Tank Girl (1995)

I've seen more than a few bad movies since I decided to create "Sutton at the Movies" in 2003. Some of them were so bad that I'll get upset just hearing their names. But there have been a few bad movies that were just so silly that I couldn't bring myself to actually hate them.

One of these too-wacky-to-hate movies was Tank Girl, a movie based on a comic created by Jamie Hewlett and Alan Martin in 1988. Making her debut in the first issue of the now-defunct British comic magazine Deadline, Tank Girl was a wild anarchist whose punk rock sensibilities made her an underground success, especially with the "Riot Grrrl" movement. Though Deadline closed up shop in 1995, Tank Girl is still kicking around the world of comics. But we're here to talk about her movie, aren't we? I mean, we've already come this far, we might as well.

Things aren't doing so hot in the year 2033. An asteroid strike left much of Earth a post-apocalyptic wasteland, damaging the planet's ecosystem to the point that it has not rained for eleven years. Water is in extremely short supply, much of it being controlled by a greedy organization called Water & Power. Their monopolistic grip on the planet's water supply is opposed by a number of renegade factions, one of whom calls Rebecca Buck (Lori Petty) — the eponymous "Tank Girl" — a member. Rebecca returns home to her faction's base one evening, only to find that Water & Power's troops have killed everyone but a young girl named Sam (Stacy Linn Rawsower).

While Sam is pretty much sold into slavery, Rebecca is taken to see Kesslee (Malcolm McDowell), Water & Power's chairman. He's aware of Rebecca's reputation as a tough fighter and offers her a job working with his troops. She refuses, and since Kesslee isn't the kind of a guy who takes "no" for an answer, he sticks Rebecca in a labor camp. Rebecca escapes with the help of a meek, ill-treated fellow prisoner named Jet (Naomi Watts), and the duo end up falling in with a group of vicious human/kangaroo hybrids known as "the Rippers." The Rippers hate Water & Power as much as Rebecca and Jet do, and together, they'll team up to rescue Sam and bring down Kesslee and his organization.

Tank Girl is a unique movie, to say the least. "Unique" is really the only word I can think of to describe it. It's certainly not a good movie at all; it's pretty darn far from good. And audiences in 1995 knew it wouldn't be good, either. The movie performed poorly at the box office, failing so badly that it's what caused Deadline to go under in the first place. But it's got a frenetic, madcap energy that would have been awesome if the movie wasn't so stupid. And that's really Tank Girl's problem: it's as dumb as a box of rocks.

The movie was directed by Rachel Talalay, helming the third of her four directorial efforts and the last that would see a theatrical release. Her two prior movies — Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare and Ghost in the Machine — were tremendously cheesy movies that nobody in their right mind would ever call good. Having seen both of them, I can tell you that Talalay isn't exactly the most capable filmmaker. While the movie is very boisterous, its energy and punk rock swagger will eventually start getting on your nerves after a while.

What bugged me the most about the whole thing, though, was Talalay's use of comic book artwork during the movie. It'd be okay if it were used as an occasional transition between scenes, but the fact that it shows up over and over really gets annoying. It's especially bothersome once you realize that Talalay occasionally substitutes the artwork for scenes she either couldn't afford to do or simply forgot to shoot altogether. The movie doesn't even have an ending; once Tank Girl saves the day and reunites with the Rippers, it launches into some stupid animation that takes us to the closing credits. While I thought this could have worked, it just feels cheap and lazy.

Next up is the script, written by Tedi Serafin. This is why I called the movie dumb earlier. Serafin's script is lousy, with a nonsensical plot, goofy dialogue, and scenes that go nowhere and ad nothing to the movie. I mean, was that song-and-dance number absolutely necessary? Did we really need the scene before that where Tank Girl tries on different costumes at a brothel? (And did we really need the movie, period?)

