Several notes here on Conan the Barbarian, which has just appeared on DVD and thus deserves and needs another look, for one thing because there is a new edit in this version which bolsters the story somewhat.
First of all, the film must be seen relative to other fantasy films, both before and since. In terms of the setting, costumes, and general look and feel of the film, it is one of the most "authentic" and convincing fantasy films ever, certainly surpassing anything before it. The mountain of doom set is one of the most impressive ever built for such a film, and this type of construction is an extreme rarity these days -- only the Rohirrim city in "LOTR" can compare, largely because escalating costs in construction have met with declining costs in digital "construction". The film should also be lauded because, especially when compared to previous fantasy films, even including the Harryhausen/Schneer Sinbad films, it takes itself seriously. This may be a flaw to some audiences, especially in the wake of "Star Wars" when the film came out, but I really think that because this is an adult fantasy story and not a comic book one (as others have suggested) it needed a fairly straightforward, non "campy" treatment.
It will, of course, be compared in the coming years to the "LOTR" movies, with which it can't hope to compete on many levels. For one thing, Tolkien's work presents an integrated masterwork, whereas adapting Howard's short stories for an "epic" sensibility tends to degrade their value as simple pop entertainment. However, in terms of the settings and costumes, this film is almost "LOTR"'s equal. Also, it features a more grown-up set of characters and sensibilities, including a cynical view of sexuality and violence which is absent from Tolkien's somewhat Victorian fantasy setting.
Viewing the film relative to the original works of R.E. Howard, there are numerous aspects to complain about and some to praise. Howard's stories were written and published in random order, choosing to tell Conan's life story, as Howard put it, in the order of interest, much as a seasoned warrior would tell his stories around a campfire (he wouldn't tend to begin with the relatively embarassing "thieving" career he embarked on in Zamora in his youth, as this film does). This film, in attempting to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, has chosen to show Conan as a child and also to unify the story around a theme of revenge, something far alien from the world of Howard. The fixation on one romantic object (Valeria) is also foreign to Howard's ethos; he tends to have Conan hook up with one "lusty wench" by the end of each story (usually having already rescued said wench from ape-men or pirates or whatever) but when next we see Conan no mention will be heard of this girl (presumably she was left in a bar somewhere in Khitai). Howard's Conan stories are fantasy in a deliberately anti-epic mode, and this movie does not follow this.
On the other hand, the producers wisely chose to exclude Howard's questionable racial theories and his eugenics. They did an admirable job of creating the sense that his fantasy world is really an ancient version of our own, and also managed to bring into the script the sense that violence was more pervasive and authoritative in this society than any other virtue, which is very true to Howards' vision. Conan himself is shown as a big stupid brute, which is not true to Howard's portrait of the character, who usually escapes situations more by brains (and his opponent's tendency to underestimate what he has of them) than by brawn. However, this may be seen as fairly true to Howards' vision of a young Conan as seen in "House of the Elephant God".
The cities in particular have a great feel to them, very cramped and busy and dirty, with hundreds of pigs running around in the street and so on. I really like the scene where Conan and Subotai get the black lotus and get high, as it introduces an amorality that is very strong in Howards' stories, but absent from most Hollywood "heroic" fantasy.
As to Schwartenneger's performance, it is probably not very studied (in the commentary Arnold sounds like he doesn't understand the movie very much), but appropriate. I think that physically someone who was more agile and less brawny would have been better (he looks very slow next to Valeria in the battle scenes, whereas Conan moved "like a panther"), but perhaps as the producers said "if Arnold hadn't existed for this movie, we would have had to create him."
Now to the new ending -- SPOILERS SPOILERS -- I think that it is much better, compared to the old ending. Basically, he has brought the king's daughter into the final scene. On the commentary track, Milius says his intention was to show that Conan could have taken Thulsa Doom's power, but chose instead to follow his own path, and this is shown through the king's daughter's actions and reactions to him. However, viewing the film before I heard the commentary this intention wasn't exactly clear, so the producers' decision to truncate this ending for simplicity may be justifiable.
