SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

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.

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.

diggler_inc This is a zero budget film that looks amateurish in many parts. The Barbarian is mediocre at best, but it does have a star with a ton of potential - Mike O'Hearn. Hopefully O'Hearn goes on to bigger and better things, he certainly deserves to. He has the face, the body, and even the voice. He could be a superstar with some serious acting coaching and the right film roles.

TheVid This is a straight-to-video adventure flick, made in Russia, probably with the same crew Corman paid to do the Playmate remake of his Pam Grier potboiler THE ARENA. Strictly for those whose guilty pleasures include the DEATHSTALKER and BARBARIAN QUEEN series. Mike 0'Hearn provides the ample beefcake, but in decidedly off-kilter GQ style. B-movie villain Martin Kove is thrown in for good measure as the only other pronounceable cast member. Forgive the histrionics while they flex!