Highlander (5 Stars)

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

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Highlander: The Films and TV series

In 1986 a film was made called "Highlander". At the time of its release it went widely unnoticed in America, but it had great success in Europe, especially Germany. After its release on video it started to win fans in America. Film critics also revisited the film and began to pour praise on it. Since then the original film has spawned four sequels, two television series, an animated series and dozens of novels based on the film and television characters. I’m going to make the effort to write a review of the whole Highlander franchise, as brief as possible so that it isn’t boring, but long enough to point out the strengths and weaknesses.

I’ll assume that the readers already know all the films and TV series, so I shan’t shy away from spoilers.

1. Highlander (1986)

The story is about an immortal called Connor MacLeod who was born in 1518 in Scotland and is still alive today in New York City. He can only die if his head is cut off. If his head is cut off by another immortal a supernatural effect called the "Quickening" happens, in which the power and the strength of the dead immortal flows into his killer. There is a rule among immortals that states "There can be only one". All immortals must fight and kill one another until only one is left, who will then receive something called the "Prize". Connor is trained by an immortal Spanish nobleman called Ramirez.

This film was intended as a standalone product. The makers had no intention for a sequel. For this reason we see Connor and Kurgan as the last two immortals battling to the death. Connor wins and receives the Prize in a divine flash of light. In the original version of the film it was stated that the Prize is being allowed to become mortal (is that really a prize?), being able to bear children (immortals are barren) and the gift of telepathy. In later editions of the film on video and DVD (director’s cuts) it isn’t expressly stated what the Prize is at the end of the film, it’s merely some sort of supernatural power.

"Highlander is certainly a classic film that will continue to be cherished and watched as the world of movie making continues to grow and change. It is a triumphant example of the art of cinema, and watching it reminds us all of why we like going to the movies in the first place" (Danel Griffin, film critic).

"The greatest action film ever made… awesome swordfights, an awesome score, and a time-bending plotline that only a philistine could dislike" (Christopher Null, film critic).

2. Highlander 2: The Quickening (1991)

Market forces demanded a sequel. The popularity of the first film meant that a sequel would be money in the bank. The problem, from a creative point of view, was that all the immortals were now dead except for Connor. There had to be a twist to bring them back to life.

"Highlander 2" explains that immortals originally came from the planet Zeist 500 years ago. The immortals are aliens who were exiled to Earth after rebelling against their government, where their essences were placed into human bodies. Luckily this means that dead immortals can be brought back to life, because their essences are still floating around after their death. Connor reverts from being an old mortal to a young immortal again. He battles the immortal Ironside, wins the Prize again, and returns to the planet Zeist to live happily ever after.

The film was, as expected, a huge box office success. However, its success was due to the popularity of the first film. Almost universally fans called the film awful. The makers reacted to this by releasing a new version of the film, completely re-edited, in which all references to the planet Zeist were removed. Although called a director’s cut, this was really a completely new film that merely used footage from the previous version. There was some pleasure among fans who considered that the whole "immortals are aliens" plotline was silly, but removing this just left the film inexplicable, with no real explanation why immortals could magically reappear after being killed.

"Highlander 2: The Quickening is the most hilariously incomprehensible movie I've seen in many a long day, a movie almost awesome in its badness. Wherever science fiction fans gather, in decades and generations to come, this film will be remembered in hushed tones as one of the immortal low points of the genre" (Roger Ebert, film critic).

3. Highlander 3: The Final Dimension (1994)

At this point everyone knew that "Highlander 2" was a catastrophe. So the easiest solution was just to assume that it never happened. A new film was made as a sequel to the first film that totally ignores the events of both versions of the second film. For instance, Connor’s wife Brenda dies in a car crash in this film, even though she died in an environmental disaster in "Highlander 2".

