User Score
7.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 40 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 31 out of 40
  2. Negative: 4 out of 40
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. TellyS.
    Sep 5, 2002
    2
    It gets a two only beacuse a concept like this was actually made into a Hollywood movie. The concept is exciting, the execution is horrible, especially comming from the director of one of America's best all-time action flicks (Die Hard). We deserved more! We deserved exciting and dynamic characters! We deserved fantastic and epic action scenes! The result was shoddy, shoddy, shoddy It gets a two only beacuse a concept like this was actually made into a Hollywood movie. The concept is exciting, the execution is horrible, especially comming from the director of one of America's best all-time action flicks (Die Hard). We deserved more! We deserved exciting and dynamic characters! We deserved fantastic and epic action scenes! The result was shoddy, shoddy, shoddy everything! Expand
  2. NiravM.
    Apr 24, 2005
    2
    This gets a non-zero rating only because it is laughably bad. Please note the spelling and grammar used by those who claim to like this movie.
  3. MariaW.
    Jul 13, 2001
    2
    This movie is by far Antonio Banderas' worst film. He does not fit this type of role. He is at his best when he plays a mysterious role or a tough guy, wise-ass role. The good part of the movie was the battles. The book wasn't that good, and I give the writer of the movie credit for trying to make this a good movie. The characters should have been chosen more carefully, and This movie is by far Antonio Banderas' worst film. He does not fit this type of role. He is at his best when he plays a mysterious role or a tough guy, wise-ass role. The good part of the movie was the battles. The book wasn't that good, and I give the writer of the movie credit for trying to make this a good movie. The characters should have been chosen more carefully, and maybe the movie would have had a better chance at being "good." Expand
  4. PaulaW.
    Nov 12, 2001
    1
    This must be the mutant offspring of "Conan The Barbarian" and "Monty Python and the Holy Grail": it's got the schlocky bombast of the former and the cheap production values of the latter. The plot is full of holes and the action sequences, incoherent. If the Nordic actors who play the Vikings can hardly keep straight faces, why should we? Leave this one safely at the bottom of the barrel.
Metascore
42

Mixed or average reviews - based on 27 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 27
  2. Negative: 7 out of 27
  1. Warrior has the underwritten, overproduced bluster of "Conan the Barbarian."
  2. In tackling 1000 A.D., (McTiernan)'s suddenly an unwieldy, clunky filmmaker.
  3. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    40
    Bloody but anemic story.