MovieChat Forums > Highlander (1986) Discussion > How many things were wrong?

How many things were wrong?

posted 5 years ago by Heisenberg (6472)
26 replies | jump to latest

I like this movie quite a bit, it gets a lot of things right.

I'm sorry it also got so many things wrong, it could have been a classic for the ages on the level of terminator, robocop, back to the future etc. but it's slightly below those because of some sloppy mistakes, as if they didn't spend the proper care/time in preproduction.

I have a list here, add what else you think needed a better treatment:

1- casting: leading lady is a subpar annoying hag for mortals, immagine for an immortal.
2- story logic: is there a time limit for the "there can be only one"? If not, why even bother? If yes, why the friendship between some immortals?
3- plot hole: the sword could not have been made in ancient time. That's why Brenda follows Russel. It's never explained what the deal was (time travel?) nor how it can be connected with immortality.
4- immortal "magic powers": I always thought it's cool enough to be immortal. But in the movie they add a lot of other magic without ever explaining the logic of it.
Why does he feel the stag's heart beat on the beach? What does that do? How is that connected with immortality? What is this "quickening"? What's with the chaos every time they kill another immortal? What does that do? How do they find/feel one another?
5- minor bs: they should all be covered in scars and miss a lot of fingers, if not limbs/eyes etc. Life in the past was not office work, but manual labor. Plus, they fight a lot because they are immortal, if not taking parts in other mortal wars. Where's the damage from that piling up after centuries?

[–] beauq81 (1028) 5 years ago

1. Those were the 80s, and, even then, Roxanne Hart was a good looking woman. And you're talking about an immortal who stuck with his ageing wife until her death.
2. They're talking all the time about "the Gathering", which was when the last few immortals were to meet and fight until one is left.
3. It only means that they've been places and done things that were lost in time.
4. There was no other magic. He doesn't really feel the stag's heart. The Quickening IS the chaos when they die. They harvest the energy of their dead opponent. They simply feel one another.
5. Kurgan has the scar on his neck. McLeod's are, probably, under his clothes. The Quickening, probably, helps them heal.

[–] Heisenberg (6472) 5 years ago

beauq81, thanks for the answers but I wasn't really asking questions, they are rethorical questions pointing out weak points that were not resolved, explained, exposed or just didn't make sense in the movie, worsening it.

Your explainations are all legit, but are your speculations to explain these points. I could give you my take on each of them and it would be as legit as yours (like, for the sword: actually it was sent back in time with the quickening magic so Masamune could create the weapon to defeat the Kurgan). So my point is: they are NOT explained by the movie, thus making it half baked. I know they all talk about the gathering. They don't explain the rules at all, nor what they explain makes sense for the problems I raised.

[–] beauq81 (1028) 5 years ago

While the movie does leave a lot empty, you're thinking about it too much. :)

[–] Heisenberg (6472) 5 years ago

I agree with you, but I see this much potential in this movie and it bothers me to know it could have been really awesome with some more care. I guess that's where a good writer/producer/director makes the difference.

[–] beauq81 (1028) 5 years ago

That's why they had the series, to expand on the story. Though both could have been better. But we're looking at them from today's lens, where much more realism is used in creating such films. This was an 80s campy movie. It was the potential behind it and Queen's music that set it apart.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I never liked his love interest. Unattractive to me, and nosey as well.

Despite this movie's flaws, I still love many aspects of this movie. It's why I went to Scotland when in Europe.

[–] Heisenberg (6472) 5 years ago

Heather was perfect in every aspect.
I wonder if, maybe, they made a conscious choice to put Brenda a few steps below, since she's NOT the love of his life.

I would have gone a different route myself (more like a sexy silly peppy curious type, instead of bookish annoying nosy homely drunk type)

[–] JaqenHgar (702) 5 years ago

Can you please explain your "plot hole" logic for the sword?

[–] Heisenberg (6472) 5 years ago

They talk about how it's impossible that the sword was made before a certain date because that technique was not invented for another couple of centuries. So how is that possible?
There must be an explaination! So Brenda starts investigating the case.
What's the payoff for the viewer that knows there's an immortal involved in this scenario? And that that's the main character's weapon? And that it's an amazing weapon?

The payoff is...the movie puts that aside as if nobody ever mentioned it, creating more illogicisms.

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 5 years ago

They don't explain it, period. Doesn't create any other problems, nor is it a plot hole.

It's a plot contrivance, admittedly, because it gets Brenda interested in MacLeod. But if there are immortals running around and have been for millennia, an anachronistic sword is only one more mystery surrounding them.

Just because it's never answered doesn't mean it's a plot hole.

Now if Brenda traced the sword fragment to MacLeod, and it turns out he uses a bat instead of a sword, THAT would be a "plot hole."

Besides, I can easily imagine that, swords being important to immortals, Ramirez's katana was a product of a highly secretive technique known only to immortals and their close friends. Or maybe the immortal "quickening" release ages the metal making it seem older than it actually is.

[–] Moonglum9 (10859) 5 years ago

Besides, I can easily imagine that, swords being important to immortals, Ramirez's katana was a product of a highly secretive technique known only to immortals and their close friends.

That's pretty much how I always saw it. You've got an ancient master swordmaker who consorts with at least one immortal, maybe more who themselves could have millennia of swordmaking experience who can give him some tips.