We find that an immortal called Kane has been trapped in a cave for 200 years. For this reason Connor received the Prize by accident when he killed Kurgan. When Kane finally escapes from the cave Connor is un-prized, he becomes an immortal again, and he has to fight Kane to win the Prize again. This film avoids the silliness of randomly reborn immortals, but the idea that the Prize was awarded in the first film by accident sat badly with Highlander fans.

"Highlander 3" was a box office flop. It seems that after the awful second film nobody wanted to give it a chance.

While there were still die-hard Highlander fans, an interesting phenomenon was developing in Highlander fan circles which can still be seen today. Since there were undisguised contradictions in the films, and even alternate versions of films, fans began to make their own personal definitions of the Highlander universe. Each Highlander fan decided for himself what had happened and denied the rest. This phenomenon was called "denialism". Many Highlander fans proudly called themselves denialists when they visited conventions, but really every fan had to be a denialist, since there was no way to reconcile the differences.

Some TV series have similar problems. The timelines in "Star Trek" have contradictions between the original series and the later series, since we repeatedly hear about space ships "a hundred years ago" (i.e. the 22nd Century) travelling to the edge of the galaxy. In "Doctor Who" the Doctor meets the Daleks for the first time in a 1963 episode, although as a Time Lord he should have already known them. Fans of these series just smile, put it down to mistakes and move on. In the case of Highlander the discrepancies are so great that they can’t be ignored. They have to be acknowledged and denied.

"Ultra-fans will rejoice in the face of the third instalment, and it's nowhere near as bad as Highlander 2, but most of you can give it a pass" (Christopher Null, film critic).

4.Highlander TV series (1992 – 1998)

The producers of this series knew they had a problem. They knew that the Highlander storyline was contradictory and fragmented. They decided to make an effort not to make it any worse. They found a way to hook the series into the films, and they took care to remain consistent within the series. The theory is that the original film happened, but there were still other immortals alive at the time, so the battle with Kurgan wasn’t the final battle and the Prize wasn’t given. The second and third films were ignored, or rather denied. This was something that Highlander fans could live with.

The TV series no longer features Connor MacLeod. The main character is Duncan MacLeod, who was born in 1592. Connor and Duncan are called cousins, but because of the time difference we can assume this is meant in a vague sense that would include second cousins, etc.

Critics vary widely in their opinions of the TV series. Fan reaction was almost universally positive, with the UK being a notable exception, where fans never warmed to the series. Germany is the country with the largest fan base, and the series is still being broadcast daily. The main problem with the series was that they had to struggle with a relatively low budget. While it couldn’t aspire to the professionalism of the films in terms of the special effects or cinematography, the stories themselves repeatedly reached artistic peaks. The series was a joint Canadian-French production, so it was demanded that half the episodes be filmed in Canada and the other half in France. This led to the regular pattern that each season would begin in Canada, and halfway through the season Duncan would relocate to his house boat in Paris.

Actually, each season really began in America. The episodes were filmed in Vancouver, but the producers carefully avoided showing well known landmarks and pretended that the setting was a north west American town, presumably Seattle. Later in the series this town was called Seacouver, presumably as a joke, but the name soon became popular among Highlander fans and became its official name.

The premise of the TV series is that immortals have existed since the beginning of time, and are still being born today. Certain people are born with the potential for immortality, but they only become immortal after experiencing a violent death. Some immortals, such as Duncan, are able to "sense" those who are able to become immortal, but most immortals can’t. Throughout the series immortality is shown to be a curse, because immortals have to watch their friends and loved ones die.

The main characters in the first season are Duncan Macleod, his mortal lover Tessa Noel, and a teenage boy called Richie Ryan. In the second half of the season an immortal called Darius is introduced, who used to be a Roman general but has since renounced violence and become a monk. Darius was originally intended to be a regular character in the series, but the actor who played him, Werner Stocker, died before the end of the first season, aged only 38.

In the last episode of the first season the Watchers are introduced, a secret organisation that has been observing the immortals and chronicling their battles for thousands of years. From the second season onwards the Watchers, in particular Joe Dawson, play an important part.

