1h 51m
Director: Russell Mulcahy

This is one of those movies where you think you're watching a film about one subject but you are in fact watching something about the exact reverse topic. Here, immortality is the subject we are told we are addressing when in actual fact, we are discussing mortality.

We see Connor MacLeod, who is born amongst mortals but becomes immortal and is entered into a fatal competition with other immortals where the victor must kill all of the other competitors to claim 'The Prize'.

It's not long before we witness some of the distressing drawbacks of being immortal. Connor's wife Heather for example, who he loves but must watch grow old and die before his eyes. As the film spans multiple centuries and sees the character at different points in history, he is still affected by this tragedy.

You see what I mean about how it's really a discussion about human mortality? 'The Prize' itself for example, is mortality - if you win the competition, you get to grow old and die.

It's a shame that the writers of subsequent entries in the franchise didn't really seem to understand the subject matter. I suppose they were approached by some movie executive with the brief that they must concoct some story about immortals who decapitate each other to gain each other's power (because the theme seems to be popular), when in actual fact the audience were really interested in finding out how this would affect a mortal, because that is what they can actually relate to as humans. I would suggest that this is why later entries flopped so badly.

One thing you realise when you've seen a lot of movies is that each narrative is really playing to two sides of a person. The conscious side enjoys the visuals, sounds, sets, costume and acting whilst the subconscious side is tracking the interplay between the archetypes it sees on screen. This is one reason why book adaptations are often quite successful - because the writer is concerned with the internal motivations of each character and so the actions they take make sense when realised in cinema - the 'suspension of disbelief' is not broken by jarring actions taken by the characters as it were.

Modern film is often written by screenplay writers who have immersed themselves in the art of achieving a cinematic experience to the point that they practically ignore relating it to the human experience and this leaves the whole presentation feeling hollow. The difference between a bad film and a good one is that a good film caters to both sides of the viewer whereas a bad film only caters to the senses and ignores the subconscious human desires and aversions that run under the surface.

Oops, got distracted - but hopefully you can see what I mean? The best films effect you for some time, leave you feeling a certain way and have you contemplating them sometimes years later. A bad film is over when the credits roll and you barely remember you even saw it!

Clancy Brown plays 'The Kurgan' and does a superb job of portraying the evil antagonist, you almost won't recognise him here, but you're left feeling like he's a truly deranged villain, in-sensitised through centuries of brutal killing.

If I don't mention the soundtrack by Queen, I will probably have broken some law and get arrested. It's amazing, that heady mixture of fantasy rock mixed with Freddy Mercury's powerful vocals will have the hairs standing up on the necks of even the most heartless among us. Here is a sample from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jtpf8N5IDE

Needless to say I recommend this movie, it's in my top ten! Pensive to see the Henry Cavill reboot, let's hope it doesn't suffer from the impediments I've described!

"I have something to say, it's better to burn out than to fade away!"



Trailer: