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

Name of the Rose (4 Stars)

This is the last film in the "Best of Cinema" series for this year. The 12 films for next year still haven't been announced.

This afternoon I mentioned to a relative that I was going to the cinema, and she asked me what I was going to see.

"Name of the Rose", I replied.

    "That's a good film. Haven't you already seen it?"

"Yes. I have it on Blu-ray".

    "Then why are you going to see it in the cinema?"

At this point I threw up my hands in the air in frustration. What a silly question! There's a world of difference between watching a film at home and in the cinema. Maybe, just maybe, I'd accept the question if I had a home cinema with an enormous screen, 90 inches or more. My television is a mere 48 inches. But even then, it's a different experience sitting with other cinema fans in a dark theatre watching a film. I picked up some things that I'd never noticed at home. Some of the people in the audience laughed at times. I'd never noticed the humour, but they were right.

Added to this, "Name of the Rose" has recently been remastered in 4K, so the picture isn't identical with what I have at home on Blu-ray. That's one of the conditions of the "Best of Cinema" series: all the films have been remastered in 4K. The picture was splendid, from the opening minutes when Sean Connery and Christian Slater approach the abbey in the hills.

I go to see all of the "Best of Cinema" films, as long as I'm not kept away by sickness or family commitments.

And I'll continue going to the cinema on a regular basis as long as I'm able to walk.

Success Rate:  + 2.4

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

Diamonds are forever (4½ Stars)

This is the seventh James Bond film, made in 1971, two years after "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". Ideally the series would have continued with George Lazenby, but since he refused to play Bond again the studio persuaded Sean Connery to return. Persuaded means bribed. He was paid $1.25 million to appear in the film, the highest ever payment for an actor until then. Even with this high price, it was only enough to tempt Sean back for a single film. He was determined to move on.

There's yet another actor playing Blofeld. This time it's Charles Grey. The explanation for the different appearance is that he was given plastic surgery to escape detection. 

Don't worry, his cat still recognises him.

But Blofeld's new disguise goes even deeper. In Las Vegas there's a millionaire casino owner, Willard Whyte, who lives as a recluse in the top floor of a hotel. Nobody has seen him for three years. Blofeld has kidnapped him and taken his place, effectively becoming Willard Whyte. Hidden away, Blofeld has devised a scheme to become the richest man on Earth. He's equipped a satellite with thousands of diamonds, making it a powerful laser beam. To demonstrate its power, he destroys nuclear missiles in America, Russia and China. Now he wants to auction his services to the world leaders. He will work with one country, making it the sole nuclear power on Earth by destroying the nuclear weapons of everyone else.

This film's Bond Girl is Jill St. John as Tiffany Case. She doesn't need plastic surgery to change her appearance. She changes her wig several times in the film.

Do you prefer her as a brunette or a redhead? It's a tough choice. She's also a blonde the first time Bond meets her. Is she a Good Bond Girl or a Bad Bond Girl? It's not clear until the end of the film. She seems to be playing both sides.

Willard Whyte is being held captive by Bambi and Thumper. The scene where James Bond has to battle them to free Willard only lasts three minutes, but I've watched it over and over again on repeat. It's so thrilling. The girls laugh while they're beating him up. It's all a game to them.

This is Bambi, played by Lola Larson.

This is Thumper, played by Trina Parks.

James looks happy when Thumper embraces him. Silly man! He should know better than to trust a girl with a name like Thumper. A few seconds later her knee hits him in a delicate place.

Bambi has strong thighs.

He doesn't stand a chance.

They push him into the swimming pool to finish him off.

To be honest, I don't know how he survived this attack. James Bond has a navy background, so maybe he's an expert in underwater combat. I don't know. When the CIA agent Felix Leiter arrives to save Bond, Bond has already overpowered the girls.

There's a very good car chase that takes place in the narrow streets of Downtown Las Vegas. It must have been difficult to get a permit to film the chase.

The critics don't like this film as much as "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". I find it almost as good. They're both excellent films.

Success Rate:  + 14.1

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

Name of the Rose (4 Stars)

There was a lot of excitement about this film when it was released in 1986. As far as I know, it's been mostly forgotten. Am I right? Obviously, serious film fans like me still remember it, but how many people under the age of 40 have seen it or even know it exists? It's not on frequent television repeat, which is the way older films are usually remembered. Even if it's offered on a streaming service, it's unlikely to be noticed.