The main change in the second season is in the fourth episode, when Tessa and Richie are shot by a thief. Tessa dies, but Richie is reborn as an immortal. Duncan had already known that Richie possessed the spark of immortality, which is why he had looked after him. After he becomes immortal Duncan begins to train him to prepare him for battles against other immortals. Soon after this Duncan buys a martial arts dojo in Seacouver, which becomes the place he lives while in America, and the dojo’s trainer, Charlie DeSalvo, becomes a regular character.

During the second and third seasons we get to know two friends from Duncan’s past, Amanda Montrose and Hugh Fitzcairn. Both of them are a contrast to Duncan’s strict code of morality. Amanda is a thief, whose only aim in life is to become richer at the expense of others. Fitzcairn is a rogue who gets into problems through his womanizing and always seems to be broke. Fitzcairn’s death in the third season resulted in mass uproar among fans. The show’s producers later admitted that it had been a mistake to kill off such a popular character. Over the next three years they repeatedly brought him back in flashbacks and episodes set in the past.

Another character we meet is Methos, the oldest living immortal, who is living undercover in the headquarters of the Watchers, pretending to be a mortal. While not exactly unskilled as a fighter, he’s a pragmatist. He would rather avoid battling other immortals than risk being killed, so he uses the Watcher databases to find out where other immortals are living and stay out of their way. Methos’s charm is that despite being 4000 years old and well educated he’s very down to Earth. If he can’t solve a problem he drinks a beer instead.

The fourth season sees a radical change in style. Whereas the first three seasons concentrated on action stories, the next two seasons frequently deal with moral dilemmas. The usual scenario is that Duncan finds himself morally compelled to kill his friends because they are doing the wrong thing. An example of this is the episode "The Valkyrie", my personal favorite episode of the entire series:

In 1944 Duncan and a fellow immortal, Ingrid Henning, fail in a plot to assassinate Hitler. Ingrid blames herself for the failure and spends the next 50 years trying to make amends by travelling round the world assassinating tyrants and dictators. Duncan meets her again when she’s planning to kill the leader of a racist group in Seacouver. Duncan tells her she has no right to appoint herself judge, jury and executioner, however evil the racist leader is. While Duncan is tortured by the burden of his choice Methos tries to lighten up the atmosphere with humour. In the end Duncan kills Ingrid to prevent her going ahead with her assassination. After this he feels depressed as he realises that by killing her he is just as guilty as she was. The final summing up:

Duncan: Ingrid asked me something before she died.

Methos: They usually do.

Duncan: She said, what was the difference between her killing them and me killing her?

Methos: Good question. Right up there with chicken and egg.

Duncan: So what are you saying? There is no answer?

Methos: No, there is an answer. But the real question is whether you’re ready for it.

(Duncan nods).

Methos: Stefanovich killed and Ingrid judged him. Wilkinson killed and Ingrid judged him. Ingrid killed and you judged her.

Duncan: So who judges me?

(There's a long pause).

Methos: Are you hungry?

(And they both walk away together).

The last episode of the fifth season was the most controversial of the whole series. Duncan beheads his friend Richie while believing him to be someone else. This brought out the denialists in full force. Even before the episode was aired it had been leaked to the Internet that Richie would die. At the time it was first broadcast I had friends that I regularly discussed Highlander with. New episodes were broadcast on Friday evening, and we sat discussing what had happened at lunchtime on Monday. After this episode I asked a colleague what she thought about Richie’s death, and she replied, "I didn’t watch the episode. I refuse to watch it. Richie is still alive". While this response might seem irrational, it’s typical among Highlander fans. If they don’t like something they deny it.

The sixth season was by far the weakest part of the TV series, for various reasons. First of all, the three-part battle between Duncan and Ahriman, which had begun in the last episode of the fifth season, was as outlandish and implausible as anything the film sequels had shown. Ahriman had supernatural powers, including the ability to change his form, bring people back from the dead and change people’s bodies. (For instance, he gave Joe Dawson back the legs that he’d lost in the Vietnam War).

