R'LYEH REVIEW

Issue 024

copyright © 1984 by Robert M. Price
reprinted by permission of Robert M. Price

Conan the Destroyer

(Reviewed by C. J. Henderson)

Well, they did it. Somehow, the same production company which made Conan the Barbarian, possibly the worst Sword & Sorcery epic ever filmed, has turned out the new Conan the Destroyer which, while not a great picture, is certainly a step in the right direction.

There is little point in rehashing the plot. It is standard fantasy fare --- neither inspired nor awful --- just standard. There is also little point to making comparisons between the two films; there was nothing, absolutely nothing, in the first film worth remembering. Therefore, let us look at two things: What they did right, and what they did wrong.

What They Did Right

The first thing they did was hire a competent director, who subsequently brought in a competent cinematographer. Fleischer and Cardiff, both long-time film veterans, who worked on The Vikings together, meshed well here, doing a lot with a little. Together, they got maximum usage out of the Mexican backgrounds, as well as the film's fairly laughable monsters. Good performances were pulled from the likes of Wilt Chamberlain and Olivia D'Abo, as well as the rest of the cast, giving the film a solid, unified feel. Good locations were selected. Filming in Mexico to save money, the production company managed to find a wide variety of excellent sites, greatly enhancing many of the film's scenes simply by making the picture look more "realistic".

A top-notch cast was gathered. Although heavier with sports figures, singers and dancers than with actors and actresses, the film's cast was wisely chosen. Not a bad performance was presented.

The fights are worth watching. Well directed, and often exciting, the swordplay is ten times better this time around.

What They Did Wrong

The music was awful. No running themes, no sense of style. The picture's score was a caterwauling collection of old dinosaur movie sounds rather than a soundtrack. Although it doesn't seem possible, Poledouris's work was even worse this time.

The monsters were insanely bad. If not for the way the two major creatures were filmed, and the way that film was edited, these scenes would have been painful to watch. As it was, they were only silly.

Too much humor was used. For some reason, the script was almost top-heavy with jokes. Some of these worked, and almost all of them were acceptable in the film. The problem arises with not the fact of humor being present, but its overabundance. After a while, the film almost seems a comedy --- and that of course is a mistake.

There is much more which could be said about the film, pro and con, but the point is made. This time around, some effort was made to produce a more acceptable film, and that effort seems to have paid off. Of course, the film is as close to being a representation of R. E. Howard's immortal character as Cheeta is of the original King Kong, but those are the breaks. With Conan the Destroyer, Conan has graduated from confused, somewhat stupid-looking slave to self-assured, hard-fighting king of thieves. In Destroyer, Conan looks better, moves better, thinks better, and makes war better. It still isn't a great film, and it certainly isn't what Howard fans the world over have been hoping for, but it is an improvement.

And so, I find I must say, in all sincerity, something I never dreamed I'd be saying: Go ahead. See Conan the Destroyer. It's not that bad.