Off the Cuff Reviews Highlander (1986)

You ever watch a movie that left you more disappointed than anything else? A movie that had promise, that had some good elements which ultimately went nowhere? I'm not sure if I had, until today. Highlander (1986) is such a disappointment to me because, at a certain point, it had me. I was intrigued. I was invested. I was interested. And then, at a later stage, it lost me. The crazy thing is, it wasn't even a gradual thing. I can pinpoint the exact second I went from 'This movie's okay' to 'I don't like this'. I'll get to that point later. Starring Christopher Lambert as Connor MacLeod, Roxanne Hart as Brenda Wyatt, Clancy Brown as The Kurgan and Sean Connery as Juan Sanchez Villa-Lobos Ramirez.

Highlander (1986)

First of all, I just want the record to show that I get it. I can understand why people have fun with this movie. It really just is kind of one of those movies. A movie that you can put on and just have fun with. And, for a long time, I agreed. Especially in the opening couple of scenes, the movie was having fun with itself, delightfully over-the-top and ridiculous, almost in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way. A big bombastic Queen song in the opening credits, leading directly into one of the most ludicrous yet perfect fight scenes I've ever had the pleasure of watching. I was confused, certainly, as I didn't know what the hell was going on, but I was on board. I was along for the ride. And, if the movie had kept up the same tone and the same pace consistently throughout, I might have walked away calling this a masterpiece. It could have been a movie that knew what it wanted to do: be ridiculous and nonsensical and just be entertaining. Sadly, once the story actually begins, a lot of the enjoyment really started to drip-feed right out, for me at least. If you can put this movie on and unironically, or even ironically, love it, good for you. As for me, I can't. As the movie progresses, it starts taking itself more seriously, telling an actual story with stakes and themes, and it just can't balance that against the goofy, bombastic s*** that's going on at the same time.

Sean Connery as Ramirez

I really thought the movie had hit on something big with the immortality stuff. The story in and of itself is actually really compelling. A bunch of immortals being drawn to a big showdown where the last one left gets imbued with endless knowledge; that's a story I haven't seen before. Immortality in general is an inherently compelling subject to discuss, and this felt like a good opportunity to explore it. And it gets it occasionally. The stuff with Heather and how Connor handles her passing, that was all really good stuff. Sadly, the movie takes just a little too long to explain everything, leading to about 45 minutes of a confused audience wondering what the hell is going on, and 45 minutes is a little too long to get to your key premise. All the wacky s*** happening in the first act just, kind of, happens, and once we get the explanation, we don't really get any more content like that until right at the final showdown. The flashback structure was absolutely the only way to tell this story, but the order wasn't quite right. It also didn't help that the cop stuff in New York was nowhere near as compelling as the immortality story or even the story in Scotland. Talk about not compelling, however, now we get to Connor MacLeod. Good God, talk about a blank slate. I finished the movie 5 minutes ago, and I couldn't give you a single adjective to describe who he is as a person except 'immortal'. He's just written so poorly, we never get a sense of who he is, which is especially bad for an immortal character, since the stakes are rarely high enough for us to care anyway. This is why I got so disappointed; immortality is so compelling, I didn't want to see it wasted on this paper towel of a protagonist.

Christopher Lambert as Connor MacLeod

It didn't help that Christopher Lambert was nothing special in this role. He was serviceable, he did his job okay, but there was nothing in his performance that really made me think he was the only choice for this role. Anyone could have played him, and that especially becomes a problem when you realise if they'd gotten anyone else, he wouldn't have sounded French half the time. He gets the Scottish right occasionally, but at other times, he goes all over the place with the accent. He goes American sometimes, which I guess is fair enough, since he'd have picked up bits of the accent after living in New York for so long, but at other times I heard Australian. It always still sounded somewhat French, though, and I really had a hard time looking past it. Not as hard a time as trying to figure out why Sean Connery was cast as a Spanish Egyptian. This is another one that could have gone to anyone else: why would you cast a Scotsman to play the only man in Scotland who isn't from Scotland? He's Scottish! He's unmistakably Scottish! Connery does fine in the role, but, again, it could have been played by any older actor and nothing would have changed. The only person in this cast who really nails it is Clancy Brown. He really feels like the only pick for this role. He has the wacky nihilism, the intimidating voice and the dignity to carry it all off and not come across as mugging for the sake of mugging. His character brought back some more elements of that tone from the beginning; I yearn for the movie that could have existed had they just taken themselves a little less seriously.

Clancy Brown as Kurgan

If it had taken itself less seriously, I might have been able to overlook some of the more out there plot elements. Had it committed to its 'What the f***?' tone throughout, I might have enjoyed the swords that could cause stone walls to explode. Swords that cause stone walls to explode. Swords! That cause stone walls! To explode! There's only one kind of movie that s*** belongs in, and it's a movie that doubles down on how bats*** crazy that premise is. This movie tries to play it half-and-half, so I have to be more critical. Also, I may be the only one asking this, but why does immortality allow one to breathe underwater? I get that they can't die, but surely it'd be more realistic (and make for a more interesting scene) to have it so they couldn't breathe but still couldn't drown? And, I know you've been waiting for it. I know you've been hanging on the edge of your seats for me to get to it. What was the exact moment I checked out? What was the precise instant that turned me to considering this a bad movie? Well, I'll tell you. Connor reveals to Brenda that he's immortal by driving a knife she's holding into his stomach. A reasonable sequence of events to prove immortality, I'll grant you. It's what happens next that had me turned. Literally the very next thing that happens is the two of them passionately kissing, leading into a sex scene. Right there. That was when I was out. And, again, if the movie had played it up, gone for the 'This is all ridiculous' aspect, I might have been on board. It could have been a commentary on how other movies force in romantic subplots out of nowhere. But it didn't. It played it completely straight, simply forcing in a romantic subplot out of nowhere. You can't do that. You can't treat this romance like it's the greatest love story ever told when not only was there barely any build-up to the two of them even liking each other, but a stabbing is the event that immediately preceded the f***ing. I just wanted a movie about immortal people. Not this.

Beatie Edney as Heather

Look, I'm sure that Highlander (1986) is a fun movie to watch in the right atmosphere, and there's enough here that would make it an excellent party movie, but critically? I just don't like it. The good elements are outweighed by the boring or the bad. It's such a shame, though. There's a really good movie hidden somewhere in those good elements. It just couldn't get out. Like I said. Disappointing. 3.5/10.