Highlander(1986)- User Reviews

Highlander could've been good in 1986. It really could've. But I've seen plenty of 80s movies, and this isn't at the top of the list.

The mid-to-late 80's was IMO one of the worst periods of movie-making. So many strange movies, messages, plotlines, special effects at that time that it's kind of shameful. Anyways, Highlander isn't a terrible movie. The problem here is that it takes way too long to get good.

It's a decently long movie, and the first half of it really is acted with a supreme level of STALE, and characters take forever to develop, and it's difficult to even care about this main character, who shows little sign of a shred of personality until he meets Sean Connery.

Sean Connery, clearly thrown into the movie for entertainment aspect and to possibly draw more of a crowd, does his short-lived job well. At this midway point, the movie really takes off. I would almost suggest only watching the last hour of the movie.

Anyways, some cinemotagrophy was good, at least they tried with the special effects, so they weren't THAT bad. Other than those, it's basically complete different movies during the two halves. Acting, screenplay, script, directing, suspense, intelligence...this is all horrific for the first hour and pretty decent the second half.

Connor McLeoud definitely DOES become a likeable character in time, and Clancy Brown shows enormous skill as the daunting and menacing main villain of the movie. I can understand how this became a cult classic. Just remember... "Cult Classic" does not equal "good movie".

5.3 out of 10