Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

I have to say that this is watchable from pretty much beginning to end. As a matter of fact the opening title sequences - which may be the sexiest title sequences ever made as Jane Fonda floats around half-naked in some sort of zero gravity environment - ensure that you're probably not going to take your eyes off this (at least if you're a straight male) for the rest of the way. Yes, it's a movie in which there are many young and attractive female characters in the background (and Jane Fonda front and centre) who spend much of their time in various states of undress. Admittedly it's pretty tame by today's standards (really nothing more than toplessness) but definitely aesthetically appealing! (And for the straight women out there there's also half naked angel Pygar!) There is a story to this. Fonda is Barbarella, sent by Earth to find mad scientist Durand Durand (and yes, the rock group Duran Duran took their name from the character Durand Durand in this movie!) and experiencing various adventures along the way. It's not an especially good story, the special effects are quite primitive - even laughable - and the script leaves a lot to be desired. But it's quintessentially 1960's stuff in so many ways.It seems to pay tribute to various entertainment genres that were all the rage at the time. Sci-fi had started to hit big time with shows like Star Trek. There was the secret agent out to save the world (or in this case maybe the whole universe) like James Bond. The was the campiness seen in TV shows like Batman - and Barbarella's turn in the Pleasure Chamber seemed like a soft core version of the various traps Batman and Robin would be subjected to. Some scenes are the epitome of pyschedelic, and there's a few scenes featuring a few apparently high characters smoking - well - something.Apparently a number of actresses (including Brigitte Bardot and Sophia Loren) had been considered for the title role, but Fonda was well cast. She was well known but not quite as famous as Bardot or Loren, who probably wouldn't have agreed to some of the more "revealing" scenes Fonda did. And Fonda played the whole thing with this sort of wide eyed innocence that really made the film all the more enjoyable. It's not a good movie by any means. But it is an interesting movie - or, at least, it's a movie of interest that certainly isn't unpleasant to watch, even if it is hopelessly a product of its time. (4/10)

This movie doesn't really stand the the test of time, mainly due to it's slightly sexist approach to the main character, among other things. Fonda may not be the most talented actress but she still has charm to carry the movie by herself. Movie's plot seemed to bounce between scenes without some consistency. Although i'm not if makers of the movie aimed for some sort of psychedelia or surrealism, since the movie was very creative with it's sets and special effects. Overall not a great movie by all odds, but still an interesting glimpse to 60's sci-fi.

Psychedelic fantasy nonsense pop-art tripping sci-fi movie with some good kick from the flower power generation. Jane Fonda plays the super-sexy agent Barbarella who's mission is to find the scientist Durand-Durand, the inventor of a deadly weapon, and to save the galaxy from destruction and tyranny. This movie is simply fun to watch, pop-corn cinema at best, one of those movies who show you how much the contemporary movie industry lacks real imagination considering story making, and imo the "effects" and settings are far better looking as all the CGI stuff that imo in many cases is more looking like video-games than movies.Barbarella, an agent who beats the enemies with the powerful "weapons" of a woman - nowadays everything but p.c., but truly more progressive and feminist as today's ordinary women-right activist might think. Watch, if you like such movies like Flash Gordon (1980).

I know Jane Fonda is not proud of this film. She has become too politically correct with time. And if you are politically correct, you won't like it either.The film is the epitome of the mid 60s, psychedelic, sex-and-rock-and-roll era. It manages to be comedic, sexy, offensive, and have sort of a plot, although it's mostly an excuse to show Fonda in scanty costumes.A film like this can go seriously wrong (like the 5-star "Casino Royale," which David Niven SHOULD better have forgotten). However, this romp never takes itself as seriously as Fonda, when she was forced to do so as an icon of the women's and exercise movements. So if you can handle a lot of tongue-in-cheek and tongue in various other places, this movie is weird and amusing. Just like the 60s. Why go see fake rehash like "Goldmember" when you can see the real thing?Where else can you get ideas like an army of steel-teethed dolls that chew the clothes off your body? Or a pipe organ that plays on (yes, you see this one coming) the other kind of pipe-shaped organ? On an angel, no less. Just for this odd collection of ideas, even if held together only tenuously by a plot-like stream of consciousness, this film deserves a "7." So: if you want to get a taste of what seemed mildly outrageous in the 60s, and ironically is more outrageous in our prim and politically correct times, grab a few beers and rent it. If you take yourself and 1968 films very seriously, better skip it and see "2001" again. Admittedly a much better film.