Apples and oranges is the way to see this movie, if you're going to compare them. They're both fruit, they're both good, just the skin is different. The original lumbered on with little action, and the remake just boiled over with action. Perhaps, in the near or more probably distant future, the newest version of Conan of Cimmeria will get it right on the money. So, until then, I recommend you enjoy them both, and let the debate of which is better continue.

Conan-diana Jones and the Temple of Doom An unnecessary and uninspired reboot that borrows more from the Indiana Jones series than the previous Conan films. Apparently this project was in development since the 90s and geez it shows with multiple writers jumbling up a simple premise into incoherence. Morgan Freeman's rambling narration at the start of the film was the first sign of problems. Then it's a half hour of the young adventures of Conandiana Jones which is really only saved by the amazing presence of Ron Perlman as Conan's dad. The cast is actually great in this, the main cast at least, and the set/costume design is stellar. For a bit I thought Mad Max Fury Road stole some character designs from this film, but apparently it was the other way around lol. What really is intolerable in this movie is the quick cuts (any scene with action cuts every 1 or 2 seconds) and the CGI which is used sparingly but when it's there it's awful and avoidable (who wants to watch Conan fight CGI sand men?). The ending is almost beat-for-beat the ending of Temple of Doom too. The only saving grace is that they went with an R rating, including some graphic violence and nudity/sex. This movie is bad, but in a good way where you can make fun of it the entire time.

The worst film ever. In every way. I hate it so much.

I love this character and can't think of anyone better than Mamoa to fill this role in 2011. Good visuals, great action scenes, and a healthy dose of barbarian sass. Grab a pitcher of ale and enjoy some escapism and low fantasy. It's a shame they never made a sequel with Samoa, but I'll certainly watch this version again.

I was wanting to love this movie. I was disappointed it almost had the feeling of early 80-s movies like Hawk the Slayer and Krull. Oh I still like those movies but they were of their time It seemed very slow at times and uninteresting so much so, I have forgotton what was going on between fights and I finished watching 10 minutes ago. The acting was well, acting if that is what the director wanted. I did get ridiculously sick of the Heroine screaming like she was on top of the empire state building with a giant gorilla

First we had Friday the 13th (2009) now this, this director should retire for good.

"Conan the Barbarian" (2011) featuring Jason Momoa earns a respectable 3.5-star rating, offering a modern take on the iconic character. Momoa's portrayal brings a raw physicality and intensity to the role, capturing the essence of the fierce and formidable warrior. Supported by a talented cast, including Rachel Nichols as Tamara, Stephen Lang as Khalar Zym, and Rose McGowan as Marique, the film boasts strong performances that elevate its narrative. At its core, "Conan the Barbarian" delivers on the promise of thrilling action and epic battles, transporting viewers to a brutal and unforgiving world. The film's visual effects and set designs create a vivid and immersive backdrop, immersing audiences in the rich tapestry of Conan's universe. However, despite its strengths, the film occasionally falters in pacing and storytelling. Some plot elements may feel rushed or underdeveloped, detracting from the overall impact of the narrative. Additionally, while Momoa shines in the titular role, the chemistry between the characters could have been further explored and deepened. Nevertheless, "Conan the Barbarian" remains a solid entry in the fantasy genre, offering an entertaining and action-packed adventure for fans of epic storytelling. With its strong performances, breathtaking visuals, and thrilling action sequences, the film successfully honors the legacy of the iconic character while introducing him to a new generation of audiences.

Is not retcon, not sequel, not, prequel, not origin, not of everything. Momoa was good but the only Conan will always be the big Arnold

Wish I could give it zero

Conan as a character is underrated. This movie is underrated. Incredible adventure.

Stayed true to the original. Need to make another.

I put this on accidentally thinking it was the original. It's fine. Full of action so if you like sword fighting you'll probably like this film but if you're into good acting and writing, not that this film is awful for it but it's probably worth looking else where. There do be boobys in this film

The greatest 01 hour: and 53 minutes ever!!!!!!!!!!

It was a good effort, especially for using HQ material. Not as satisfying as the original, but funny enough.

They already made this movie. Arnold was Conan.

Probably one of the worst fantasy films that I have seen in the last 10 years.

Where Conan the King? We're waiting.. For Arnold.

I left the tv on, and the film played on...and on. But here's the problem: In the original, Arnold EARNS his status, physique, abilities, focus, and, well, CHARACTER, by pushing a grist mill around in a circle for 20 years before he became Conan. This film forgot to actually build characters into stories. And it's the script's fault. The cast is PLENTY capable of carrying quality. But this script wasted all of them.

Stop remaking classics, morons.

If you like the sword & sorcery genre this is much better than the Schwarzenegger version of Conan the Barbarian. The special effects are pretty well done & Jason Momoa plays a believable action hero.