The script's primary problem is that it gets so wrapped up in being silly that it takes forever to get anywhere. The movie's an hour and 45 minutes long, and I'd bet that at least half of it is either padding or generally useless fluff. But even in spite of its stupidity and lack of focus, it's still amusing in a weird way. There's something charming about it that I can't explain, even in spite of how awful it is.

And bringing up the rear is the cast, who had to have known just how bad Tank Girl was going to be when they signed on for it. Playing the title role of Tank Girl is Lori Petty, who you'll most likely remember as Geena Davis's sister in A League of Their Own. Petty is funny and energetic, playing Tank Girl with the irreverent nature the character needs. She practically bounces off the walls with a cocky, self-assured smirk on her face the whole time. And while I've seen reviewers and critics who were annoyed by Petty's performance, my personal opinion is that for all Tank Girl gets wrong, the hiring of its lead actress was something I felt they got right.

The rest of the cast is forgettable, though I can't say they were actively terrible. Malcolm McDowell appears as the villainous Kesslee, and any flaws are with how the character is written. Kesslee's a really crappy villain, and it hurts McDowell's performance. I got the impression that he agreed to do the movie without reading the script, and when he did read it, he decided he wouldn't bother to put forth any serious effort. At least Naomi Watts appears to be making the most of it. Tank Girl is one of her earliest American movies, and you can tell by watching it that she was destined for bigger and better movies. Watts is cute in the role, far better than what it actually calls for.

The remaining important characters are the Rippers, only four of whom get any major screen time. Playing these four Rippers are Ice-T, Jeff Kober, Reg E. Cathey, and Scott Coffey, and they aren't bad in the roles. They're not really good or anything, but considering just how bad the writing is, they're doing the best they can and I can at least respect their attempts to make it work.

I've always wondered what they were thinking when they made Tank Girl. They had to have known how it would turn out, right? I can understand why the movie's developed something of a cult following over the years, but a bad movie is still bad no matter who likes it. But it's a fun kind of bad, though. And really, I can forgive a movie for being bad as long as it's fun. And that's the simplest description of Tank Girl: so bad it's good. Say what you will about the movie, but its utter silliness is actually endearing in a weird way. But I'm going to have to give it two stars, simply because I can't justify giving it any higher or lower. And while I can't recommend it to everybody, I will say that if you're a lover of bad movies that are too amusingly kooky for their own good, give Tank Girl a shot.

Final Rating: **

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

Cult classics are not born overnight. It takes time for them to earn that status, along with a devoted audience willing to pluck something out of obscurity and turn it into something special. Many movies can claim to be cult movies, but there is one cult classic that others want to be when they grow up. It became an underground sensation after its original premiere, and 35 years later, it continues to be shown theatrically to audiences who have made it the pinnacle of the "midnight movie" scene. That movie is The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Though it was poorly received when it was first released in 1975, The Rocky Horror Picture Show has endured since then as the movie that puts the "cult" in "cult classic." Tales of the movie's audience participation at midnight screenings have become the stuff of legend, with diehard crowds shouting responses at the screen, tossing rice and toast and toilet paper into the air, dressing in costumes and pantomiming scenes as the movie plays. This following has been referenced and parodied in movies and on television, and was even strong enough to get the movie selected for permanent preservation in the Library of Congress's National Film Registry. But how could a cheesy B-movie spawn all this? I'm jumping in to investigate.

Meet Brad Majors (Barry Bostwick) and Janet Weiss (Susan Sarandon), a young couple who've recently gotten engaged. While on their way to tell the good news to Dr. Everett Scott (Jonathan Adams), the high school science teacher who introduced them to one another, they end up taking a wrong turn and get lost in the middle of nowhere. To further compound things, they end up stranded with a flat tire while stuck in a thunderstorm.

Seeking shelter at a nearby castle, they find they've arrived on a very special night. The master of the castle, the cross-dressing mad scientist Dr. Frank N. Furter (Tim Curry), is hosting a party to celebrate the unveiling of his latest experiment. Claiming to have discovered the secret to life itself, Frank has created a man of his own, a muscular boy toy he's named Rocky (Peter Hinwood). One thing leads to another, and Brad and Janet soon find themselves becoming more and more wrapped up in Frank's bizarre world of unrestrained hedonism.

