Way better than 1982 film, in every respect, IMO

I'm sorry but this was the worst movie to come out in 2011 and definitely one of the worst movies ever made. I went into it open minded being a Conan fan. However there isn't a single redeemable quality about this movie. The acting was a terrible, this "New Conan" has the worst one liners, the story the direction and the editing was all over the place. One second hes like 12 next second full grown chopping a head off, then all of a sudden we are on a ship, and my god the last minute idea to make this movie into 3D and it completely shows in this.

This cant match or surpass the original that had great story, great pace, still was brutal even for its time. So to say this movie is even tolerable is giving it too much credit. This is #2 next to #1 Silent Hill Revelations worst movies I've ever seen that were actually painful for me to sit through in theaters.

I would not even call this movie "Conan". He was in no way the character of Conan. How he handled situations and reacted to things were all wrong. This, to me, is just some barbarian movie poorly done. Conan the Destroyer and Conan the Barbarian own this movie in so many ways.

Yes, the remake was much better than the original.

The only reason I can think of why it received so many negative posts here on IMDb is the average moronic viewer expected a word-for-word remake of the original film with Arnold Schwarzenegger playing a new added role of Jason Momoa's wise old pappy's ghost hovering around in the background talking in a heavy Austrian accent.

I wasn't disappointed at all. I gave it good marks.

No I don't agree but I'm going to post anyway.
If you think this pile of steaming *beep* can even be compared to the original then you might want to check this film out http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092615/?ref_=nv_sr_2
It will most likely make your top ten movies of all times if you thought this was good.
Besides I think the title of your post should be "Way better than 1982 film, in every ASPECT, IMO"

you betcha. sites, cities and broad ranges of scenery..not just a bunch of boulders. Conan spoke perfect enunciation, had more than one facial expression and had strength without body exaggeration. My only gripe is like the first film, the story audaciously showed the Cimmerians as easily exterminated. In the books they were the strongest, most fearless, most indomitably mighty tribe of the Hyborian Era and attacking them even with a full army was utter and complete suicide.

Should never have been made IMO. In no way, shape or form did I see this guy as Conan. He did not act like Conan. If this movie did not have Conan in the title I would not even know what this guy is.

Despite seeing the original when I was quite young and therefore having a sort of nostalgic connection to it, I still find this movie superior in most aspects, with a few exceptions.
The music is the obvious one, of course. You just can't beat Basil's score. The main character did a better job at playing a tough barbarian than Arnold did. Let's face it, Arnold's only really good role is as the Terminator(s). However, the villain was a far cry from Jones's Thulsa Doom. Again, let's face it, NOBODY does villainy quite like James Earl Jones.
Other than that, I think the directing, action, use of special effects (for it's time), overall acting and, for good measure, ''doability'' of the main female lead is better than the original. This movie also felt more mature and in touch with the gritty dark fantasy feeling of the Conan universe. In most cases I don't especially approve or need bloody violence and nudity, but without it it's not really Conan.

I'm not really shocked to see the original having a better rating, but I'm shocked to see 'the Destroyer' having a better rating. The acting was MUCH worse than in this one, and I felt the plot was at least somewhat better executed here. It's certainly no masterpiece, but it's no worse than the Underworld or Resident Evil live-action movies, and it's fun to watch for the exact same reasons. It deserves at least a 6.5 IMO.

--

Will someone please explain how the 2011 version, which can't hold a candle next to the 1982 film, is more faithful to Howard's work? Apart from fighting a wizard, killing a snake, and rescuing a girl, where are the great similarities? Not only did the 1982 film feature all these components, with much better results, it had actual moments from the stories: breaking into a tower to steal a jewel ("The Tower of the Elephant"), crucifixion and killing a vulture ("A Witch Shall be Born"), the resurrection and rescue by a tough love interest ("Queen of the Black Coast"), wizard's transformation into a snake ("People of the Black Circle"), and other less-comparable bits (a friendly wizard ["The Scarlet Citadel"], a future-seeing witch ["The Hour of the Dragon"] ). Others mentioned that the 1982 film also shows us more versions of Conan--as a thief, mercenary, king--whereas the 2011 version gives us merely a revenge plot--calling his humanitarian rescue of the slaves or his time on the boat as a passenger going to Zym's island comparable is pretty weak.

Apologies to all who see this text in another post. I assume someone will be more likely to reply to a post not buried on the 16th page.