Highlander: Es kann nur einen geben

Continuing my plan to watch every Sean Connery movie in order, I come to Highlander (1986)

Plot In A Paragraph: A group of immortals, who can only die via decapitation, duel through the centuries.

I love Highlander. Always have. Always will. It will always be a disappointment to me none of the sequels or the TV Shows lived up to the potential this universe offered.

Playing the Egyptian Juan Sanchez Villa-Lobos Ramirez (with his normal accent of course) Connery Looks to be having a blast in his second mentor role in a row. He was only on set for 7 days (he had a bet, which he lost, with director Russell Mulcahy he would not finish his scenes in time and had a lucrative clause in place if he didn't) and his screen time is likely to be under twenty minutes, but his presence looms large in the movie

Considering he could barely speak English, Christopher Lambert (one of the nicest celebs I've ever met) is great, Clancy Brown's Kurgan is one of my favourite movie bad guys and Beatrice Edney is gorgeous. Oh and the soundtrack is by my favourite band of all time Queen.

Amazingly Highlander tanked at the domestic box office grossing only $5 million dollars. Highlander found its audience on video, and the rest is history. As for Connery, after his the time away from the screen, it would seem like his luck had not improved with his reinvention as the older, wiser mentor. Despite two great performances, the movies still did little business. That would all change with his next movie though.

When I first saw this film, I thought it was great. Connery is good, Lambert does passably well, the effects are good, the idea of a bunch of special individuals who had known about each other (and in some cases, liked each other) for centuries being drawn together, knowing that only one could come out alive. The effects were, at the time, good and had not been flogged to death. I even enjoyed the introductory clan-on-clan warfare.

Then came Highlander 2, a film which deserved its place on the Bottom 100 and the nadir of Sean Connery's career. As someone else said about that film: "don't break every rule you set up in the first film." Even the series didn't do that. And the reputation of the first good film suffered.

Separating the first film from the bad sequels, and a series that a lot of people can take or leave, it is still a good film. Unfortunately, a good idea was taken and flogged to death afterward.

In 16th century Scotland, immortals fought against each other, in a quest for the prize of being the one remaining at the end of the centuries of fighting. Conner Macleod (Christophe Lambert) is trained in the art of sword fighting by Ramirez (Sean Connery) in hope that one day one of them will fight and defeat the Kurgen (Clancy Brown) The story is set over 4 centuries and stretches from the highlands of Scotland to the streets of New York.

Firstly the cinematography in the highlands captures the breath taking scenery beautifully, the story is captivating fantasy, with dialogue and direction to suit the theme, and the cast all perform well enough to entice you into the story and hold your attention, without ever really excelling. Finally the soundtrack is provided by Queen, and it genuinely adds to the emotional feel of the film in quite dramatic style.

Highlander is a very good movie, that has its flaws; but in fantasy, does it really matter? However the sequels are far too contradictory and contrived to be given the same forgiveness. This film really is the only one; and its stands alone without the need for its inferior sequels.

7/10

When I first saw this movie, I loved it. Having recently seen it again after several years, I found it to be every bit as good as I remembered – in fact, better. So I thought I would visit IMDB and see what others had to say. I learned four things;

1/ This movie was a flop at the box office. Funny, I had always assumed it was a hit – it was so good, and spawned three (soon to be four) sequels and a television series.

2/ I expected some to be less than entranced with Highlander, but was interested to learn that there are those who think it complete rubbish.

3/ Some people think the sequels are good movies. How could they?

4/ Some people don't like the Queen soundtrack. How could they not?



It is always interesting to see different viewpoints, especially when they are completely contrary to your own. But for me, this movie was perfect. The premise was intriguing, the story was beautifully told, the joy and pathos of an immortal amongst mortals revealed with great skill. There was great action, romance, the tragedy of love lost – and the baddest of bad guys to overcome.

The casting was excellent, as was the acting. Sean Connery's contribution was exactly as it should have been, and no more. Clancy Brown's performance as The Kurgan was joyfully terrifying, Christopher Lambert was spot-on.

The screenplay was excellent, as was the script. I was especially impressed with the way that flashbacks were interwoven with the ongoing story. In fact, this is the only flashback movie I have ever liked.

I was also thoroughly impressed with the action sequences. Unlike so many recent movies, none of the action involved the physically impossible (with the obvious exception of the fact that the immortals were immortal, of course). This added enormously to the appeal, in direct contrast to so many movies made in the last decade. I despair when I watch movies where people perform the impossible. Even the classic scene `Oh, I'm falling – but it's OK, I can just grab this rope/branch/flagpole/whatever, and even though I have fallen 30 feet and am travelling at 20 mph, I can just stretch out my hand and arrest my fall as though I was no heavier than a feather' destroys all credibility in the action. I know, this is a fantasy movie anyway, so what does it matter? Well, realistic action is even more important in fantasy movies; it helps the audience to willingly suspend disbelief. This is very difficult to do when you are busy giggling at the latest fantastical feat you have witnessed. No such concerns in this movie – the action was perfectly judged to reflect the prowess gained from centuries of experience, whilst avoiding the impossible and the ridiculous.