In 1327 delegates from the Franciscan and the Dominican monks arrive at an abbey in northern Italy to discuss the poverty of Christ. The debate runs to extremes, even asking whether Jesus owned the robe that he wore. Obviously, the main question is whether modern Christian factions are allowed to be wealthy. The Franciscans were – and still are? – ascetic monks, wearing simple clothes and eating simple meals, whereas the Dominican monks lived in luxury.

William of Baskerville is a highly revered Franciscan monk, despite being accused of pride in his own intellectual facilities. There are a series of suspicious deaths in the abbey. William is more interested in finding the murderer than in the theological debate itself.

A murder mystery set in the 14th Century? That's an original idea. The film is based on a novel with the same name by the Italian philosopher Umberto Eco. He said he was glad that the film encouraged people to buy his book, but he doubts many people managed to read it all. The book, which I haven't read, supposedly contains long theological debates which are absent in the film. He claims that they're too boring for typical cinema fans. That's possible. I felt tempted to buy the book myself to see if it's really so boring, but after 30 years I still haven't got round to it. Only €6.69 for the Kindle edition in Germany. I'm still tempted, but I might wait another 30 years. At the moment I'm reading "Bulldog Drummond" on my Kindle.

The themes in the film would make me laugh, if they weren't so tragic. A blind man is responsible for looking after one of the largest book collections on Earth. Torture is used to obtain confessions of heresy. A mute woman is asked to repent of her sins, and when she doesn't answer she's sentenced to be burnt at the stake.

I have the film on Blu-ray, supposedly remastered, but the picture quality is below average. Some older films have been better preserved than others. The film is still enjoyable and worth purchasing. It's currently out of print in most countries. I have the Swedish edition, which is available from Amazon.

Success Rate:  + 2.4

The Man who would be King (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #76

This is an epic tale of heroic adventure. It ends in tragedy, but it's still heart-warming to see the two former British soldiers fight against all odds to become kings. (Only one of them is eventually crowned, but any more details would be spoilers for the few of my readers who still haven't seen it).

I'm watching it out of order in my top 100 countdown. That's because my ex-wife Brigitte said she wanted to watch it with me. That was a week ago on 8th March, but I had to wait until she had time. She said that she wanted to watch it in German, if possible. Yes, my Blu-ray includes a dubbed German version, so I agreed. Normally I enjoy German dubbing, because it's much higher quality than English dubbing. In this case I think something was missing. Michael Caine's voice was well dubbed, but Sean Connery's voice was disappointing. I'm not blaming the voice actor, I'm sure he did the best he could, but the Scottish accent was missing. I also missed the richness of the Indian accents, in particular Seeed Jaffry. They all sounded German. Too German.

Despite this slight problem, I enjoyed the film. It's worth watching repeatedly. I forget how many times I've watched it, because I know I watched it several times before I started my blog in September 2010. The first time I saw it was on television, though not until the late 1990's. (It was made in 1975).

If you want to know more about the film, click here to read my first review. Better still, watch it for yourself. I'm sure you can find it online on some streaming service or other, but if not it's worth the price of the DVD or Blu-ray. Sean Connery says this was his best film. I agree.

Success Rate:  - 0.6

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

You only live twice (4½ Stars)

This is the fifth James Bond film, made in 1967. In my opinion, it's the best film in the series so far. It's beginning to display the camp elements that made the films outstanding works of art.

The film's title refers to the fact that James Bond fakes his death in the opening scenes. This has nothing to do with the rest of the film, except to set up MI6 as having a new headquarters on a submarine. We were told in the previous films that James Bond had previously been a member of the Royal Navy, but we now see him in a naval uniform for the first time.

Even Miss Moneypenny is shown wearing a naval uniform. This seems rather ridiculous, but it doesn't bother me. It's just part of the film's camp nature.

In this film we finally see the face of the mysterious Number One, after only seeing his hands in the previous films. He introduces himself as Ernst Stavro Blofeld, which only means something to those who've read Ian Fleming's novels. He's played by Donald Pleasance, who was a superb choice for the role. Just look at his evil stare in this photo. It's sad that he didn't return and was replaced by other actors in the following films.

Blofeld has a fiendish plan to conquer the world. He's stealing the rockets that America and Russia are shooting into space. They're swallowed by his own spacecraft, which is far superior to anything America or Russia is able to build. He knows that the two countries will blame one another, so his intention is to provoke a nuclear war between the two countries. He is sitting out of harm's way on a small Japanese island.