To tell you the honest truth, I'm not sure how to properly approach a review of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. It's so much more than a simple cheesy B-movie at this point. It's a full-blown experience. The movie is only a small part of the whole Rocky Horror equation. I've attended three midnight showings, and trying to judge it as just a movie now would be almost impossible. If I'd written this review before this past August, I could have viewed it from a perspective unaltered by the full Rocky Horror experience. I could have reviewed it as just a movie and nothing more. But having seen the big picture more than once and having had the time of my life in doing so, I'm afraid I may end up critiquing the experience and not the actual movie itself. But I'm going to see what happens.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show got its start in 1973 as a stage play in London. Among those who worked on it was Jim Sharman, who had directed productions of the play in both London and Sydney, Australia. With the majority of the original London production's cast and crew reuniting to turn the play into a movie, Sharman was called in to direct it. His direction is actually quite good, as he establishes exactly what kind of movie to expect as soon as it begins. He uses the gloriously over-the-top sets and production design and Peter Suschitsky's impressive cinematography to create a movie that is hard to dislike. The movie has an energy that is paralleled by very few cult movies, and it's due in part to how Sharman is able to pull everything together.

Let's move on to the script, written by Sharman and Rocky Horror's creator, Richard O'Brien. It's nonsensical, irreverent, ludicrous, cheesy, and just plain weird... and I wouldn't have it any other way. Nothing in the movie makes any sense at all, but it doesn't have to. It shouldn't, either, since Rocky Horror's strength lies in its insanity. If it were a normal movie with traditional characters and stylings, it wouldn't have worked at all.

And it just hit me: critiquing the movie's writing is probably a bad idea. For one thing, it's a musical where all the exposition and plot movement comes in the form of song lyrics. Secondly, it's just too darn strange to judge whether its good or bad. It's... I don't know what it is. The movie is so unique that there's no real frame of reference for me to review it with. But the utter silliness of the story, the dialogue, and the characters has a charm to it that cannot be denied.

But there's two elements that really make the movie what it is. One is the cast, many of whom are reprising roles they had in the London stage performances. Among the newbies are Barry Bostwick and Susan Sarandon, playing the innocent and naïve Brad and Janet. Bostwick and Sarandon are likable and humorous in the roles, and though they've gone on to bigger and better work in the 35 years since this movie, they'll always be Brad and Janet to me.

Also among the new actors is Peter Hinwood as Rocky. He has no dialogue and even his singing voice is dubbed by someone else, but Hinwood's Rocky is funny, cute at times, and convincing. You actually can believe that Rocky really is a boy toy built by a mad scientist with half a brain.

We can't forget the stage actors who've come along for the ride, though. Reprising their roles as the sibling duo of Riff Raff and Magenta are O'Brien and Patricia Quinn. Their performances are loud, ostentatious, and very funny; you can't help but be entertained every time they're on the screen. The same can be said for "Little Nell" Campbell, whose turn as the outrageously-dressed groupie Columbia is great. She's so amusing that she'd probably be my favorite character if it weren't for a certain someone else.

And who would that "someone else" be? None other than the one and only Tim Curry as Dr. Frank N. Furter, of course. His flamboyant performance completely steals the movie and runs laps around the rest of the cast. This is Curry's breakthrough role, perhaps his most famous, and for very good reason. He's the biggest reason to see the movie at all. Curry is so incredibly compelling that you'll be cheering Frank on in spite of his depraved and manipulative behavior.