I was intrigued to find one user comment on IMDB criticising the use of `unnecessarily large and heavy weapons'. Anyone who has used (or even picked up) any edged weapon will be aware that they are very heavy. Moving that kind of mass means lots of momentum, and involves very distinctive body movements to counterbalance the weight. Most movies use toy weapons – plastic, fibreglass or wood – and the lack of mass shows in the actor's movements. For the uninitiated, this may make for flashier and faster action – but for those who know, it looks like children playing pretend. The use of weapons with real weight in Highlander adds tremendously to the realism. It was particularly impressive that the actors could use the weapons properly (at least to the extent demanded by the choreographed scenes – and that is all that is required for movies). Clancy Brown (as The Kurgan) deserves special praise here – he had the largest and heaviest weapon, yet wielded it like a veteran. One can only imagine the endless hours he spent perfecting his movements and balance.

I do understand why some would find the soundtrack intrusive, but for me this was another area that was perfectly judged. Queen's songs enhanced the mood of the moment whenever they played. One related fact that some might find interesting – a few years ago I saw a list of the top ten best movies for music as voted for by students. Highlander made the list – the only non-musical to do so. (In fact, I think it came in the top five.) So I would guess that the soundtrack works for most people..

I also understand why the accents in the movie (Christopher Lambert's and Sean Connery's) are a problem for some. However, I was happy with Lambert's accent; it was Scottish enough for the Highland scenes, and suitably indefinable for the modern settings. Sean Connery was, of course, Sean Connery – he never adopts any accent other than his own. But that's OK – it doesn't detract from the film, any more than it detracts from any of his films (such as Red October). I tend to agree with his point that accents don't matter – emotions are the same, regardless of nationality.

Just a quick word about the sequels – disappointing. I am not one to decry all sequels as inferior. In fact, many sequels are very good, and some are better than their progenitors. However, the Highlander sequels were without exception very poor. The original film was obviously conceived as a one-off, and was all the better for it. The story was complete with Highlander, and the sequels were necessarily contrived. However, Highlander II exceeded all expectations in this regard. The plot changed the story of the immortals beyond all recognition. Egregious just isn't a big enough word to describe it.

The sequels are best viewed as being entirely separate from the original. If you haven't already seen them, be prepared for a decidedly tepid experience.

But Highlander itself – ah, there's a real movie. Sit back and enjoy!

9.5/10

I haven't watched 'Highlander' since it was on TV in the eighties. I loved it as a kid and was a little apprehensive regarding how well it would stand around thirty years later. And, despite being quite surprised at how much I didn't really appreciate back then, I'm pleased to say that it's worth a watch before the inevitable remake that will doubtless come soon.

It's (mainly) set in what was 'modern day,' but now is way back in the eighties, where Christopher Lambert plays one of the few last immortals left alive. He's been around since, er, whenever Scotland was filled with bagpiping, claymore-wielding warriors (about 400 years I think he says at one point) and he's lived his long life never being able to love properly due to the obvious complications involving watching all his loved ones age naturally and die. And, if that wasn't bad enough, we - the audience - are repeatedly reminded that 'There can be only one.' That basically means that all remaining immortals must fight each other to the death (apparently you can actually kill an immortal with a well-placed decapitation) in order to win whatever prize awaits them.

I say 'mainly' set in the eighties, because there's a fair amount of screen-time dedicated to flashbacks of when Lambert was the titular 'Highlander' in his native time. There he's guided as to what he really is by one Obi-wan Kenobi mentor-like figure, played (as effortlessly as you'd expect) by Sean Connery. Here we learn about everyone's backstory and the villain who's been stalking the immortals throughout the ages. The main surprise I found while re-watching 'Highlander' after all this time is that I didn't remember so much of the film being set in the past (it's almost 50/50 between past and present. I remember Connery being in it (he was Bond, after all!), but that's about all I could recall of the flashback scenes.

I would say that there's plenty of action, watching one immortal take swing after swing of their sword at another immortal's neck. However, by today's standards, the action is probably a little tame. There's hardly much exciting camerawork or major special effects (again, by today's scale), so you get the odd swordfight every so often. It was great for the time and the sound effects used when the swords clash is really cool. Plus you have Queen's epic and totally overblown soundtrack to accompany the film (written specifically for the film, I believe).

Highlander' is all good fun, but then I'm biased as I'm viewing it through nostalgic eyes (and I'm a fan of Queen). It's definitely worth a watch, but it may seem a little dull and old-fashioned to the cinema-goers of today who expect epic battles where entire cities are destroyed by intergalactic CGI armies. Oh and in keeping with the 'There can be only one' theme, if you do decide to watch 'Highlander' - stick to the original. I tried the sequels and realised that that tagline was more true than it ever intended!