Conann

The content fails to connect with the source material. Robert E. Howard wrote of masculine men and feminine women, of course, and he also leaned into a feminist viewing of women where they were strong enough to handle themselves even when the odds were against them. His publicized letters shows an affinity towards such too. He likes his men and women strong in the face of systematic adversity where the rulers are corrupt and debaucherous. If the content is worth anything, create new characters and see how far it goes. Even the coattails of success of Conan the Barbarian cannot drag this into a coherent and enjoyable experience. Simply, those who look for such content, don't look for Conan, and vice versa.

The film's attempt to reimagine Conan as a lesbian woman through the ages is an utter trainwreck.

The plot is a mishmash of incoherent timelines, the characters lack depth, and the dialogue is cringe-worthy. It's a disservice to the original character, and the cinematography is laughably bad.

Save your time and money - this movie is a disaster in every sense.

The characters in this ill-conceived film are an absolute mess. First of all, the attempt to depict Conan, the iconic barbarian, as a lesbian woman across different centuries is not only historically inaccurate but also a blatant misinterpretation of the character's essence. Conan's complex personality, which includes his fierce warrior spirit, cunning intelligence, and rugged charm, is completely lost in this misguided adaptation.

Furthermore, the supporting characters are one-dimensional and lack any meaningful development. They seem like mere afterthoughts in a poorly constructed narrative. Their motivations are unclear, and their actions often make no sense, leaving the audience disconnected from their plight.

As for the storyline, it's a convoluted mess. The movie jumps haphazardly between different time periods, making it nearly impossible to follow the plot's progression. This disjointed approach does nothing to engage the viewer, and it feels like a lazy attempt to shoehorn the character into various historical settings.

The dialogue is equally cringe-worthy. It's filled with cheesy one-liners and forced attempts at humor that fall flat. The attempts to explore the themes of identity and sexuality are ham-fisted and lack nuance, reducing what could have been a thought-provoking aspect of the story into a caricature.

To make matters worse, the special effects are laughably bad, resembling something out of a low-budget '80s movie rather than a modern production.

In the end, this film is a disastrous attempt to reinvent a beloved character, and it fails spectacularly on every front. It's a disservice to fans of Conan and a prime example of how not to adapt a classic character for a contemporary audience.

No pun intended - the movie may tell us that this is Conan, but as the title already suggests, it is not just a female version (albeit a weird and strange "re-telling") ... no this is about way more! It is about life and the fact that even though we know it is not forever ... we do not cope well with that fact! Making deals, trying to skip stuff (experiences), trying to grasp for stuff we do not have .. not realizing what we do actually have might be good enough.

There is a lot hidden here - though some things are quite obvious I assume. When it comes to analogies that is. It also is quite bloody and explicit in many ways. There is some nudity, though that should not be problematic for most. The sexuality may be an issue with some - those who are more close minded that is.

I have not seen the previous output from the same director, but this got me curious. The changing of color and black and white, the background/set design .. there is a lot here. Many ideas, many things to enjoy ... if you are into that kind of thing ... half the cinema left when it played .. so be aware of what you get yourself into.

How this movie got financed is a mystery. It is so bad and repulsively ugly on absolutely every level (story, dialogues, production design, costumes...) that it is not even funny to watch. Please do not waste your time by attempting to watch this disaster, Ed Wood is a creative genius compared to Bertrand Mandico. Why this is titled "Conann" baffles me because the lead female character has no connexion whatsoever with Conan the Barbarian. I wonder why some people actually take this film seriously and analyze it as if it had any intellectual merit and signification. All I see here is just a atrocious and tasteless display of dreadful fantasies.

Mandico envisioning of hi couture meets 80s American pop culture and exploitative cinema. Not to mention that 80s Conanfilm series and "sword /fantasy" genre brought forth so many duplicate, "rip offs" of Barbaric schlock! From Italian film exploitation cinema to Hollywood low budget productions.

I'm sure that many viewers will probably not get the cultural art discourse, sprinkled throughout the film's violence and explicit gore. But it doesn't matter, so much visuals and physical action happening.

Any viewer with a short attention span, can probably get through it, but Mandico seems to be more interested with aesthetics tend viewers getting the story. The characters might be considered over the top, situations always in very "hi" fashioned settings.

If you like the visuals rather than linear storytelling, see this film. Many are already trying to force this flick into "cult" status. It may catch the eyes of some, but without any weight, will lose its lustre. This film is up for award nominees and has garnished some of them.

Part of this lustre is having many characters, thankfully there's one just one can fixate on "Rainer", a dog-like "cerebus" humanoid creature. It kinda reminds of a mashup of Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" and Boorman's "Excalibur" films with gore effects.