The other element of the movie's success is its music. The songs — all of them written by O'Brien — are so catchy that you'll almost certainly come away with one of them stuck in your head. How one could hear "Sweet Transvestite" or "Time Warp" and not have at least the tiniest of smiles on their face is beyond me. And I should also commend the actors, who all did their own singing (with the previously-mentioned exception of Hinwood). Musicals obviously live and die around their songs and the ability of the singers, and the actors do a fine job handling themselves.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a gleeful celebration of decadence, debauchery, and deviancy. It's too silly to take seriously, too goofy to hate, and too much damn fun to watch. That's really all the movie and its cult following is about: having fun and not caring who sees you. Okay, I will confess that the movie's not great art or anything like that. But who says it has to be? I started this review trying to determine just what it was about Rocky Horror that sparked the following that it enjoys today, but I've come to the realization that there's simply no answer beyond than the fact that it's pure and simple fun. And what's wrong with having a little fun once in a while?

Final Rating: ****½

Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)

When it was released nationwide this time last year, Paranormal Activity was a bigger hit than initially expected. Shot on an unbelievably minuscule budget, it pulled in a worldwide gross of nearly 200 million dollars and got a ton of positive reviews dating as far back as its festival run in 2007. While there was a certain level of backlash from people who thought it was an overhyped bore, it still proved popular enough to warrant a sequel. But while most studios wait two, maybe three years after a movie's release before making a sequel, here we are a scant twelve months later, talking about Paranormal Activity 2. I enjoyed the first one a lot, so let's go check out the second one.

To be truthful, the movie is really more of a prequel than a sequel, taking place roughly two months prior to the events of the first movie. At the center of the story is Kristi Rey (Sprague Grayden), the sister of the young woman tormented in the original Paranormal Activity. When she and her husband Daniel (Brian Boland) come home to discover someone has apparently broken in and trashed the place, they install a series of strategically-placed security cameras set to record 24 hours a day.

The cameras quickly begin capturing a number of strange occurrences. Lights flicker before turning themselves off, things begin moving around on their own, strange noises happen in the middle of the night, typical haunted house stuff. The family's housekeeper (Vivis Cortez) warns that there are evil spirits at play, but only Ali (Molly Ephraim), Daniel's teenage daughter from a prior marriage, seems to pay her any mind. Though she at first posits that the spirit could actually be her mother trying to communicate from beyond the grave, its increasingly malevolent behavior soon convinces Ali that it may be a demon that is targeting her one-year-old half-brother Hunter (William and Jackson Prieto).

When Oren Peli made the original Paranormal Activity, he showed that you don't need a ton of money, big-name stars, or buckets of blood to make an effective horror movie. All you needed was some suspense and a little spark to send a viewer's imagination running wild. Paranormal Activity 2 made the wise decision to avoid messing with what worked in its predecessor, giving us more of the same yet building upon it. It follows the same formula and makes it way more frightening. And while it borders on hyperbole, I have no problem calling it one of the best horror movies of 2010.

Stepping into the role of director is Tod Williams, who deftly taking over where Peli left off. He could have done something incredibly stupid and gone the Blair Witch 2 route, but Williams doesn't change what worked before. He takes the formula from the first movie and cranks up the suspense and the scares. Williams even borrows some of the original movie's scares and adds something new to them, making them even scarier. Doing so allows him to play with the audience's expectations. In using some of these familiar setups, he kindles an "oh no, not this again" feeling before spinning it in a different direction and scaring the pants off the viewer.

He also manages to effectively combine cheap scares and suspense. With each scene, Williams essentially places a nuclear bomb somewhere in a room. You don't know where the bomb is, you don't when the bomb will detonate or even if it will at all. But you know it's there, and just when you think it's gonna go off, it doesn't. And when you breathe that sigh of relief, that's when Williams lets loose. Sometimes it's a short scare, other times its prolonged. And in the last fifteen or twenty minutes, it's insanity. Williams knows exactly what he's doing, and the movie is a lot better for it.

