and won the game. That'show it felt... Like a video game.This film is worth a dollar at Redbox, or maybe even $5 in the Walmartdiscount bin. All it is is some cheap thrills, if you can get over theterrible acting and script. But you will never find me watching itagain.
Copyright SoulFilms © 2002-2012 All Rights Reserved.
- Support
- | Privacy Policy
- | Terms of Use
- | FAQ
- | Help
- | PDA version