Second, Adrian Paul had announced that he wanted to quit his role as Duncan MacLeod to prevent himself being typecast. This was his last season, and he played smaller roles, not appearing at all in some episodes. I’m sure Adrian must be kicking himself now, because his subsequent acting career has been a failure.

Third, as a result of Duncan’s departure, a new Highlander TV series was planned with a female immortal, so episodes were used to "audition" female characters. This seems unnecessary, in retrospect, because eventually Amanda was chosen for the role. Nobody else was suitable.

Fourth, a very strange way was chosen to wrap up the series. The two-part series finale is a homage to "It’s a wonderful life". While Duncan is sitting brooding, as he has often done before, Fitzcairn appears to him and shows him what would have happened if he had never lived. While many critics praise the artistic qualities of the series finale, I find it silly.

5. Highlander: The Raven TV series (1998 – 1999)

In a way this could be considered Highlander season 7. The star of the series is the immortal Amanda Montrose, and she is supported by an ex-policeman, Nick Wolfe. While there is obviously an element of desire between them they never become lovers. In the final episode Nick is killed and becomes an immortal, as Amanda had known would happen all along. The series should have continued. It had a lot of promise.

6. Highlander 4: Endgame (2000)

This film continues from the television series. Duncan is surrounded by the same supporting characters as in the TV series. The main fault of the film is that a new immortal is introduced, Kate MacLeod, who we discover had been Duncan’s wife 200 years ago and is still the one he truly loves. This seems artificial, since she was never mentioned in the TV series. If Amanda had been presented as his true love the film would have been more natural.

In this film Connor MacLeod dies in a battle with Duncan. As expected, this stirred up the Highlander denialists, and soon Internet blogs worldwide were announcing that "Highlander 4" never happened.

The film was a flop at the box office. It didn’t even take in half of its budget. Film critics were unanimous in saying that the film was watchable, but nothing exceptional. Seen in the context of the TV series, it’s on a par with Duncan’s sixth season episodes, and it’s a better way of adding closure than the series finale. I enjoy "Highlander 4", despite its weaknesses.

"Highlander: Endgame possesses all of the elements of a straight-to-video action movie. Cheap special effects that look cool, weak characters that still pull heartstrings, and a bunch of actors no one really knows unless you have seen this or that obscure flick" (Travis Eddings, film critic).

7. Highlander 5: The Source (2006)

It’s difficult for me to write about this film without clenching my fists in rage. I thought the Highlander franchise had been pulled back together, but this film proved me wrong. It was intended for cinema release, but no distributors would touch it, and it eventually premiered on America’s Sci-Fi Channel. It’s arguable which is worse, "Highlander 5" or the original alien version of "Highlander 2".

In the near future mankind has plunged into chaos. Duncan MacLeod has lost the will to fight and lives as a derelict. Methos and Joe Dawson encourage him to save the world by taking part in a quest to find the source of immortality. After battling with cannibals, immortals and a supernatural monster called the Guardian, Duncan succeeds and is given the Prize. How is this possible, since there are still a lot of immortals alive? We find out that the immortals had always misunderstood the rule "There can be only one". It never meant that only one immortal should survive. It meant that only one immortal may have a baby.

For my part, I deny this ever happened. I intend to meet with other denialists on holy ground, where we shall ritually burn our "Highlander 5" DVDs, and we shall be hypnotized to forget the film was ever made.

"It's bad. Cheesily bad, colossally bad, monumentally bad, bad enough to make you never want to watch another movie again bad" (Danel Griffin, film critic).

"The acting is uniformly terrible, the special effects are hideous, the sets are cheap and grubby, and the directing is uninspired. The film is an utter failure. Surely this is the final nail in the coffin lid for this film series. If it isn't, then something is truly wrong with the universe" (Keith Breese, film critic).

