Barbarian (Video 2003) Poster

(2003 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Would you care for some 20-sided dice with your cheese?
johnnysugar5 May 2004
You've seen this movie before. Don't lie, of course you have. You take a lone hero with a sword. Set him up against a dark sorcerer with monstrous servants. Make him run around a mythical backdrop searching for props to defeat said sorcerer whilst picking up a small party of comrades. For good measure, throw in a mysterious witch, concubines, a deposed noble, and lots of dry ice. This movie was made countless times in the 80's with slight variations: maybe it was "Conan The Barbarian", "Deathstalker", or "Red Sonja." There was probably a role-playing game tie-in. This grand tradition is continued into the new millennium by the laughably bad, Roger Corman-financed "epic" film "Barbarian."

In a land overcome by a dark, sorcerous tyrant named Munkar (Martin Kove), the people's last hope for liberation is a swordsman named Kane (Michael O'Hearn). Conscripted by a Witch (Yevdokiya Germanova) to collect some mystic artifacts needed to overthrow Munkar and in return win the hand of Princess Gretchen (Irina Grigoryeva), Kane battles stock villains while collecting his traveling companions. Furry and cute but indescribably annoying sidekick Wooby (Yuri Danilchenko)? Check. Hot amazon babe Gilda (Svetlana Metinka)? Check. Brooding, disaffected solider jealous of Kane's manly jaw and pectoral development Zigrid (Aleksandr Dyachenko)? Check. So where is Brigitte Nielsen in all of this mess?

This film has so many things wrong with it that it truly boggles the mind. One of the most noticeable flaws is the cast. The film was shot on location in the Ukraine, and presumably to keep down the budget, all but two speaking roles were filled by local Russian actors whose voices were then later dubbed over by uncredited American actors, often quite poorly. The producers try to hide this fact by placing all non-Russian names in the cast (including non-speaking extras) in the opening credits. Another major flaw is the design of the film, or lack thereof. The costumes and props, including weapons and armor, were culled from at least 20 different time periods and regions, from Bronze Age Greece to 15th-century Italy. Often, the film looked like little more than a second-rate Renaissance festival, complete with the amount of slipshod authenticity that generally accompanies it. That's to say nothing of the stultifying script and ridiculous story, which seems to be either a continuation or a rip-off of "Deathstalker" (and there are even clips from that film in this one), and the poorly choreographed, sloppily edited fight scenes.

Most of the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of one John O'Halloran, who wrote, edited, and directed the film (sometimes under the pseudonym of Henry Crum). The film plays out with all the clumsiness of an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons module from 1985, with O'Halloran being the awkward Dungeon Master who takes himself far too seriously. Characters appear and disappear with a randomness and lack of motive, but with perfect timing, that mimics a night spent rolling dice and comparing saving throws. In this case, the game goes on for far too long, the plot becomes far too ridiculous, and when the players get tired, the DM wraps the ending up with far too much haste and too little closure.

So what's good about this film? One thing, and his name is Michael O'Hearn. O'Hearn seems to be about the only person in this train wreck possessing anything resembling acting ability. He's not good by any stretch, at least good enough to get his own syndicated action series, but he far outshines the rest of the cast. In addition, he is pretty. So very, very pretty. One of the most successful fitness models in the world, and winner of several bodybuilding championships, O'Hearn has the awe-inducing physical presence to make you briefly forget about the schlock he's surrounded with. He's also got just enough stage combat ability to make some of the fights vaguely entertaining. He even makes some of the cheesy one-liners he's forced to say sound cool, and that takes talent.

Fans of low-budget (or no-budget) sword-and-sorcery fare like "Barbarian Queen" or "Ator" will relish this film in all of its ludicrous beauty. Virtually everyone else will be more compelled to watch the opening credits lovingly worship O'Hearn's form, then promptly return the film to wherever they rented it from. And fans of "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" will seek out this film at all costs for their next Bad Movie Night showing. 3 out of 10.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Rubbish, but nice scenery
onmfranklin10 August 2006
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.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Corman-produced, sword-and-sandal quickie with baby-faced muscleman and "Battle-Dome" hero Mike O'Hearn.
TheVid10 April 2003
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!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Average reworking of the film 'Deathstalker'
HaemovoreRex2 June 2005
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.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Quite possibly the worst movie ever made
lordofshalot25 July 2004
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.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I don't know what's worse...
starmanmatt9 August 2004
... 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.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
No plot but lots of action featuring professional muscle man Michael O'Hearn
rockoforza30 December 2012
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.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not exactly good, but not horrible either
diggler_inc28 July 2003
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.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
When was this thing actually made?
MBunge14 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
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.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Wooby
scarbone21 June 2006
The best movie to ever feature Wooby. Only one word can sum what the awesomeness of this movie. I don't know what that word is, but rest assured I will find it. The only character you need to watch in this movie is Wooby, and all the others. Wooby is the greatest actor this side of Martin Kove. Wooby may also be the richest character to emerge from the world of film since...ever. I propose a sequel entitled Wooby: Barbarian II. It's a buddy cop movie starring either Gary Busey or Danny Glover and Wooby. They battle time-traveling terrorists in present-day New York City. There's the usual back and forth between the reluctant new partners and the requisite moment where Glover/Busey sees the true tortured soul of Wooby, as he writhes on a bed in a cheap motel in pain from a full belly moaning "ooh I hope you didn't want any cake 'cause I ate it all."
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I gave you enough poison to kill a HORSE!!
ramen7noodles21 September 2004
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!!
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed