After watching "Highlander" again, I find myself looking forward to the new
version with considerable czriosity. I'm not going to review the 1986 film
here. I've already seen it and I know what I think of it. This is about the
film that's coming next, and there is now enough information about it to make
it one of the more intriguing remakes on the horizon.
The new Highlander film has had a remarkably long journey to the screen. Henry
Cavill was announced as the new Connor MacLeod back in 2021, but for years the
project seemed to exist mostly in interviews, rumours and increasingly distant
promises that filming was about to begin. There were several false starts
before production finally got under way in 2026. Even then there was another
setback when Cavill suffered an undisclosed injury during pre-production,
pushing the start of filming back.
Now, however, it is an actual film. Cameras have been rolling in London and
Scotland since February, with further filming taking place in Poland and Hong
Kong. The Scottish locations include the Isle of Skye, Eilean Donan Castle and
Glencoe, which is about as encouraging as it gets for a film called
Highlander.
And the director is Chad Stahelski.
That could be either the best or the most worrying thing about the project.
Stahelski directed all four John Wick films, so there can be little doubt that
the new Highlander will have spectacular action. He knows how to stage fights,
shoot fights and, perhaps most importantly, make fights feel like something
worth going to the cinema to see. Highlander is a property that lends itself
naturally to elaborate sword fights, and putting the man responsible for John
Wick behind the camera sounds like an obvious match.
The danger is equally obvious. The first footage shown at CinemaCon apparently
looked very much like John Wick with swords. There were neon-lit locations,
elaborate sword fights, motorcycle chases and a fight at a rave. The footage
also suggested that the new film is considerably larger in scale than the
original, with numerous immortals involved rather than concentrating almost
entirely on the central conflict.
Personally, I don't see the John Wick influence as a problem. Highlander was
always an unusual mixture of genres. There was sci-fi, fantasy, action,
romance, historical drama and a fair amount of strange 1980's style. There is
no reason why a new version shouldn't reinvent the action side of it. The
important question is whether Stahelski remembers that the immortality story
is what makes Highlander different from every other sword-fighting action
film.
There is certainly plenty of mythology to work with.
Henry Cavill plays Connor MacLeod, as Christopher Lambert did in the original,
but this time the character is apparently being treated much more explicitly
as Scottish. The CinemaCon footage reportedly established that Connor was born
in 1518, and Cavill maintains a Scottish accent throughout. That's already an
interesting change from Lambert's famously difficult-to-place accent.
Cavill is also an obvious choice for the role. He's spent much of his career
playing physically imposing characters who're required to carry large fantasy
worlds on their shoulders. Superman and Geralt of Rivia have already given him
plenty of experience with swords, armour and supernatural mythology, so Connor
MacLeod doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
More importantly, Cavill has apparently been a fan of the property himself.
He's been attached to this film for five years, through all the delays and
uncertainty, which suggests that this isn't simply another franchise job for
him. His first-look photographs certainly suggested that he's taking the role
seriously. One showed him carrying a large sword and the other placed him in a
much darker, more mysterious setting.
Then there's the cast.
Russell Crowe is playing Juan Sánchez-Villalobos Ramírez, the role originally
played by Sean Connery. That's an inspired piece of casting. Crowe has the
presence to play the character as a genuine warrior and mentor rather than
simply turning up to deliver amusing lines and disappear again.
There's also something wonderfully appropriate about Crowe following Connery
into the role. Connery's presence in the original gave the film a strange
mixture of fantasy adventure and old-fashioned swashbuckling. Crowe is
obviously a very different actor, but he has enough authority to make Ramirez
feel like somebody who has been alive for centuries.
Dave Bautista is Kurgan.
That's another casting choice I'm very excited about. Clancy Brown's Kurgan
remains one of the great screen villains of the 1980's, partly because Brown
didn't play him like a conventional villain. He made him huge, brutal, funny,
grotesque and occasionally almost childlike. Bautista has demonstrated
repeatedly that he can do far more than play a big man who hits people, so I'm
hoping the new Kurgan isn't simply a physically imposing version of the
character.
Early footage reportedly suggests that Bautista's Kurgan is more restrained
than Brown's. We've also seen glimpses of the character in a World War II
setting, including a sequence in which he fights Connor while apparently
serving as a Nazi.
That points towards another significant difference between the two films. The
new Highlander seems determined to make much more extensive use of Connor's
centuries of existence.
The original had a terrific basic idea: an immortal man has spent hundreds of
years living among ordinary people while occasionally encountering others like
himself. The new film appears to be expanding that concept considerably.
Stahelski has talked about expanding the mythology, and the story moves from
the early 1500's in the Scottish Highlands through the modern world and into
Hong Kong.
That's potentially very exciting.
The Hong Kong element is particularly interesting. Highlander has always been
a story that can move almost anywhere because its central characters have had
centuries to travel around the world. A story about immortals shouldn't feel
as though everybody has spent the last five hundred years hanging around the
same few Scottish hills.
The international locations also give Stahelski an opportunity to make the
film visually distinctive. Scotland provides the mythology and the historical
foundation; modern cities provide the contemporary action. Poland and Hong
Kong add yet more possibilities.
And then there's the Gathering.
The basic idea remains that immortals are drawn towards an eventual
confrontation in which there can be only one survivor. According to the
CinemaCon footage, Connor is forced to fight fellow immortals as the Gathering
approaches, with the ultimate prize still at the heart of the story.
