Reviews & Ratings for
Highlander More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 28:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

280 reviews in total

---

167 out of 188 people found the following review useful:
Magical - Don't Miss!, 12 January 2004

Author: imprator from England

When I first saw this movie, I loved it. Having recently seen it again after several years, I found it to be every bit as good as I remembered – in fact, better. So I thought I would visit IMDB and see what others had to say. I learned four things;

1/ This movie was a flop at the box office. Funny, I had always assumed it was a hit – it was so good, and spawned three (soon to be four) sequels and a television series.

2/ I expected some to be less than entranced with Highlander, but was interested to learn that there are those who think it complete rubbish.

3/ Some people think the sequels are good movies. How could they?

4/ Some people don't like the Queen soundtrack. How could they not?

It is always interesting to see different viewpoints, especially when they are completely contrary to your own. But for me, this movie was perfect. The premise was intriguing, the story was beautifully told, the joy and pathos of an immortal amongst mortals revealed with great skill. There was great action, romance, the tragedy of love lost – and the baddest of bad guys to overcome.

The casting was excellent, as was the acting. Sean Connery's contribution was exactly as it should have been, and no more. Clancy Brown's performance as The Kurgan was joyfully terrifying, Christopher Lambert was spot-on.

The screenplay was excellent, as was the script. I was especially impressed with the way that flashbacks were interwoven with the ongoing story. In fact, this is the only flashback movie I have ever liked.

I was also thoroughly impressed with the action sequences. Unlike so many recent movies, none of the action involved the physically impossible (with the obvious exception of the fact that the immortals were immortal, of course). This added enormously to the appeal, in direct contrast to so many movies made in the last decade. I despair when I watch movies where people perform the impossible. Even the classic scene `Oh, I'm falling – but it's OK, I can just grab this rope/branch/flagpole/whatever, and even though I have fallen 30 feet and am travelling at 20 mph, I can just stretch out my hand and arrest my fall as though I was no heavier than a feather' destroys all credibility in the action. I know, this is a fantasy movie anyway, so what does it matter? Well, realistic action is even more important in fantasy movies; it helps the audience to willingly suspend disbelief. This is very difficult to do when you are busy giggling at the latest fantastical feat you have witnessed. No such concerns in this movie – the action was perfectly judged to reflect the prowess gained from centuries of experience, whilst avoiding the impossible and the ridiculous.

I was intrigued to find one user comment on IMDB criticising the use of `unnecessarily large and heavy weapons'. Anyone who has used (or even picked up) any edged weapon will be aware that they are very heavy. Moving that kind of mass means lots of momentum, and involves very distinctive body movements to counterbalance the weight. Most movies use toy weapons – plastic, fibreglass or wood – and the lack of mass shows in the actor's movements. For the uninitiated, this may make for flashier and faster action – but for those who know, it looks like children playing pretend. The use of weapons with real weight in Highlander adds tremendously to the realism. It was particularly impressive that the actors could use the weapons properly (at least to the extent demanded by the choreographed scenes – and that is all that is required for movies). Clancy Brown (as The Kurgan) deserves special praise here – he had the largest and heaviest weapon, yet wielded it like a veteran. One can only imagine the endless hours he spent perfecting his movements and balance.

I do understand why some would find the soundtrack intrusive, but for me this was another area that was perfectly judged. Queen's songs enhanced the mood of the moment whenever they played. One related fact that some might find interesting – a few years ago I saw a list of the top ten best movies for music as voted for by students. Highlander made the list – the only non-musical to do so. (In fact, I think it came in the top five.) So I would guess that the soundtrack works for most people..

I also understand why the accents in the movie (Christopher Lambert's and Sean Connery's) are a problem for some. However, I was happy with Lambert's accent; it was Scottish enough for the Highland scenes, and suitably indefinable for the modern settings. Sean Connery was, of course, Sean Connery – he never adopts any accent other than his own. But that's OK – it doesn't detract from the film, any more than it detracts from any of his films (such as Red October). I tend to agree with his point that accents don't matter – emotions are the same, regardless of nationality.