"Or maybe the immortal "quickening" release ages the metal making it seem older than it actually is."

I believe Ramirez gave the date that Masamune made the sword as 500BC or something, so it was actually as old as it was dated to.

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

Eh?
Ramirez says that his wifes father was a genius sword maker and that he only made that one sword. With only that one sword there would be no other evidence of that sword making technique until somebody else discovered that technique.
So where's the plot hole?
Far fetched maybe (though we are talking about a movie with immortals), but plot hole, No.

[–] Heisenberg (6472) 5 years ago

So it's not a "plot hole". Great! You saved the day and redeemed the quality of the movie overall now that that's established.
Shall we call it "script hole" or do you prefer the classic name "shit writing"?

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

Shit writing?
What , that a mysterious sword exists?
No, not shit writing. Fantasy writing. If fantasy writing in a fantasy movie causes you to feel this way, then maybe the problem isn't the writing. Maybe it's you.
You claim to like this movie quite a bit yet can't seem to accept it for what it is....fantasy.
I too like this movie. Does it have problems ? Yes, but that mysterious sword isn't a problem for me.
Lamberts accent as a Scot is comparable to Van Dykes laughable cockney accent in Mary Poppins, for one.
At the end when Connor wins the prize you can clearly see the wires holding him aloft.
But hey, I can live with that.

[–] Heisenberg (6472) 5 years ago

Yes I like it because of its good parts (great parts indeed). And it bothers me that there are so many silly mistakes in it, exactly because I like it and I see its potential to be a real awesome classic, but it's held back by shit writing.

The wires in the final battle, that's something I can live with too, like in the terminator you see that that's not Arnold taking his eye out, etc, but it's accepted as SFX of the past (and its level is exceptional for what it is).

I complain about the other stuff because that's not acceptable in any logic, including fantasy writing. It's like being ok with spiderman flying because it's a fantasy: it's not part of the rules of that world, either they explain it and make sense of it (like, dr strange uses magic to make him fly) or it's unacceptable.
In Highlander, amongst other silly logics, there's a sword from the future set in the past: I didn't write this shit in the script, they did, they could have not written it and it would be much better, but unfortunately it's there. But what's the explaination of it? None!

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

It's not from the future though is it?
Brenda says that the method of sword making used comes from a later date, but Ramirez has already said that his father in law was a master sword maker and that it was one of a kind. Had he made more, then the method of sword making he used would have been credited to him. As it was (is) the method wasn't (re)discovered until a later date.
There are established rules with Spiderman, so him suddenly flying would go against those rules. Here, they are putting a spanner in works of established history by using fantasy to say that a master sword maker did indeed make a weapon using a method much earlier than was believed. If anything it adds to the mystery of the immortals.

[–] HAL9000 (935) 5 years ago

there are a couple of artifacts in the real world, we cant explain today. like how to build pyramids.

so a unique sword, crafted by a genius swordmaster in the ancient times never seemed far fetched to me. its neither a plothole nor shit writing. actually its good writing because it gives an explanation.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

how does she know how old the sword is? i forget

[–] Heisenberg (6472) 5 years ago

She dates it with a C-14 test. Then she says something like "that's impossible!"

[–] Moonglum9 (10859) 5 years ago

For immortals, unless the wound is on the neck, there are no scars.

[–] Heisenberg (6472) 5 years ago

Ok, that doesn't make much sense but I can go with that rule (but didn't Kurgan have more than that scar on the neck? Like all over his head? I'm not sure I remember correctly).
Anyway, assuming that's the rule in that world, should they have cared to explain it in the movie or should we just accept anybody's speculation here?

[–] HAL9000 (935) 5 years ago

its a kind of magic...

[–] HAL9000 (935) 5 years ago

1. i thought brenda was quite cute and hot. great tits.
2. why do birds fly south or why do turtles go back to their breeding beach? the time for the gathering had come.
they were befriended because they knew each other for centuries or more. and they didnt want an asshole to win.
3. not a plothole, explained by ramirez
4. because in the 80s people had enough fantasy to no have to be forcefed every detail.
highlander could tap into the energy of animals to get strength.
5. granted, kurgan was the only one with scars for unknown reasons. we didnt see their bodies though. the damaged ones most likely lost a fight in the past.

[–] Heisenberg (6472) 4 years ago

HAL I can accept all your answers (even if some are quite unfulfilling) but, even so, this proves how the movie could have been that much better with proper care: whenever a movie is built on so many important (and less important) unexplained details, it fails. And this is pivotal in science fiction and fantasy to be held in high regard.
I like your previous answer, it's a kind of magic, but that's perfectly fine for the main plot of the movie (immortals are born amongst us now and then for no real reason).
That's not gonna fly for all these other questions I raised (cannot say "it's a kind of magic: the sword travels time" or "it's a kind of magic: we need to kill each other because there can only be one").
PS: I wouldn't fuck Brenda with your dick. She had tits for an over 40 even if she was way younger.

[–] Poopsey1 (930) 3 years ago

Roxanne Hart, surely they could have got a better bit of fanny.

[–] Heisenberg (6472) 3 years ago

Yeah, she looked so homely and unappealing I put that as my number 1.
Her character is a disaster in every way, she looks like shit but acts even worse.
A total miss in an otherwise excellent cast.