GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

rockoforza I found this DVD in the dollar store bin and have to say it was easily worth the $1 (plus tax.) Conan spawned a lot of these muscle man-with-a-sword flicks and this one featured 4 times Mr. Universe Michael O'Hearn. Unlike Arnold or Lou Ferrigno, whose steroid use left them bloated and musclebound, O'Hearn is all natural with a leaner, more ripped look giving his fighting scenes a lot more appeal. A good looking guy who can actually act, he's trapped in this low budget mishmash. Wisely though, they put him in almost every scene to make the most of his star quality. Some of the fight scenes are good and O'Hearn dispatches bad guys as easily with his bare hands as he does with a sword. He also has a couple of love scenes with some bare-breasted beauties which lets him display a lot more of his impressive physique. The plot is only an excuse for the martial arts action and that's where O'Hearn shines. His opponents are no-name local muscle (it appears to have been filmed in Russia judging from the names) but they only exist to give O'Hearn an opportunity to show off his lethal talents. If martial arts muscle is your thing, O'Hearn does his best to deliver.

MBunge Aside from having more guys named Yuri in it than any other English language film ever made, the only interesting thing about Barbarian is that I don't have the slightest idea when this thing was made. It's a remake of/sequel to a 1983 sword-n-sorcery flick called Deathstalker and IMDb.com officially lists Barbarian as coming out in 2003, so unless there were some Galifreyan investors involved, it must have happened sometime between those two dates. But with its noticeably cheap production values and retrograde camera work, I can't believe this thing was made at any time during the 21st century or even the 1990s. On the other hand, the multi-syllable monikers in the cast list place this production clearly in Eastern Europe, which locates it sometime after the fall of the Soviet Union. However, who would bother to cannibalize something like Deathstalker after that much time had passed? Who would even remember it or want to claim it? It is a puzzlement. Usually when you call something "timeless", that's an indication of high quality. Well, Barbarian is "timeless" but only in the sense that it sucks so hard that it's impossible to chronologically quantify it. If you showed this to people and then asked them when they thought it was made, they'd probably guess some time after 1970 but after that, all bets would be off.And when I say this is a remake of/sequel to Deathstalker, I mean it not only appears to be retelling the exact same story but it uses footage from the first film, both as flashbacks and as filler in between new material. In fact, it looks like there might be scenes from several more low-budget flicks being repurposed here in that same way. And again, someone trying to pass off a hack job sequel full of re-edited footage from a bottom-of-the-barrel D-n-D flick might have made some sense if it was done relatively soon after the original. Doing it 10 or especially 20 years later is head-scratchingly peculiar.The storytelling and acting and special effects in this movie are so uniformly terrible that it's hardly worth going into them. There are plenty of attractive, topless chicks and an abundance of fight scenes, but the combat staged here doesn't look like anything that's been done in any professionally made film since 1990. It's more like a bad imitation of that 1970s TV series Kung Fu, which brings us back to the time paradox that is Barbarian.I will say that anyone who ever criticizes Arnold Schwarzenegger's acting should view this thing for a reality check. Star Michael O'Hearn is big and muscular, has no accent and is more conventionally handsome than Arnold. Yet if you put him opposite a 30something Schwarzenegger, O'Hearn wouldn't just be blown off the screen. He'd be pulverized into a wet, pulpy mess.And if you read the other reviews of this weird dreck, you'll notice the common scorn for the character Wooby. He's a giant Ewok/midget Wookie who's meant as comic relief and is at least a 7 out of 10 on the Jar Jar Binks Scale of Annoying Anthropomorphs. Which once more revives the question of when the heck this thing was made, because Wooby is only something that would have been conceived in the immediate aftermath of Return of the Jedi, putting this movie that was released in 2003 and likely shot in 1990s post-Cold War Eastern Europe as somehow being actually made around 1985 or so. The Time Bandits need to team up with Timecop and hitch a ride with the Time Riders down the Time Tunnel and figure out what went on with this film. Maybe I need to look at it again and see if I can spot Michael J. Fox and a DeLorean in the background anywhere.And just to be clear, Barbarian is only watchable if you're going to MST3K it, but don't try and turn its crappiness into a drinking game. You will seriously damage your liver.

ramen7noodles Entertaining movie with lots of hot girls!!!! What all movies should be!!!!AMAZON GIRL was RREEAALLLY HOT!! Wooby was totally SWEET and had LOTS of funny moments as well!! Princess had nice legs, and when I say nice I mean NICE!!!!!!! Great family movie!!! All in all I'd give it 12 thumbs up, WAY UP!! I loved the tournament, the narrator and all those CRAZY fighters with all those SICK weapons, YEEAHH!! The editing was flawless, I couldn't even tell the difference between the NEW FOOOTAGE and the FOOOTAGE from DEATHSTALKER!!!! Special effects were great, especially Munkar's transformation at the end. He was KILLER fast!! Can't wait for the sequel.Barbarian would make an awesome franchise/video game/action figure!!

lordofshalot OK, OK, I can understand how some movies try to use womanly figures to promote their movies and give some cheap thrills to the male audience, but you have to begin questioning a film that has the main lead getting it on with the first two nameless bare breasted chicks he rescues. But that's not what makes the movie bad, nay painful. The script was a disaster and the delivery of said script was a travesty in the art of character portrayal. That being said, the characters in need of portrayal were shallow, one dimensional stereotyped fantasy figures and overused to the extent of being nauseous, so the actors can't take all of the blame.The worst part of the movie occurs with the introduction of the "cute little sidekick" in the form of the abomination named Wooby. It is some mix between an Ewok and a giant teddy bear but shares none of the admirable qualities of either. The costume looks like it was a halloween costume thrown out by a 10 year old who knew better. The fight scenes involving Wooby are equally ridiculous and are little more than the light tossing of stones that plink of the chests of the bad guys but somehow manage to do enough damage to kill or otherwise disable them.The only redeemable quality of the movie is O'Hearn himself, but not because of his acting ability or skill with martial arts and clearly not for his theatrical fighting abilities. The sole benefit he gives to the movie is that he looks the part and looks it well. The plot is overly cliché and reminiscent of fourteen year olds playing Dungeons and Dragons and the film doesn't even take itself seriously enough NOT to steal footage from other movies. Yes, an entire scene was taken right out of "DeathStalker".The movie was a disaster and rivaled only by the likes of films such as Time Bandits and Cave Dwellers.And for goodness sakes, it has Wooby.