I also liked the fact that the concept of multiple stationary cameras was introduced. It allows the movie to get away from everyone needing to lug cameras around all the time. (The character of Ali does seem fond of carrying a camera around, but only does so when the plot actually calls for it.) It also gives use the opportunity to capture events and get camera angles that wouldn't be possible otherwise, while averting that whole "why do they keep filming?!" problem that's long plagued the found footage genre.

Continuing on, I'm not sure if I should critique the writing. Scripts are really inconsequential in a lot of horror movies. But I will give Paranormal Activity 2 an A for effort in the writing department. Writers Michael R. Perry, Christopher Landon, and Tom Pabst actually make a decent go of it. The way they connected this haunting to the first movie's was a neat idea, but I'm still not sure if I liked their explanation for the demon's presence in the first place. I thought it was scarier when the demon was haunting them for the sake of being evil. The only thing that really scares me more than a reason is no reason. The good thing is, though, that the motive is explained in such a way that it could be written off as sheer conjecture by the characters. The demon could still be evil for evil's sake.

But to tell you the honest truth, any of the movie's flaws come from the script. I can't go too much into it without giving away a bunch of the movie (even though the plot synopsis did some of that already), but yeah, the script had a problem or two here or there. It's nothing that can't be totally overlooked, so the problems aren't as big as one might think they are.

The one weird thing about it that didn't really hit me until after the fact was the housekeeper character. What's with movies dealing with the supernatural having older ethnic characters that know everything turn up? At least she was more proactive in helping ward off the trouble than the demonologist from the first Paranormal Activity. Here, a light in the backyard flickers once, the baby starts crying, and she absolutely loses it. She starts waving incense around and saying prayers and incantations and we're barely twenty minutes into the movie, long before the really spooky stuff starts. This lady knows the score and the game hasn't even started yet. The family patriarch fires the poor housekeeper shortly thereafter, so I guess it she's just there to continue the horror movie trend of nobody listening to the prophet of doom.

I guess the only thing left for me to talk about is the cast. The actors aren't as memorable as Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat were in the first movie, but they all do just fine. Molly Ephraim is particularly likable and sweet, while Sprague Grayden is believable in her role. It's a shame, though, that Brian Boland's character is so unlikable. I mean, Sloat's character in the first movie was a tremendous douchebag, but he was still amusing. Boland's character is just a dick. But really, that's more of a complaint about how he's written than Boland's performance.

The funny part is that the family dog is the best actor in the movie. I don't want to sound like I'm disparaging the human actors, because I'm not. But the dog is actually a character you can sympathize with and root for, all because of how its scenes are handled and just how well the dog performs. I know I must sound crazy, but yeah, the dog was my favorite character, and whoever trained him should be applauded.

Is Paranormal Activity 2 better than its predecessor? I can't say for sure at this point. I'd probably have to sit down and watch both of them back to back to ultimately make that decision. But what I can tell you right now is that Paranormal Activity 2 is a damn scary movie in its own right. Whether or not you liked the original movie, the second one is a frightening flick no matter how you slice it. I just know that they'll make Paranormal Activity 3 after how successful this one's been at the box office so far, so here's hoping it won't be the one that sucks.

Final Rating: ****

Jackass 3D (2010)

Hollywood just gets out of control sometimes, especially when it comes to milking something successful. I mean, how many 3D movies have been released lately, especially after the success of Avatar? It's getting to the point that just about any movie will be made in 3D nowadays, including the movie I'm reviewing right now, Jackass 3D. Yes, you read that title right. Not only did someone decide to make a third Jackass movie, but they made it in 3D. I'd ask why, but I'm afraid someone would tell me the answer.

Following in the footsteps of the TV show and movies that preceded it, Jackass 3D sees the nine usual suspects — Johnny Knoxville, Bam Margera, Ryan Dunn, Steve-O, Chris Pontius, Dave England, Ehren McGhehey, Preston Lacy, and Jason "Wee Man" Acuña — engaging in stunts, pranks, and practical jokes that are dangerous, disgusting, and depraved. And it's all in glorious 3D!

