This is one of those films I have mixed feelings on. I quite like some aspects of it, and absolutely despise others. For one thing... I hate it that they whitewashed Conan so. He's much more effective as a rather darker character -- more than slightly brutal (not just violent, but brutal), and somewhat sinister.
I have trouble with the crying sequence... and I find the part about his slavery ... stretched, to say the least. I just found that one dull and tedious, and it stretched me credulity too far.
I also felt that there just wasn't enough of the high emotions in the film thta there should have been. It was too slow-paced for Howard's work; too philosophical, but with a sort of dimestore philosophy, nothing particularly profound. And I found the stitching together of various of Howard's tales to be rather weak and watered-down, as well. If Howard could do nothing else, he could tell a tight story in most cases, and he could evoke a dark, savage, and brooding atmosphere ... the film was too bright to allow much of that... it needed darker colors, and tighter direction and editing -- tighter pacing, altogether.
That said, I wasn't particularly against Schwarzenegger in the role ... he did fairly well with it, but with more direction, he could have been better. Other performances varied from the rather good to the barely adequate; and certainly some of the set design and (save for the brightness in tone noted above) the cinematography was quite good, at times excellent.
But, overall, I'm glad I've only seen the thing a couple of times since it came out; and I'm still waiting for someone do to Howard's character, rather than an Arthurian version of the redoubtable Cimmerian. (And why the devil should they feel they need to make him a knock-off Galahad, for pity's sake? Rochester and Heathcliff certainly had dark enough characters, and proved quite popular in the cinema as well as literary form....)