8. The future of Highlander?

Back in 2008 it was announced that the original Highlander film would be remade, but 14 years later there's still nothing. It was said it would keep to the plot of the original, but it would be rewritten enough to make it a prequel of the TV series. I expect this means that the Prize won’t be given in the end. That's a daring venture. The first film is the only part of Highlander legacy that everyone agrees is a classic. There’s so much to live up to. There's such a large margin for failure. While I wish the producers luck, I fear that it will be another monumental disaster.

However, in 2020 Chad Stahelski was named as the director for the new film, and it would be a trilogy. I'm reassured by the choice of director. He did an excellent job with the John Wick films. On the other hand, a trilogy? Really? This would move away from the concept of making a prequel to the TV series.

9. Note on availability

All the Highlander films are still available in both NTSC and PAL formats, even the films that would be best forgotten. The Highlander TV series are now out of print in America, but you can still pick up copies from Amazon marketplace traders, if you hurry. If you wait too long the price will rise. The TV series were never released in the UK, but Region 2 PAL box sets have been published in Germany and are available from Amazon.de. The German boxes include both English and German dialog and the same extras as the American box sets. The only disadvantage is that the episode titles are printed in German.

---

Note: I originally wrote this post in November 2010, only two months after I started my blog. I still consider it to be one of my best articles, but it was formatted poorly. Back then I didn't know what I was doing. This new post contains the exact text of the original post, apart from a slight rewriting of paragraph 8 to bring it up to date. My changes only concern the formatting of the article.

Highlander (5 Stars)

It's been less than a month since I saw "Highlander" in the cinema, but I couldn't resist the temptation to watch it again this evening. It's dated, yes. It was made in 1986, and it's obvious that the special effects aren't up to today's standards. When special effects are used in the first fight scene, they're exaggerated and (to be honest) ridiculous. Way back in 2008 a remake was announced, but filming still hasn't begun. Normally I would groan about a classic film like "Highlander" being remade, but in 2017 Chad Stahelski was named as director. After seeing his work on the John Wick films I think he'll do a good job.

One thing that makes "Highlander" so good is the music. The rock group Queen was asked to write a theme song for the film. They were so enthusiastic about the film that they wrote not one but nine songs, almost all of which were used in the film. There's never been an official film soundtrack album, but the songs are contained on the album "It's a kind of magic". The song "Who wants to live forever?" is my favourite song by Queen.

Another thing is the breath-taking Scottish scenery. "Highlander" was filmed in the Western Highlands, partly on the mainland, partly on the Isle of Skye. This scene with Sean Connery and Christopher Lambert training was filmed on the side of Ben Nevis. It's easy to recognise, because I took a photograph of the lake in the background while climbing Ben Nevis. I used to go on vacation to Fort William (at the foot of Ben Nevis) at least once every two years. In the 1990's "Highlander" was shown all day on repeat in the Fort William tourist information centre.

Who wants to live forever? Almost everyone does. I'd like to live forever. But "Highlander" shows that being immortal is a curse. Connor MacLeod remains forever young while the ones he loves grow old and die around him.

I didn't include "Highlander" in my original top 100 films list. That's a mistake I've put right now. I think I judged it badly because I compared it with the Highlander television series. The film is good, but the series is better, because more attention was paid to continuity and realism (within the parameters of immortal swordsmen chopping one another's heads off). When I lived in America I never missed an episode of "Highlander". The new episodes were shown on one channel, while the old episodes were shown daily on another channel. I've watched most of the episodes many times over, and the Highlander box set was one of my first purchases when I bought my first DVD player in 2003. For reasons unknown to me, the Highlander TV series never became popular in England, but it's recognised as a masterpiece of television in Germany and America. It's sorely in need of Blu-ray remastering.

