From here, sadly, things go a little awry for me. Conan is a bit chatty for my tastes, though actor Jason Mamoa (Game of Thrones, Star Gate Atlantis) does a nice job of making him the "a thief, a reaver, a slayer of men" version of the character we love. He looks like a John Buscema Conan. There is a lot of blood on Conan's hands, and it shows in his face. He is not the bumbling hick from the Schwarzenegger Conan, but rather the established, piratical Conan which comic fans are perhaps more familiar (maybe they should have added Bêlit?).
Despite there being a lot of classic Conan elements here, I do not think this will be the fantasy classic we had in the 1982 Schwarzenegger film. It is good, and in many ways more entertaining than its predecessor, but... there is something lacking. It smacked a lot of Hercules/Xena, and perhaps felt too much like it should be on television. The fight scenes were far superior, but again... There is something missing. I was talking to Shon Richards about this, and he agreed there was something neither of us could put our finger on that was lacking, though we both enjoyed the young Conan portion of the film. Maybe they should have stuck with that idea?
Fantasy fans should give this a watch. There are much worse barbarian movies out there. Unfortunately though, Nispel's previous Pathfinder is a superior film.