When MTV first started airing the Jackass TV show ten years ago, I didn't think that we'd still be talking about it a decade later. But here we are in the year 2010, talking about the third Jackass movie. Even as a fan of the franchise, I'm still flabbergasted that it inspired one movie, let alone a whole trilogy. Who'd have ever thought it?

Though Jackass 3D has plenty of gross-out gags and awkward male nudity, it's actually tamer than you might expect. A lot of it simply goes back to the roots of the show, which saw the crew simply putting themselves in harm's way, putting strangers into Candid Camera-style situations, and generally being jackasses. And all of it is as funny as a Jackass fan could hope for.

Like the show and the first two movies, not every segment works. Did we really need the bit where Bam Margera gives us a wiener's-eye-view while he pees on people? Or the segment where a pig eats an apple that's wedged between Preston Lacy's butt-cheeks? How about Johnny Knoxville dressed as Santa, sitting in the top of a tree that's being cut down? Yeah, they're good for a laugh, but not a lot of them. The rest of the movie makes up for it, though, by being as outrageous as the Jackasses have always been. You could argue that it's just more of the same from them, but sometimes more of the same is still pretty good.

But did the movie really need to be in 3D? Probably not. There's actually a few scenes that are still 2D. But the scenes that put the 3D to good use are even funnier because of it. The 3D puts you right in the middle of the segments, which only makes them more gross when bodily fluids come flying at the camera and funnier when you realize that's probably the reaction they were going for in the first place.

You know exactly what you're getting out of a movie titled "Jackass 3D." If you're a fan of the franchise, you'll get a kick out of it. If you aren't, then you probably won't be seeing it anyway. Personally, I got exactly what I wanted out of the movie: a good time. Jackass 3D was a heck of a lot of fun that earns a solid three and a half stars on the usual scale. Happy tenth anniversary, Jackass, and thanks for the schadenfreude.

Final Rating: ***½

Highlander (1986)

With any long-running media franchise, it's possible for the franchise to run out of steam yet still keep trying to have a go at it anyway. But there are cases where a franchise hits the wall just as it begins. This is none more evident than with the Highlander franchise. A ton of sequels, a TV show, an animated series, and two video games have carried the Highlander name, and almost all of them have been negatively received.

The only true exception is the first movie in the franchise. A cult classic in spite of having its name dragged through the mud by lousy sequels and successors, Highlander is a tremendous movie that stands high above the crap that followed it.

The story focuses on Connor MacLeod (Christopher Lambert), a man from the Scottish Highlands who, in the year 1536, is seemingly killed in battle by an evil barbarian called "The Kurgan" (Clancy Brown). He awakens the next day to find himself in perfect health, a recovery that his clansmen believe is the work of witchcraft. Fearing he was in league with the devil, they banish Connor from their village.

Connor spends the next five years roaming Scotland until he is approached by Juan Sánchez Villa-Lobos Ramírez (Sean Connery). Ramírez explains that both he and Connor are part of a race of immortals, destined to be pulled to a far-away land for "The Gathering." It is during the Gathering that every immortal will fight until only one of them remains. The last immortal left will claim a great power known simply as "the prize." To prepare Connor for the Gathering, Ramírez teaches him the perks of his immortality, while training him in the ways of swordfighting and how to avoid decapitation, the only known method of killing an immortal.

Connor's story continues several centuries later, specifically the year 1985. Now living in New York City as "Russell Nash," Connor becomes aware that the Gathering has finally arrived. He, like all other immortals, are called to battle in the streets and back alleys of the city. But the battle becomes personal when the only immortal left standing between Connor and the prize is his ancient enemy, the Kurgan.

I absolutely love Highlander. I'd actually go as far as to call it one of my favorite movies of all time. Granted, it isn't flawless, but the movie makes up for it with a ton of imagination and lots of entertainment value. It's one of those movies that I could watch over and over again and never get sick of it. But what is it about Highlander that makes it so great?