Success Rate:  - 1.5

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Highlander (5 Stars)

I've never been able to define what a cult movie is. The Wikipedia page on the subject makes a good effort, but I still have a tingling feeling that something is missing. It's noticeable that this page is frequently being re-edited, showing that the contributors are also unhappy with the definition. I have an intuitive feeling as to whether a film is a cult film or not, but I'm not able to write a check list which I can use to make an objective decision.

One of the main deciding factors is that a film has a large fanbase that stays loyal in their appreciation of a film as the years go by. That would imply that to be classified as a cult film, the film has to be old. I agree with that, but how old? Is 20 years old enough? One thing often said about cult movies is that they're films which went unnoticed when they were first released, but have become popular later on. That seems right, but what about "The Matrix"? It was a big success when it was made, but everything in my head screams that it's a cult movie. Intuitively. If the lack of initial success isn't present, what makes it a cult film? Is it the genre? Definitely not. Is it the originality? Maybe. Is it the fact that people (i.e. many people) are still talking about it 20 years after it was made? That's definitely a factor.

This is a topic I'd love to talk about, in person or online.

Yesterday I watched "Ghostbusters". Today I watched "Highlander". For me both films are cult movies. Both have a huge fan following. The difference is that "Ghostbusters" was a big success in the cinema, whereas "Highlander" was a failure. My "success rate", which I add at the bottom of most of my reviews, is a good indication of whether a film was successful or not. One thing the two films have in common is that they're both imperfect, but fans overlook the imperfections, either saying they don't matter or arguing them away. That's another factor I could add to pointers about the cult status of a film, but it certainly doesn't apply to "The Matrix".

Today "Highlander" was shown in the cinema as part of the "Best of Cinema" series. The cinema was almost full. That made me happy. I could tell from the audience reactions and snippets of conversation that I overheard that the majority already knew the film. Interestingly, there was a couple sitting next to me, who couldn't have been older than 25. They were born long after the film was made (1986). The man knew the film, but his girlfriend didn't. She reacted with shock at some of the events, starting with Christopher Lambert cutting off the man's head in the underground car park. Will she become a fan? I don't know, but I hope so.

One thing that amused me was the reaction of the audience to the first Quickening. It was overdone. It was exaggerated. When the cars rolled forward in unison, there was laughter in the audience. This is one of the film's imperfections. But I'm sure that if I'd talked to anyone about this imperfection they would have defended it.

It's obvious that "Highlander" was intended to be a standalone film. Several awful sequels were made, though I'm not sure why. Normally sequels aren't made to an unsuccessful film. A brilliant TV series was made, also called "Highlander". The TV series was better than the film, because it answered many questions, such as "If they're all immortals, why do some look older than others?"

Shortly after I began my blog I wrote a long post which summarised the Highlander franchise. I still consider it one of my best posts. I was inexperienced with blogging at the time. I made a perfect layout for viewing on the PC, but I didn't realise until years later that it looks messy on a mobile phone. I've decided that I'll reformat and republish the post. I shan't change the text, I'll just make it look better. I hope I can find time before this year's Fantasy Film Festival.

Success Rate:  - 1.5

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Highlander (5 Stars)

Highlander! It was one of the best films of the 1980's! That makes me all the more amazed that it's been so long since I last watched it.

Maybe the reason is the feeling I had after watching "Highlander: The Source", the fifth and hopefully the last film in the Highlander series. The second and third films were awful. The fourth film was a pleasant surprise, a lot better than I expected it to be. Then came the fifth film, and I felt like I'd been kicked in the gut. It was the worst film I'd ever seen, and I wish I could somehow un-see it.

I admit that "Highlander" (the first film) has a few faults, in particular the cheesy special effects. It's not that the money was lacking for better effects. Technically the special effects were adequate, but they were poorly conceived. Just look at the film's first Quickening, when the parked cars roll forwards in unison. Ridiculous! That's enough to make first time viewers want to stop watching.

But the film improves as it continues. The powerful story and the overwhelming imagery are enough to make me turn a blind eye to the poor special effects.

