WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN
A lot of people felt that Leo Howard, who played the young Conan, did a better job than Jason Momoa as the adult Conan. Maybe the movie should have been Conan - The Early Years.
shareI thought Momoa fit the role to a 't' and blew Arnie out of the water, although the 1982 movie is a much better film.
The writing is where this movie failed; the script needed the kinks worked out and more imagination. The villain was too conventional and the final act -- while action-packed -- was dull and forgettable.
I agree, though, that the part with young Conan was very well done and one of the best parts of the flick.
I don't think that Momoa blew Arnie out of the water.
I won't argue that Arnold's acting was great, or that he was true to the book version of Conan, but Arnold's Conan seemed to have a lot more charisma and screen presence. Also, Arnold had a much better supporting cast for him to lean on.
I was going by look as Momoa fit John Buscema's interpretation of the character in the early days of the Cimmerian, e.g. Conan the Barbarian #32 or #35 (Marvel Comics). With better writing, Momoa's Conan could have had the charisma & screen presence of Schwarzenegger's version.
The biggest flaw of the 2011 film was that there wasn't enough depth. It needed more 'downtime' to contrast the wall-to-wall action, like campfire scenes (which would better indicate distances), more camaraderie on the ship, more development of Conan & Tamara's relationship, etc. Although it had some of this, it wasn't enough. Action sequences naturally hold more weight when the audience cares about the characters. As it is, it's clear that the filmmakers wanted to make an action flick above all else and this weakens the film.