Highlander

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.

FILM: 7.0 Rewatching Highlander, I'm struck by how much fun this quirky sci-fi fantasy still is, even if it didn't quite hit the mark with audiences when it first came out in 1986. It's not hard to see why it tanked at the box office-genre films like this, with their mix of swords, immortals, and time jumps, don't always have broad appeal. Plus, this one isn't exactly something you'd watch with the whole family. But for those of us who love a bit of fantastical, slightly offbeat storytelling, there's still plenty to enjoy here.

Christopher Lambert as Connor MacLeod is serviceable, even if he comes off a bit awkward and stiff at times. I find myself more engaged with the supporting cast, especially Clancy Brown's portrayal of The Kurgan. Brown is a blast to watch as the over-the-top, menacing villain, delivering a performance that's both threatening and weirdly entertaining. He's easily the highlight of the film for me, and I still get a kick out of his wild energy.

Sean Connery's presence adds some much-needed star power, and it's obvious he's enjoying himself. Who wouldn't be when you're raking in a million dollars for just a week's work? His role is a bit ridiculous, but it's all part of the charm.

What I still appreciate about Highlander is that beneath all the cheesy dialogue and outlandish plot, there's a lot of heart. The film takes itself just seriously enough to make me care about the characters, but not so seriously that it loses its sense of fun. The costumes, moody settings, and Queen's iconic soundtrack also add to the appeal.

Sure, it's a bit rough around the edges and the less said about the sequels, the better, but as a standalone, Highlander remains a unique, solidly entertaining flick that's worth revisiting. I'm glad I took the time to watch it again.

FORMAT: 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray

VIDEO: 8.5 Native 2160/24p presentation Detail level: Good Colour reproduction: Excellent Level accuracy: Good Encode: Good Master condition: Excellent

AUDIO: 8.0 DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio Dialogue reproduction: Good Soundtrack & effects clarity: Good Dynamics: Good Surround sound presentation: Moderate LFE content: Good

MOOFIEMETER: 7.0.

Highlander is an ingenious and very entertaining science fiction film which has come in for rather a lot of (unwarranted) scathing criticism. Although the plot jumps around with reckless abandon, the scripters Gregory Widen, Larry Ferguson and Peter Bellwood manage to pull in all the loose ends by the climax. The word "confusing" has been used to describe the film quite often as well, but if you stick with it the confusing moments are explained quite cleverly towards the closing reels. This is, in fact, not a bad film at all. I'd venture to say it's a pretty good one.

The opening sequence has Russell Nash (Christopher Lambert) at a wrestling match in New York's Madison Square Gardens. He leaves early, and while walking through the underground car park is confronted by a man with a sword. Nash is not perturbed by this - he merely brandishes a sword of his own, and the pair of them fight to the death, resulting in the decapitation of Nash's opponent. Slowly, we learn (via flashbacks) that Nash is an immortal swordsman who has spent centuries duelling with like immortals. The only way they can die is by decapitation at the hands of one of their counterparts. Each swordsman has spent the whole of history pursuing the others, hoping to be the last one alive whereupon he will gain mortality, virility and vast knowledge.

The film is very energetic (what would you expect from a former music video director?) with dazzling camera work and a pounding, Flash Gordon-style soundtrack by Queen. Sean Connery has a pleasant supporting role as an immortal who teaches Lambert the art of swordplay, and Alan North has a funny part as a bewildered cop who can't figure out why headless corpses keep turning up in his city. The film's intentionally muddled structure is slightly irritating on the first viewing, but with repeated viewings it becomes more comprehensible, even clever. Highlander is a good, inventive piece of hokum.... and it's a real shame that those very same critics who are always grumbling about the lack of cinematic imagination these days didn't give it some merit when it was first released.

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