Watching the film progress from the beauty of the Scottish Highlands in the 16th Century to the grubby alleys of New York in 1986, it's easy to believe that immortality is a curse. The Scottish scenery is so lavish that the Fort William Tourist Information Centre showed the film every day non-stop in its office for years.

I gave a brief overview of the Highlander in one of my first blog posts. Please click here to read it. All I'll say now is that the Highlander TV series (1992 to 1998) was one of the best TV series ever made. I have it on DVD, but it's unbelievable that it's never been remastered for Blu-ray. Has it been forgotten already?

I'll have to watch the fourth film again soon. I might even take time to rewatch some episodes from the TV series. But I shall never, never, NEVER watch the other three films again!

Success Rate:  - 1.5

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Hail, Caesar! (3 Stars)

I gave this film five stars when I saw it in the cinema three years ago. In retrospect, I don't understand why. "Hail Caesar" has many good points, but it's not a great film. Maybe I was biased in its favour because I like all the other films made by the Coen brothers. Watching it again today, the first time since 2016, I felt disappointed by the story. On the plus side, I love the cinematography. Every scene is perfectly framed, especially when the production of 1950's films is shown. It's a perfect homage to the golden age of cinema. Or is it the silver age? I don't know what's what in cinema terminology.

The film is about the making of a big budget film called "Hail, Caesar", an obvious parody of "Ben Hur". It's a film about Jesus Christ as seen through the eyes of a Roman centurion called Autolycus, played by Baird Whitlock, who's played by George Clooney. Baird is kidnapped when he has only one scene left to film, his speech at the cross. A group of Communist screenwriters hold him to ransom for $100,000. The studio boss pays up immediately, and the money is donated to the Communist cause; or rather the Russian cause.

I know the film is a parody, but it seems to be glorifying Hollywood's anti-Communist sentiments in the post war years. I doubt this was intentional when the Coen brothers made the film, but it's the impression I get. This gives me a queasy feeling in my stomach. The film's sub-plots are totally irrelevant to the main story. There are two rival celebrity gossip columnists, both played by Tilda Swinton, and there's a pregnant film star who wants to adopt her own baby to avoid a scandal. I don't know why these stories were included, except to pad the film out to a full 90 minutes.

There's one small remark that I'd like to close with. After seeing Channing Tatum sing and dance I'm convinced that he should have played the lead role in "La la Land". Ryan Gosling was the wrong man for the role.

Success Rate:  + 0.9

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (3½ Stars)

After looking at the Blu-ray cover of the film I was curious about the single word "Brilliant" quoted from the Daily Star. I consider it one of Marvel's weakest films, so I couldn't believe someone would really sum up the film like that, so I searched for the review online. It was written by Alan Frank on 17th February 2012, and I've taken the liberty of quoting the full review below. The word "Brilliant" is taken slightly out of context, since it refers to the directors, not the film itself, but overall the review is good. Mr. Frank liked it, even though he only rated it 7/10.

Interestingly, on his personal blog, published on the same date, Alan Frank only rated it 6/10. The text on his blog is roughly the same, but the paragraph containing the word "brilliant" is missing. Did the Daily Star change the review to make the film sound better?

Not happy with this, I did some research into Alan Frank. I'd never heard of him before, but he's evidently a man who is well known as a film critic who has specialised in reviewing horror films for the last 40 years. One of my fellow bloggers calls him "the industry's most easily-pleased film critic". That's not a bad thing. I'm also easily pleased. Whenever I watch a film for the first time and feel disappointed I try to look for its positive features.

Alan Frank

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, Alan Frank, 17th February 2012

“I’m the guy who made the deal with the Devil,” he says, adding: “The darkness inside me only gets stronger”.

And he proves it with the mounting flaming body count that piles up when he starts blazing.

Too many sequels suck. Happily this explosion of action and startling special effects does just what it says on the tin without trying to be trendy or clever.