Just a quick word about the sequels – disappointing. I am not one to decry all sequels as inferior. In fact, many sequels are very good, and some are better than their progenitors. However, the Highlander sequels were without exception very poor. The original film was obviously conceived as a one-off, and was all the better for it. The story was complete with Highlander, and the sequels were necessarily contrived. However, Highlander II exceeded all expectations in this regard. The plot changed the story of the immortals beyond all recognition. Egregious just isn't a big enough word to describe it.

The sequels are best viewed as being entirely separate from the original. If you haven't already seen them, be prepared for a decidedly tepid experience.

But Highlander itself – ah, there's a real movie. Sit back and enjoy!

9.5/10

---

83 out of 91 people found the following review useful:
Largely panned by the critics, but surprisingly a good, ingenious sci-fi offering., 5 January 2005

Author: Jonathon Dabell (barnaby.rudge@hotmail.co.uk) from Wakefield, England

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

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

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

---

71 out of 90 people found the following review useful:
Didn't get it at first, 10 December 2004

Author: timzp (sixstarbathrooms@me.com) from Perth Au

I didn't get this film at first audition. I thought the acting wasn't great. But something about the film kept pulling me in. When I watched it again I fell in love with the movie. Its full of romance, heroism and over all loss. A very involving and emotional film. The Queen song "Who wants to live forever" never fails to stir emotions. The battle scenes are also very good. What also makes the film work is the casting. The Highlanders all look very brave and fearless not to mention scarred. Also the costumes are fantastic. I'm mo expert on the exact clothing for Highlanders in the 16th century, but they looked pretty good to me. I had no real feelings about Scotland before I watched this film, But after the film got under my skin it was the next place I visited. I was amazed to find that there really is a Glen Finnan on the shore of Loch Sheil. And I can say first hand that it is a truly historicaly magical place.

---

53 out of 63 people found the following review useful:
A Good Film Whose Reputation Has Been Dragged Down By Poor Sequels, 9 March 2005

Author: CTS-1 from USA

When I first saw this film, I thought it was great. Connery is good, Lambert does passably well, the effects are good, the idea of a bunch of special individuals who had known about each other (and in some cases, liked each other) for centuries being drawn together, knowing that only one could come out alive. The effects were, at the time, good and had not been flogged to death. I even enjoyed the introductory clan-on-clan warfare.

Then came Highlander 2, a film which deserved its place on the Bottom 100 and the nadir of Sean Connery's career. As someone else said about that film: "don't break every rule you set up in the first film." Even the series didn't do that. And the reputation of the first good film suffered.

Separating the first film from the bad sequels, and a series that a lot of people can take or leave, it is still a good film. Unfortunately, a good idea was taken and flogged to death afterward.

---

33 out of 45 people found the following review useful:
A movie with something for everyone, 14 May 2000

Author: Michael K (Incubus-5) from Chicago, IL

The first time I saw this movie I knew it was going to be a lifelong favorite. With all the years that have gone by since then, and the repeated viewings I have given it, The Highlander still remains one of the best pieces of film I have ever seen. There are enough fight scenes to satisfy the most adamant of action movie fans, and there is an incredibly touching scene with Lambert and Beatie Edney (Heather) when she is dying of old age, Connor is still youthful in appearance, and the Queen song "Who Wants To Live Forever" is playing in the background. It still brings tears to my eyes when I see Connor in modern day New York lighting a candle for her on her birthday. The swordplay is extremely well choreographed and the sets are remarkable. To be fair, the special effects are not what I would consider up to the standards of the day, however the writing and acting is more than enough to make up for it. If you want to see a movie that doesn't NEED special effects to make it worth watching, this is one for you.

---

35 out of 49 people found the following review useful:
I absolutely loved this movie!!!, 14 April 2005

Author: dbrigley from Canada

It does exactly what a movie is supposed to do! It lets your imagination run away with you. It lets you forget all your worries for a time. The music is Fantastic!!! It is haunting and relaxing at the same time. Sean Connery is of course, wonderful in his part. Christopher Lambert has a way of making you feel what he feels. The scenery is utterly gorgeous. The special effects are very well done.Makes you want to live forever and at the same time glad that you don't! Worrying about getting your head cut off sure makes our bills seem like such tiny little problems! Great entertainment!! A must see for the fiction fan.

