Highlander

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 think if this came out in the earlier half of the decade it would have been more successful financially. However, in Europe the film was a hit and it cemented it's cult status. Highlander has an original concept that immortals have been fighting each other for an eternity for "the prize", when only a few remain. The film looks great and was slickly shot with the triumphant music of Queen in the background. There is a good amount of action and Christopher Lambert has a good presence as the lead. He also had excellent chemistry with Sean Connery (who gave one of his most memorable performances). The best performance comes from Clancy Brown who is terrifying as barbarian immortal "The Kurgan". There is a whole lot of good swordfighting action to be had here, as well as quotable dialogue and occasional humor. Highlander was really well written and original fantasy action film. The sequels don't measure up to this at all. But this is a really unique and very good film that holds up well.

Highlander isn't a perfect movie by all means, at least in my opinion, the film is a little too long, Christopher Lambert tries hard but comes across as rather bland and the effects towards the end are a little cheesy. However, cinematography, costumes, sets and scenery-wise Highlander is great, and most of the effects are decent. The soundtrack is killer, the storyline is acceptably paced and basically a fun standard sword-and-sorcery sort of tale, the script may have some toshy moments but boy did it entertain me, the action is well choreographed and the direction is very good. Also Sean Connery is as charismatic and memorable as ever, and Clancy Brown's character is written even better and he too is great. Overall, a fun and entertaining film, shame its sequel was such an abomination but that's another story. 7/10 Bethany Cox

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!