The difference is that the new film appears to be taking the concept much
further. Reports from CinemaCon described dozens of immortals rather than
simply a handful of principal characters. That's a potentially major expansion
of the mythology.
It also raises a question.
How much Highlander is too much Highlander?
One of the things I like about the original is that the mythology is almost
ridiculously simple. Immortals exist. They can be killed by decapitation. They
fight one another. There can eventually be only one. That's enough.
The danger with expanding the mythology is that the filmmakers could start
explaining everything.
I hope they don't.
There's something appealing about the mysterious quality of the original
mythology. Why are these people immortal? Where exactly did they come from?
Why does the Gathering happen? What is the Prize? Some questions are more
interesting when they're surrounded by mystery.
On the other hand, this is also supposed to be the beginning of a new
Highlander franchise. Amazon MGM and United Artists have the rights to the
property, and there's been talk of developing the world beyond this film. That
means the filmmakers have an incentive to establish a much larger mythology
that can support future films or television.
I'm not automatically opposed to that. In fact, Highlander is one of the
franchises where expansion makes considerable sense. The original television
series demonstrated that the concept could generate stories almost
indefinitely. An immortal character is effectively a walking history book. You
can put him in almost any period and almost anywhere in the world.
The question is whether the first film can stand on its own.
It certainly sounds as though there will be plenty of new characters. Karen
Gillan is playing Heather MacLeod, while Djimon Hounsou is playing Sunda
Kastagir. Marisa Abela, Max Zhang, Siobhán Cullen, Jeon Jong-seo, Nassim Lyes
and Kevin McKidd are also involved, with Jeremy Irons among the cast as the
leader of the Watchers. Drew McIntyre is also part of the ensemble as Angus
MacLeod.
The Watchers are particularly interesting because they suggest that the new
film is borrowing more heavily from the mythology that developed around
Highlander after the original film. Jeremy Irons playing their leader also
gives that part of the story a certain gravitas.
And Kevin McKidd is an especially nice bit of casting. He was reportedly
considered for the lead when the project was being developed many years ago,
long before Cavill was attached. Now he's actually in the film.
The production itself is also becoming increasingly impressive. The Scottish
shoot isn't merely using Scotland as a convenient backdrop. The filmmakers
have been filming in some of the locations that immediately make you think of
Highlander: Skye, Eilean Donan and Glencoe. There have been road and location
closures around the Highlands, and Cavill has been photographed in costume
there.
That's important to me.
If you're going to remake Highlander, make it look like Highlander.
I don't want Scotland to be three minutes of establishing shots before the
characters disappear into a CGI city. The photographs and reports from the
production suggest that the Scottish landscape is going to be an important
part of the film, particularly in the historical material. That's exactly what
I'd hoped to see.
The first film's Scottish setting was one of the things that gave it its
identity. The new film has the opportunity to make that landscape look
extraordinary with modern cinematography and visual effects. It doesn't have
to pretend that it's still 1986. In fact, it shouldn't. The original's special
effects look dated, but the landscapes don't.
And that brings me back to the reason I'm writing about the remake now.
Having just watched "Highlander" again, I'm struck by how much potential there
is in the basic concept. The original doesn't need to be replaced because it's
become worthless. Quite the opposite. It remains a brilliant film despite the
fact that some of its effects now look very much like effects from 1986.
That's precisely why the remake has to offer something more than improved
effects.
Fortunately, it appears to be trying.
The combination of Henry Cavill, Chad Stahelski, Russell Crowe and Dave
Bautista is enough to make me curious. The international locations make me
curious. The decision to expand Connor's life beyond the original story makes
me curious. The Scottish filming makes me particularly curious. And the
footage shown at CinemaCon suggests that the filmmakers aren't treating the
film as a museum piece.
It looks as though they're making a big, modern fantasy action film while
retaining the basic Highlander mythology.
That could be exactly what the property needs.
There's one other encouraging detail. Amazon MGM is now making a substantial
commitment to theatrical films rather than treating everything as material for
streaming. The studio has explicitly said that it intends to release at least
15 films a year theatrically and described its strategy as making films that
give audiences a reason to leave home and see them in cinemas. Highlander is
part of that theatrical slate.
That's where this film belongs.
Highlander should be seen on a big screen. It needs the mountains, the swords,
the castles, the cities and the action to have room to breathe. Stahelski's
involvement makes that even more important.
There still isn't a firm release date. The studio has indicated that the film
belongs in its 2027 slate, while earlier comments from Stahelski suggested
2027 or 2028 was the likely window. At the moment, the safest description is
simply 2027.
So there's still a long way to go.
But for the first time, Highlander doesn't feel like a remake that's
perpetually stuck in development hell. It's been filmed. We've seen footage.
Cavill has been in Scotland wearing the costume. The cast is in place. The
production has moved from London to Scotland, Poland and Hong Kong. We can
finally start judging the film on what it actually is rather than what
somebody says it might be.
And what it might be is quite exciting.
I certainly wouldn't want a carbon copy of the 1986 film. There's no point in
making one. I've already got the original, and I like it.
Give me something new.
Give me Scotland. Give me centuries of history. Give me immortals who've lived
long enough to have acquired stories of their own. Give me spectacular sword
fights. Give me Henry Cavill as Connor MacLeod. Give me Russell Crowe as
Ramirez. Give me Dave Bautista as the Kurgan. Give me Chad Stahelski directing
the whole thing.
And, above all, give me a film that understands why there can be only one.
Success Rate: - 1.5