Part of it comes from Russell Mulcahy's stellar direction. Though he had a budget of only 16 million dollars, Mulcahy treats the movie as if he had 160 million. The editing and transitions between the 1530s scenes and the 1985 scenes are excellently done, and Gerry Fisher's cinematography is utterly gorgeous. I can't believe how fantastic the movie looks. Parts of it are dated and some of the special effects are cheesy, but Mulcahy does a great job in the director's chair.

There's also the screenplay, credited to Gregory Widen, Peter Bellwood, and Larry Ferguson. Originally written by Widen while a student at UCLA and rewritten after it was sold, the script handles the story in a very cool way. Most movies would have told the story in a more linear fashion, but Highlander instead spreads the Scotland scenes throughout the movie as flashbacks. Doing it this way makes it somewhat easier to understand the motivations of the characters of characters like Connor and the Kurgan while still keeping things mysterious and dramatic.

What makes the script truly great, however, is the characters. They're all very well done, with the protagonists all being very engaging and amiable. You find yourself really liking Connor and Ramírez, while simultaneously being intimidated by the Kurgan. The Kurgan is one of the best villains I've seen in a movie, as he's both very cool and very scary. If the script did anything at all right, it's the characters.

But there are two things about Highlander that I thought set it apart from other fantasy movies. One is its soundtrack. While composer Michael Kamen contributes a beautiful orchestral score, he's overshadowed by the songs Queen performed for the movie. Eight Queen songs appear in on the soundtrack (six of which appear on their album A Kind of Magic), and they're all great. But the best are the Highlander franchise's de facto theme songs, "Princes of the Universe" and "Who Wants to Live Forever." The songs are almost too awesome, but they fit the movie well.

The other thing about the movie is its cast. The actors assembled for the movie give it their all, each of them showing an admirable level of commitment to their roles. Christopher Lambert is great in the lead role, playing the titular Highlander with a wide-eyed curiosity in the flashbacks and a stoic "seen it all" attitude in the 1985 scenes. Lambert plays Connor superbly, making the viewer honestly care about the character.

It helps that he has a fine supporting cast backing him up, though. In the role of Ramírez, Sean Connery is awesome, plain and simple. I can't say I see the logic in hiring a Scotsman to play an ancient Egyptian pretending to be a Spaniard, but I don't think Connery did either. He doesn't even try to put on an accent beyond his normal Scottish brogue, which only makes Connery's funny performance even funnier. He's fantastic, though, so I honestly can't complain about him.

In the role of the villainous Kurgan, Clancy Brown is perfect. He's frightening and intimidating, making the Kurgan a presence to be reckoned with. Even his voice is enough to make the Kurgan one hell of a villain. It's weird thinking a hulking brute who gleefully cuts people's heads off in Highlander is the same guy who voices Mr. Krabs on SpongeBob SquarePants. But Brown's performance makes the Kurgan a man who's not to be trifled with, for sure.

And as Connor's love interests, Roxanne Hart and Beatie Edney do fine jobs. Hart plays a forensics expert helping the police investigate the rash of decapitations throughout New York City, and ends up falling for Conner after he's suspected as a serial killer. Her character never really struck me as being all that important to the story, but I felt that Hart did pretty well all the same. Edney plays Connor's wife during his life in Scotland in the 1530s, and she's quite likable and sweet in the role. If they'd deleted Hart's character and added more scenes with Edney's, I wouldn't have argued.

I've never really been a fan of the fantasy genre, but I'll gladly make an exception for Highlander. It's not the best movie ever made, and the sequels and spinoffs that followed it may not have the best reputation, but the original movie still a fun way to spend two hours. Highlander is a cult classic that is probably deserving of more respect than what it gets. It's a great flick, one that I enjoy a lot and cannot recommend enough. If you haven't seen it, you're missing out on a real underrated treat. And in the realm of movies like this, if I may paraphrase the late, great Freddie Mercury: "Highlander has no rival, no one can be its equal."

Final Rating: ****