The hot stuff begins when monk Idris Elba persuades Cage to save a young boy from Satan himself.

Cage agrees, hoping to undo his pact with the Devil by doing a good deed and the screen fills up with freshly barbecued evil-doers.

It’s action, action and action all the way, with just a few (very few!) pauses for thought and for the plot to kick in.

Otherwise it’s multiple mayhem, gunplay, hair-raising road chases and Cage relentlessly roasting all the villains he can.

It would be useful to know his character in the cold weather we’ve just had since he can transform himself into a white-hot killer skeleton that shoots flames that would melt an iceberg in an instant.

But those same shooting flames also make him lethal.

Writer/directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, who cracked out Crank, definitely do the thrilling business here.

They are brilliant at showcasing Cage’s fiery punisher whilst also letting Satanic Ciaran Hinds, Elba and company have their flings.

VERDICT: 7/10

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (3½ Stars)

Johnny Blaze has fled from the USA to Romania and lives as a recluse in an attempt to control the Ghost Rider's power. He's approached by Moreau, a member of a holy order, and asked to find a young boy called Danny. This boy is the Devil's son, and in three days time the full power of the Devil will be transferred to him, resulting in Hell on Earth.

While not the worst Marvel film ever made, "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" is certainly disappointing. I agree that CGI is necessary to portray a character with a flaming head, but the film relies too heavily on CGI. It could have been toned down a little.

There are some discrepancies to the first film. At the end of the first film the Devil offers Johnny Blaze his soul back, but he refuses it because he wants to retain his power to fight the forces of evil. In this film we see him desperate to get his soul back. Couldn't he just have asked? As well as that, in the first film he only turns into the Ghost Rider at night. In this film he can transform at any time.

The Ghost Rider franchise is due to be rebooted next year. I hope the next film will be better.

Hail, Caesar! (5 Stars)

I love this film. How can a film with such a serious background be so funny?

The film takes place in 1951 in Hollywood. Capitol Film Studios is making a big budget film about Jesus Christ, as seen through the eyes of a Roman soldier called Autolycus. During the filming the film's leading actor, Baird Whitlock, is kidnapped and held to ransom for $100,000. According to an inflation calculator that would be approximately $920,000 today. The kidnappers are a group of Hollywood screenwriters who are protesting against the big studio bosses pocketing all the profits. Baird becomes a willing prisoner when he's seduced by the Communist ideals of his captors.

The film revolves around the efforts of the Hollywood fixer Eddie Mannix, who is determined to get Baird back while keeping the story of the kidnapping out of the press. He was a real person in the post-war Hollywood era. All the other characters are fictional, but it's easy to guess who they refer to. Even the films shown are obvious references to real films. For instance, the Hollywood epic being made is called "Hail, Caesar", but it's a clone of "Ben Hur".

The comedy comes from the ridiculous nature of the smaller Hollywood films of the time and the second-rate actors who played in them. In fact, even the big name actors are portrayed as second-rate.

This is an obvious candidate for Oscar nominations in 2017. It's not just that the film is very good. The Film Academy voters are nostalgic and like films about films. I can't guarantee that it will win awards, because I have no idea what will be released the rest of this year, but it will certainly be nominated as best film. Does anyone think I'm wrong? I'll bet a pint of beer with any of my local friends.

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (3 Stars)

"Ghost Rider" was one of the best comics of the 1970's. It was well written and well drawn, and it had more of an edge than the Marvel comics of the previous decade. This film, in comparison, is a shambles. The only thing in its favour is that the special effects are slightly better than the first film. Apart from that, the story is silly and the acting is dreadful. There's already talk of a third Ghost Rider film. It can only get better. Can't it?

It's a shame, because the Ghost Rider character has such promise. The series is in serious need of a reboot. As much as I usually like Nicolas Cage, he's totally wrong for the role. We need someone 20 years younger with long blond hair.