---

36 out of 51 people found the following review useful:
Guilty pleasure #1, 25 May 2006

Author: Andy from Portland, Oregon

Still, one of my favorite movies of all time, especially if I watch the director's cut. Forget the sequel. Forget everything but the first movie. This was Gregory Widen's first screenplay about a world of darkness. It's great fun, but if you're looking for a FILM, just watch the scene cuts. Please, please ignore any of the franchise movies. Highlander succeeds because it's an '80s movie. The special effects, while not novel, were solid. The swords alone are why I watched this movie in my young years. The writing and the acting are why I've come back. As an aside, I know three people who can quote Highlander in its entirety. That's solid, too. It's an epic movie, plowing through the years. Epic battles, and an epic storyline.

---

24 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
There is only one!, 12 January 2007

Author: mjw2305 from England

In 16th century Scotland, immortals fought against each other, in a quest for the prize of being the one remaining at the end of the centuries of fighting. Conner Macleod (Christophe Lambert) is trained in the art of sword fighting by Ramirez (Sean Connery) in hope that one day one of them will fight and defeat the Kurgen (Clancy Brown) The story is set over 4 centuries and stretches from the highlands of Scotland to the streets of New York.

Firstly the cinematography in the highlands captures the breath taking scenery beautifully, the story is captivating fantasy, with dialogue and direction to suit the theme, and the cast all perform well enough to entice you into the story and hold your attention, without ever really excelling. Finally the soundtrack is provided by Queen, and it genuinely adds to the emotional feel of the film in quite dramatic style.

Highlander is a very good movie, that has its flaws; but in fantasy, does it really matter? However the sequels are far too contradictory and contrived to be given the same forgiveness. This film really is the only one; and its stands alone without the need for its inferior sequels.

7/10

---

25 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
A Classic of the 80's, 14 August 1998
Author: Gislef from Iowa City, IA

Highlander is perhaps the definitive modern-day, non-horror fantasy adventure. The use of flashbacks within the story is perhaps not unique, but the concept sees its full fruition here. Such integral "flashback storytelling" would later be borrowed by many movies and TV shows (the Highlander series itself, Forever Knight, and Outlaws among the latter). Everyone is well cast, from the major roles (Lambert, Brown, Connery, Hart, and North) to the minor roles (Peter Diamond, Hugh Quarshie, Sheila Gish, and Christopher Malcolm, among others). Of necessity, must be seen in the Director's Cut version. Various web sites also have the further "missing scenes," including the Kurgan's battle with Immortal Yung Dol Kim, and Kastagir and MacLeod actually having that party they mention.

---

22 out of 29 people found the following review useful:
This is still an enjoyable movie., 1 March 2005

Author: Philip Van der Veken from Tessenderlo, Belgium

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I saw this movie for the very first time in the late eighties and, for as far as I still can remember of course, I know that I was very impressed by the special effects used in this movie. Of course, when it comes to special effects, much has changed since this movie was created 20 years ago, but it was still nice to watch.

Connor Macleod is the Highlander, an immortal who was born in 1518 and who fought his first battle on the Scottish Highlands in 1536. When he gets mortally wounded, but doesn't die, he is banned by his clan because they fear the Devil's work has made him survive. Five years later he meets Juan Sanchez Villa-Lobos Ramirez, who explains him why he didn't die and what it means to be an immortal. He finds out that he can only die when decapitated by another immortal and that, in the future, he will have to compete in some kind of contest. Only the best will survive and win "The Prize". The contest takes place in 1985, in New York City and he'll have to face Victor Kruger / The Kurgan, a murderously brutal barbarian.

Despite the fact that it sometimes may look a bit dated because of the special effects, this movie is still enjoyable. The story is interesting and the acting was good (personally I loved Clancy Brown the most as The Kurgan). And of course the soundtrack is very good as well, at least when you can appreciate the music by Queen. If not, than this may well be the soundtrack from hell for you, because the only music in it is from Queen. Overall I can say that, despite some minor defects, I had a good time watching this movie. That's why I give it a 7/10.

---

---

Page 1 of 28:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user reviews	Your vote history