Invariably Laughable: Conan the Barbarian

Wow, that's great. A movie review that doesn't really review the movie, but rather offers a mediocre synopsis interwoven with repetitive self-indulgant critiques on the entire genre. If a whole genre of movies is entirely out of your cultural grasp, it leads to two major questions: 1.) Why review the movie? You went in knowing you hated it, and you clearly and admittedly sat through the whole thing hating it just because it's an action fantasy, without so much as attempting to appraise it for it's merits within the genre. 2.) Why review movies at all? If you're so enclosed in your own ego to forceably dismiss any movie based entirely on it's setting to such an extent that the only way you can review it is by indirectly dismissing anyone who would like that category of film as barbarians themselves, you are obviously not fit to be a movie critic at all. Perhaps you should just stick to facebook, whining about the world's choice in cultural identity to your friends and family? I'm sure THEY care.

Your reviews are just as laughable. If movies like this arent your cup of tea, then why review it? You wasted everyones time. Spy kids. Go review the new Spy kids movie.

If you actually prefer 3D to be used for "things flying at your face" rather than "depth", you should probably stop reviewing movies entirely. At the very least, limit yourself to reviewing the types of movies produced for very young children that focus more on bright colors, plush puppets, flashing lights and annoying sing-a-longs than they do character development, plot, or cinematography.

You seem to be a bit out of your depth trying to review a movie that isn't full of stupid gimmicks.

Best review ever. Way more entertaining than the movie.

I just signed up and am posting my first ever internet comment, based on this review. That's how embarrassingly awful the review is.

I don't even care about the movie - it's probably going to be terrible - or, at a minimum, not as good as the original. Most remakes have that failing ('Star Trek' and 'The Thomas Crowne Affair' being a couple of exceptions that come to my mind). However, the actual review makes me imagine what would have happened if Lt. Dan (from Forrest Gump) was hired by Car and Driver to review sports cars.

Basically, such a self aggrandizing disgorgement of tripe and drivel, by someone who takes the time to highlight her patently obvious lack of understanding of cinema (depth, in 3D, is "not utilizing it much"? really?), and ability to review the genre (as if that self awareness somehow excused her inadequacies), should really never had seen the light of day.

I will say, that the actual prose of the author is fine; even reasonable. It's a nice change (from the general internet) to see complete sentences, correct spelling, and proper punctuation.

But, in short, this review simply proves that anyone can call themselves a reviewer and string words into a sentence. That doesn't mean you should be allowed to. Shame on the editor for allowing it to be published.