In alot of ways, it really sucked. But…
-
NotASpeckOfCereal — 12 years ago(November 06, 2013 08:27 AM)
I watched it last night and still enjoyed it after the mumble-ith viewing, but for the first time I was struck by the fact that it doesn't hold up in places.
For once, I will not complain when one of my favorite films gets a reboot. Hey, at least they waited quite a few years.
Be sure to proof your posts to see if you any words out -
Superunknovvn — 12 years ago(January 19, 2014 05:02 PM)
i just saw it again after a long, long and I have to say the direction was impressive. not the direction of the actors, but the angles and camera movements (although I can see why Tarantino apparenty referred to the director as a poor man's Ridley Scott).
"We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school" -
twofacetoo — 12 years ago(February 13, 2014 03:46 AM)
'Highlander' is the kind of guilty pleasure I don't feel too guilty about.
It's like a movie like 'The Room'. People can admit that it's bad, and often openly do, but there is still a group of people who enjoy it for just how bad it is.
In this case, I enjoy it because yeah, it does suck at times, but the good moments are like gold-coated diamonds that fell from the sky. They're just so damn good they outweigh the bad stuff by just the tiniest amount. -
CptHowdy87 — 12 years ago(February 26, 2014 05:33 PM)
Can someone please actually explain what is supposedly so bad about the sword fighting? They weren't using those prissy dueling swords but gigantic heavy swords which take a lot of strength to even hold let alone swing around.
I doubt any of you even have a clue about actual sword fighting anyway besides what you've seen in other movies. -
dtcrocbattle — 12 years ago(March 31, 2014 06:37 AM)
The dueling looked clumsy as heck. With Krugan it makes sense being he has a double-edged long sword. But for McCloud(?)he has a Japanese Katana and he's swinging it like its a baseball bat.
I will admit that I have not had sword training, but I have seen REAL martial artist word exhibitionist with katanas and daos. The dueling was atrocious.
No Number is best. 3 builds better than 2. 2 loves better than 1 and 1 mind is better than 3. -
dtcrocbattle — 12 years ago(March 31, 2014 06:49 AM)
I agree with you completely. I just saw it last night for the first time with my wife. This is a movie with a great and original concept. The movie however falls on the fact it appears to be made on a bubblegum and shoelace budget. The acting is lacking, the main character is hard to understand and most of the fight scenes are horrible.
I give the movie slack however, due to the fact it was made in the 80's and had I seen it when it first came out I would have absolutely loved it. A reboot of this movie would do wonders with a much better budget and experienced director.
No Number is best. 3 builds better than 2. 2 loves better than 1 and 1 mind is better than 3. -
beto_sp0004 — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 10:36 AM)
I was 16 yo when this movie was released. I loved it (In fact, everybody did). But, later views of it were kind of boring to me. It has lost its magic, at least for me. However, the "Who wants to live forever" scene is still amazing after all this years. It is impossible for me not to cry out loud during that part. So sad and so beautiful. For this scene alone, this movie will always have a special place in my heart.
-
-
aj0899 — 9 years ago(June 17, 2016 02:36 AM)
This comment I'm responding to is old, but I just watched it and this seems like the right place to comment. The way I'd put it is that it has a really good premise behind it, that could have been the basis for a really good movie. But they didn't deliver on the really good movie part. So you can be kind of fascinated by the concept, and overlook the fact that the movie isn't very good.
I couldn't really overlook it. Take the (non-immortal) ex-marine driving around NYC with a car full of machine guns, who fills the Kurgan full of holes with an Uzi. He gets impaled by a giant sword, picked up with the sword and thrown against a wall on the other side of the alley, and then survives to talk to the police in the hospital. In real life, that guy would have died almost instantly.
The movie is full of insanely over-the-top, ridiculous stuff like that, that makes it really hard to take seriously. -
quaddo — 9 years ago(July 11, 2016 07:17 AM)
Take the (non-immortal) ex-marine driving around NYC with a car full of machine guns, who fills the Kurgan full of holes with an Uzi. He gets impaled by a giant sword, picked up with the sword and thrown against a wall on the other side of the alley, and then survives to talk to the police in the hospital. In real life, that guy would have died almost instantly.
So, you expect realism in an eighties fantasy action adventure film? Gimme a break!
The movie is full of insanely over-the-top, ridiculous stuff like that, that makes it really hard to take seriously.
Yes, parts of it is deliberately over-the-top and cartoonish, and if you don't get that or accept it. Then this movie is not for you.
The film's main strengths IMHO are the basic premise/plot, music & score, charming/good acting by the main actors, done 30 years ago with a relatively low budget (even for the time) considering the scope of it.
RIP Ian Richardson (1934-2007)
http://akas.imdb.com/name/nm0007183 -
stewie-3 — 9 years ago(July 10, 2016 10:35 PM)
Just like William Shatner sucks, but he'll always be Captain James T. Kirk to me.
None shall speak ill of The Shat. Ever!
More seriously, I've read that the sword fights had to be limited a bit due to Lambert being very near-sighted. They had to have Clancy Brown purposely swing at Lambert's sword, and slowed things down enough so that Lambert could meet the blow. Something like that. I don't actually think the swordplay is bad, though. I prefer it to the superhero-like CGI fights you see in LOTR and The Hobbit.