Highlander (1986)
There can be only one.
Many choices are available at all times to watch when it comes to movies. Old ones, new ones, grungy ones, family friendly ones, and ones with and without fart jokes. The variety of options has never in fact been better to date, and until some media armageddon happens which causes the loss of all media, that statement will technically always be true regardless of when it’s read. You could say that statement itself is immortal. Yeah, there’s the segue, for there in fact can only be one - tonight we watch Highlander.
The movie to be specific (not the show that it spawned). After some credits whose sole purpose feels a little bit like a reason to listen to more Queen, we get to a wrestling match and some fancy camera moves. Our designated main character has some quick flashbacks before heading to the garage to introduce us to some very over the top 80s sword fighting, with a whole lot of flips, slips, sparks and swings Our main character ends up winning - lopping off his opponents head and causing all manner of explosions in the parking garage. This is our setup to what the movie explains throughout it’s run time - a history of immortals and the inevitable one on one battle for the prize, for there can be only one. Caught in the mix of it is a forensics worker who really digs swords, and a whole lot of New Yorkers.
The movie spends a good deal of time in flashbacks setting up the premise and explaining how it works a little bit. This is a bit necessary to explain the characters and how they act throughout. Sure - it can be a little one line about how our main baddy is just warrior supreme and totally bad to the core - or it can be a nice little drawn out part to see why a character is a bit resistant towards being romantically involved. It provides a bit of depth - or at the very least a feeling of history - to some of the characters. Some side characters benefit by proxy, as their interactions with the main will fill them out - but other side characters feel a bit like they are introduced literaly to be offed in the next scene we see them. Our female lead here gets to do all sorts of sleuthing which is nice - but i wouldn’t go as far as to say she’s this super strong character and still suffers from the classic downside of getting kidnapped at one point. I mean - hey, it is the 80’s right?
Usually I talk about the characters after I have talked about the actors, but I’m doing it the other way around for a reason this time. See, you could kind of say the main character here really doesn’t feel like they are super well acted. I feel like it’s not an entirely unfair statement, but there are parts (especially towards the end) when he really starts to liven up and some acting shines through, which in turn leads a person to think why it might feel al little scroungy grump face for most the movie. The character building I think is the answer here, allowing for the difference between early movie and late movie emotional performance to serve as a more immediate visual growth change to help cement what they were trying to do with the character building. That said, I’ve seen the actor in other movies doing a fine job, so I assume at least some of it is direction given and followed. The main villain eats the heck out of most scenes he’s in, and plays a wonderful irreverent nutjob of a killer. Actors do a decent job, but expect a lot of hamming things up and not feeling super duper serious. Our boy Connery plays an Egyptian guy who acts Spanish while using a Japanese sword in the highlands of Scotland - so I mean, yeah.
Another night in New York
Kinda segues well into the fact that I could probably put a content warning out there for some of the phrases and stuff in the movie. 80’s were a different time, and even with that being a thing it doesn’t stop some people from pushing modern societal norms upon them and looking at it distastefully. Same thing happens to my poor Monster Squad all the time when folks talk about it. Yeah, some of the stuff is crass and a bit offensive to modern sensibilities, but just take it in stride the few times it comes up thinking things are at least somewhat better than they used to be in that regard . That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone also found some moments that had the feeling of some homosexual subtext or atmosphere in there. Some of the same moments could also come off as “bro” or almost fatherly as well though - so don’t let me make it feel like the movie that had a couple homophobic lines in there is also going nuts covering up for it either - or is it? Look, I’m not the one whose watching a movie intending to dig deep into the themes of living forever and what it can do to a persons emotions when everything but you is going to die, or why a person might be a psychopath, or the fancy ways a person could cover up the fact that they live forever and hide it from people, or why people keep secrets or anything - I literally came to this movie (the first time) for sword fights and Queen, and I got both (although only one of them wasn’t kind of ridiculous).
As you may have guessed, that kind of means that at least some of the music stuck with me. It’s not all just Queen either, but it and the TV show probably did their fair work at getting Princes of the Universe and Who Wants to live Forever stuck in our head. Actually, after double checking the IMDB to make sure I didn’t misname those two songs, it does appear that all the music was performed by Queen (except I would imagine there must be a few of the classic instrumental stuff floating in there that wasn’t them - but then again it’s Queen, so who knows for sure). It’s good, it fits with whats going on sound wise and also sometimes lyrically. Yes, not all of it sticks with me - so it’s not like this movie cured me of the post-cinema musical mind blank, but it’s got a leg up on some stuff, just like the movie version of Flash Gordon and it’s Queen song. Guess in that regard, Queen is just really good at popping out earworms weren’t they? Line deliveries are pretty audible - but subtitles at least on Amazon’s service had a horrible time keeping up with the actual deliveries on the screen, and i found myself mostly ignoring them because the delay it would take to get to them.
Effects are pretty darn 80s. So are the variety of costumes really. It pulls of the “people looking normal in a normal time” well - even if big safety-pinned up punk-rocker T.K. is in-your face enough to feel like he’d stand out like a sore thumb almost anywhere but a grunge show. You don’t have any trouble telling folks apart in the “present times” sections of the movie. In the flashback sections though, it can get a bit rougher when you have all those kilt-wearing highland warriors mixing it up. The difference in costumes is good though, and allows for a nice bit of something different then just modern attire you’ll grow to ignore despite being done well enough. Certain highlights would be the “black knight” outfit of The Kurgan, and the incredibly flamboyant attire of Connery’s character. The swords all look pretty cool too, and yes there is going to be some level of suspension of disbelief required when we start getting snap-together travel swords in here, as well as some katana favoritism that at some point or another happens to pretty much everyone that likes swords. The other effects are pretty well done, and although some of the stuff might not hold up to modern times where technology has advanced a good deal, I can tell you I’ve seen worse effects out of movies both of the time and modern - so pretty decent for the most part!
The Kurgan
The music is probably the part of this movie that has aged the best. Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoy it for what it is, but I can’t exactly overlook the goofiness of some of the moments like the first fight. Movies, especially stunt work like weapon-based fights, have really improved over the years, so the stuff on display here is pretty corny and super choreographed as aiming at each others swords. Now, that part doesn’t bug me much - I like some over embellishing things - but stopping your fighting so you can do like 30 back flips down a a parking garage drive path is goofy no matter how you chalk it up. Still, the movie is put together well enough and has decent enough acting and a interesting enough story concept that it’s not a bad watch - perhaps not as much for a more modern-minded viewer, but the thing did spawn a television show, bunch of movies, and some other content as well - so it’s not like audiences of the time found it to be ostensibly trash, so how far off can I really be for enjoying it?