Conan the Barbarian (1982)

The critic finds the film an epic, entertaining piece of mythmaking that rises above its pulp origins and technical limits. He singles out Milius’s earnest, serious approach for elevating the story, despite an unconvincing giant snake.

The critic treats the 1982 film as a rousing, thoughtful epic and finds its ideas more complicated than its macho reputation suggests. He particularly praises the warmth of Conan and Valeria’s relationship, which softens the film’s otherwise bellicose outlook.

The page frames Schwarzenegger’s later action-star fame as hard to imagine at the time. Its available blurb highlights the contrast between his early persona and eventual celebrity, but gives no clear overall verdict.

Ebert finds the film ponderous and often boring, though it has some interesting elements. He singles out Sandahl Bergman’s striking athletic presence as a strength.

Hutchinson finds the sword-and-sorcery adventure entertaining but too humourless. He praises its fabulous look and the movie’s fantasy atmosphere.

The review finds the film promising at first but ultimately weakened by a thin script and Schwarzenegger’s limited acting. It praises Milius’s setup and the anticipation around Conan’s emergence, while faulting the adventures that follow as meaningless.

The critic praises Conan the Barbarian as a brilliantly staged, memorable fantasy that makes strong use of Arnold Schwarzenegger. He singles out John Milius’s vivid world-building and the film’s thoughtful moments, while also noting that the Blu-ray transfer looks excellent.

The review is positive about the DVD release, especially its improved presentation. It singles out the widescreen picture and remastered soundtrack as major improvements, while noting occasional picture problems.

The headline signals a strongly negative verdict on the film. It singles out the film itself as “unbelievably awful,” without enough accessible text to identify a more specific criticism.