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.

onmfranklin This is a zero budget, amateurish film that is laughably poor in parts. Obviously made on the cheap, with scenes cut in and some very poor acting and dubbing. It was made in the Crimea, in Ukraine and the scenery is the best thing about it. The soundtrack has been over-dubbed subsequent to filming, presumably because the local actresses accents were too heavy to be understood. This has made an already clunking script even more laughably bad. Where filing is off location, the sets are blatantly plywood, with no attempt made for solidity or weightiness.Assorted bad guys are too clean, the same locations are used for different parts of the plot, and overall it looks like it was thrown together in a wet weekend. Good points: the scenery, and surprisingly the score. And the girls are very pretty. Bad points: the rest of the movie.

HaemovoreRex This film is ostensibly an attempted remake of the original Deathstalker movie. It even plunders numerous scenes from the aforementioned such as the warriors banquet for instance (presumably to a) save on money and b) pad out the running time) In reference to the first point, viewing the film it is immediately blatant that this was shot on a very tight budget indeed.But of course cheap doesn't necessarily equate to crap does it? So the question obviously is, is this film any good?Well yes and no in fact.....On the plus side, as other reviewers have noted, Michael O'Hearn looks splendid in the role as the barbarian Kane (basically the same character as Deathstalker but actually far more amiable) There are also a number of rather well choreographed fight scenes utilising an interesting variety of weapons. A big plus for the guys now: The ladies in this film are absolutely stunning! (and virtually all of them at some point are seen topless!)Sounds pretty good so far? Well.....let us consider some of the bad points...For one, Martin Kove is dreadfully wasted in his role as the main villain. I'm presuming, judging by the amount of scenes he was actually in, that he only had a day or twos work on this movie. Another very irritating (not to mention down right bloody infuriating) gripe I have with this film is the ridiculous character of 'Wooby'. What in the hell was the point of inserting this 'thing' into the film?! It looks like a cross between a shrunken wookie and a piece of rotting carpet! - and don't even get me started about the ridiculous, 'supposed to be cute' noises it emits! Finally, the movie has quite obviously been entirely (and very poorly) re-dubbed throughout.To conclude then, I guess that if you look upon this as a sort of modern tribute to the sword and sorcery movies of the 1980's that were all the rage in the wake of the success of Conan the Barbarian then you may find it to be worth a look (for nostalgia purposes if nothing else) Likewise, fans of TV series such as Hercules and Xena: Warrior Princess may find some not inconsiderable enjoyment here as this film does carry a similar (albeit more violent) feel to it. However, overall in comparison to many of it's brethren in the Sword and Sorcery genre this sadly comes out as only average at best.

starmanmatt ... the fact that this movie was a remake of the original "so bad it's good" Deathstalker movie and manages to be even worse... or the fact that about 1/3rd of the movie seems to be stock footage the original Deathstalker.The sharp-eyed Corman enthusiast can probably name all the other movies which got plundered to make this monster (I spotted a scene of Margaret Markov from "The Arena" at one point) As for the original elements, all that this movie has is some badly dubbed Eastern-European actors and an Ewok-like creature whose existence might be justified if this were a children's picture. As every woman in the movie, except for the witch, appears topless at least once, this is unlikely.The movie does best the original Deathstalker in at least one respect: it had an actual ending. Granted, it is an ending where the hero makes out with the princess in front of her father and the amazon warrior he bedded, who did everything she could to get him THAT far... but it is an ending. Still, that and a tribute to Barbarian Queen star Lana Clarkson in the extras on the DVD menu prove that the makers of this film had their hearts in the right place... even if their heads are shoved someplace painful.