All told, one of the best fantasy stories ever cinematically told.
First of all, the film must be seen relative to other fantasy films, both before and since. In terms of the setting, costumes, and general look and feel of the film, it is one of the most "authentic" and convincing fantasy films ever, certainly surpassing anything before it. The mountain of doom set is one of the most impressive ever built for such a film, and this type of construction is an extreme rarity these days -- only the Rohirrim city in "LOTR" can compare, largely because escalating costs in construction have met with declining costs in digital "construction". The film should also be lauded because, especially when compared to previous fantasy films, even including the Harryhausen/Schneer Sinbad films, it takes itself seriously. This may be a flaw to some audiences, especially in the wake of "Star Wars" when the film came out, but I really think that because this is an adult fantasy story and not a comic book one (as others have suggested) it needed a fairly straightforward, non "campy" treatment.
It will, of course, be compared in the coming years to the "LOTR" movies, with which it can't hope to compete on many levels. For one thing, Tolkien's work presents an integrated masterwork, whereas adapting Howard's short stories for an "epic" sensibility tends to degrade their value as simple pop entertainment. However, in terms of the settings and costumes, this film is almost "LOTR"'s equal. Also, it features a more grown-up set of characters and sensibilities, including a cynical view of sexuality and violence which is absent from Tolkien's somewhat Victorian fantasy setting.
Viewing the film relative to the original works of R.E. Howard, there are numerous aspects to complain about and some to praise. Howard's stories were written and published in random order, choosing to tell Conan's life story, as Howard put it, in the order of interest, much as a seasoned warrior would tell his stories around a campfire (he wouldn't tend to begin with the relatively embarassing "thieving" career he embarked on in Zamora in his youth, as this film does). This film, in attempting to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, has chosen to show Conan as a child and also to unify the story around a theme of revenge, something far alien from the world of Howard. The fixation on one romantic object (Valeria) is also foreign to Howard's ethos; he tends to have Conan hook up with one "lusty wench" by the end of each story (usually having already rescued said wench from ape-men or pirates or whatever) but when next we see Conan no mention will be heard of this girl (presumably she was left in a bar somewhere in Khitai). Howard's Conan stories are fantasy in a deliberately anti-epic mode, and this movie does not follow this.
On the other hand, the producers wisely chose to exclude Howard's questionable racial theories and his eugenics. They did an admirable job of creating the sense that his fantasy world is really an ancient version of our own, and also managed to bring into the script the sense that violence was more pervasive and authoritative in this society than any other virtue, which is very true to Howards' vision. Conan himself is shown as a big stupid brute, which is not true to Howard's portrait of the character, who usually escapes situations more by brains (and his opponent's tendency to underestimate what he has of them) than by brawn. However, this may be seen as fairly true to Howards' vision of a young Conan as seen in "House of the Elephant God".
The cities in particular have a great feel to them, very cramped and busy and dirty, with hundreds of pigs running around in the street and so on. I really like the scene where Conan and Subotai get the black lotus and get high, as it introduces an amorality that is very strong in Howards' stories, but absent from most Hollywood "heroic" fantasy.
As to Schwartenneger's performance, it is probably not very studied (in the commentary Arnold sounds like he doesn't understand the movie very much), but appropriate. I think that physically someone who was more agile and less brawny would have been better (he looks very slow next to Valeria in the battle scenes, whereas Conan moved "like a panther"), but perhaps as the producers said "if Arnold hadn't existed for this movie, we would have had to create him."
Now to the new ending -- SPOILERS SPOILERS -- I think that it is much better, compared to the old ending. Basically, he has brought the king's daughter into the final scene. On the commentary track, Milius says his intention was to show that Conan could have taken Thulsa Doom's power, but chose instead to follow his own path, and this is shown through the king's daughter's actions and reactions to him. However, viewing the film before I heard the commentary this intention wasn't exactly clear, so the producers' decision to truncate this ending for simplicity may be justifiable.
All told, one of the best fantasy stories ever cinematically told.