Why does Blofeld need to take over the world? Why doesn't be just sell his spacecraft technology to the highest bidder? That would immediately make him the world's richest man.

Once more, there are three Bond Girls. The bad Bond Girl is Helga Brand, played by the German actress Karin Dor. She's Number Eleven in Spectre, and a skilled assassin.

Bond should be careful who he's kissing. She soon has him tied up in her cabin. She only lets him go because she doesn't realise how dangerous he is.

The usual pattern is that the secondary good Bond Girl appears briefly before getting killed. In this film Aki, played by Akiko Wakabayashi, has a lot of screen time before she's finally killed.

Mie Hama plays Kissy Suzuki, who marries James Bond to help his undercover activities on the island. It's supposed to be just a business relationship, but she can't help falling for his charms. She's the main good Bond Girl, even though she doesn't appear until late in the film.

But James Bond has lots of girls in this film. The film poster exaggerates slightly. It shows him with eight women in a bathtub, but in the film there are only three Japanese girls washing him. But what's the difference? Three Japanese girls would get any man just as hot and steamy as eight girls.

Even one Japanese girl is enough to raise James Bond's blood pressure.

It's sad that Sean Connery has passed away, but he had a good life. He kissed as many women as Willaim Shatner in his distinguished career. Rest In Peace.

Success Rate:  + 9.7

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

Thunderball (4 Stars)

I was shocked to hear that Sean Connery passed away this morning. It's true, he was 90 years old, but it still came as a surprise, because he's always looked fit in recent years. Judging by his appearance, he was fitter than men half his age. He'll always be remembered for his signature role as James Bond, even though he made many other films in his acting career.

"Thunderball" is the fourth James Bond film, made in 1965. It's the only film in the series that shows all nine Double-O agents assembled, although we only see the other eight from the rear.

James Bond is entering on the left, heading for his chair when he's late for a meeting with the British Home Secretary. 

The film's plot is that a Spectre agent, Emilio Largo, also known as Number Two, has stolen two atomic bombs. He's holding NATO to ransom for 100 million pounds. All nine Double-O agents are put on the job to hunt him down before the deadline for the payment arrives. They're sent to different parts of the world, but James Bond requests permission to go to Nassau, because he has a lead that this is where Largo can be found. If his lead is so certain, it would have been more realistic for the other eight Double-O agents to accompany him, but when have the James Bond films ever been about realism? In the opening scenes we see him escaping from a preliminary mission with a personal jet pack. Colonel Pyat would have been proud!

The film has a less complex plot than the previous films. There's an outstanding underwater fight scene that lasts for seven minutes between Spectre agents and a Royal Navy task squad. It's beautifully filmed in eerie silence, as the two groups fire harpoon guns at one another. James Bond himself is made recognisable by being the only one with naked legs. I'm sure he must have frozen underwater, even in the Bahamas.

There's a cameo appearance of Anthony Dawson as Ernst Stavro Blofeld, but he's not given this name in the film. He's only referred to as Number One. We don't even see his face in this film. That's just as well, because he's played by five different actors in the six classic James Bond films where he appears.

There are three Bond girls in this film, not the usual two. The good Bond girl is Domino, played by Claudine Auger. She starts out as Largo's mistress, but when she finds out that Largo murdered her brother she changes allegiance. The bad Bond Girl is Fiona Volpe, played by Luciana Paluzzi, a Spectre agent who was the mistress of Domino's brother until it was time to kill him. The third Bond Girl is Paula Caplan, played by Martine Beswick, a CIA agent assisting Bond in his investigations. As is typical for the secondary good Bond Girls, she's killed early in the film. (It was actually suicide by cyanide pill to prevent herself being captured).

It's interesting to follow the development of Sean Connery's accent in the James Bond films. He was born in Scotland, but the James Bond character in Ian Fleming's novels is supposed to be English. In the early films he tries to hide his Scottish accent, although it slips through occasionally. After three films, he finally has his voice under control. In "Thunderball" he finally sounds English.

Sean Connery
25 August 1930 – 31 October 2020

I'll watch two of Sean Connery's films as James Bond this weekend. Usually I would be writing a Marvel Years post at the weekend, but I've postponed my posts about Marvel comics until Google fixes the ugly imageanchor bug.

Success Rate:  + 13.7

	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