Highlander

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!

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 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.

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.

Pretty much everybody knows the synopsis for this film, so I won't bother with that. But what it is far less celebrated for is being the movie where Sean Connery doesn't know what a haggis is and has to be educated on the subject by a French bloke in a kilt.