Highlander 2: The Quickening aka Highlander 2: Renegade Version (1991)

In this edition of the box office bomb, we're going with one that was more of a critical bomb than a financial one, though it didn't make back its budget at the gate. It's also a fascinating case, because I'm not reviewing just the original, but the new "renegade" edition, which is supposed to have cured the ills of its predecessor.

Highlander 2 takes place a lot of years after the first one, and Connor is an old dude. The ozone layer had become depleted to such a degree that MacLeod has created a shield to protect us from the UV rays. We also find out that immortals are people from the distant past who are sent to the future for their crimes and forced to fight it out. Connor was sent because he staged a rebellion against Michael Ironside, and on some technicality, Connor could come back to the past and kill him, so Ironside comes to the future. Then Connor calls Connery's name, and he comes back to life. Now they're converging on the shield to take it down, and Ironside and the shield's CEO, John C. McGinley, are there to oppose them.



Let's be frank, the only way to redeem the previous film would be to Lucas Reno Raines and Bobby Sixkiller into it and make it a real Renegade version. I know a lot of Highlander fanboys and girls out there would think Lamas has no chance against Connor MacLeod, but I beg to differ. He doesn't have to kill him, just incapacitate him and take him to jail for the money. Does this all sound ridiculous, a Highlander movie that's essentially a long Renegade episode? Well, let's delve into the actual film and see what we think.

The original Highlander 2 told us the immortals came from a planet called Zeist. That was ridiculous, yes? That means the new version must be somehow less ridiculous, otherwise why make the film, right? So instead of being from a distant planet, they're from a past that's really more like a future, where humans have great bomb making technology, but no guns. This is my improvement? Sean Connery has no concept of modern technology, but Michael Ironside, also from the distant past, is fully familiar with how the subway system works, down to its specific lingo. To be quite frank, the original actually worked better.



The biggest issue was the first Highlander painted the series into a box with its finality. They had to get crazy with it to include Connery, and it only got worse from there. I really felt, as I was watching this, that there was no way they were serious. Think of the scene where Connery, Lambert, and Virginia Madsen are in that room where the fan is coming down on them. When Connery tells them to leave, and then the bagpipes start in-- how can that be serious? So I watched that part with the commentary, hoping Russell Mulcahy would tell us how silly it was, and all I got were crickets. Nothing. They not only made that scene on purpose, they were serious about it!

I just love the idea that had Mulcahy had his way, this is what he would've done, considering he didn't want to have his name associated with the original. Why would he have his name associated with this either? The truth is, the TV series had some two-part story arcs that were much more entertaining. I agree that everyone had every right to trash the original version of this movie, but if you're the director and trashing it, that means you need to have something better that you would've done, and you definitely didn't.



This wasn't all bad, of course. There was plenty to make fun of from start to finish, just because of the basic premise. Then, there were the amazing hairdos. Michael Ironsides sports such an amazing set of lettuce that it makes every misstep Mulcahy made worth it. Not only that, but his scenes with McGinley were nothing short of cinematic gold. And you can never discount what it means to have Connery in another bad film. Just because this was a bad movie, doesn't mean it's not a fun one too.

And here we are, paragraph 8, and I forgot to mention the film's one DTVC Hall of Famer, Christoher Lambert. What is there to say, really? He was as funny as everyone else trying to make sense of this thing. And that's what makes it great for us the viewer too: the fun we have trying and failing to make sense of it all. I'll never forget the review Siskel and Ebert did when this was in the theater, because it was the first time they killed a movie that I really agreed with them on. At 12, I was becoming better aware of what was around me, and as such, less willing to accept as good something that was in actuality utter crap.

For more info: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102034/

Sword of the Valiant: The Legend of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (1985)

I've been meaning to get my hands on this one for a while, but somehow it was buried deep in my queue. Then I got it, but decided to save it for a trip to Mass to visit a buddy that I knew would enjoy it. So here it is now, a long time coming, but so worth the wait.

Sword of the Valiant has Miles O'Keefe as Sir Gawain and Sean Connery as the Green Knight. It starts with Connery riding his horse into a castle at Christmas, standing with his butt out, challenging any knight there to lop off his head with his axe. The catch, if Connery survives, he can return the favor. Miles steps up, disarticulates Connery's head from his shoulders, only to discover Connery can just pick his animatronic dome off the floor and reattach it to his neck. He decides, magnanimously, to allow Miles to live for a year, and if he can solve his riddle, Connery will let him live. What follows is a hilariously star-studded romp through various adventures, ending with one last showdown with everyone's favorite Scot.



Wow, this is utterly amazing. They just don't make movies like this anymore. Let's start with Miles, since he is the card carrying HOFer in the cast. I didn't think he could surpass his performances as Ator. I was so wrong. Party on Gawain! And Sean Connery outdoes himself. No one stands with his butt out better than he does. This also has Peter Cushing, John Rhys-Davies, and David Rappaport, who all turn in career making work. And the story is pure gold. In one scene, Miles fights a knight who sounds like a robot. That's just so hot. And that scene actually made sense! The rest of them we were like "why is Miles here in this kingdom? Why does it matter? He's just so awesome!"

The reality is, none of us knew too much of what was going on, because we were making fun of it the whole time. But that's what made it so fun. I mean, how do you not like a Sean Connery who looks like a cross between Santa, the Green Lantern, and Diana Ross? I think if you don't like that, you don't like life, and you need to do some soul searching. What blows my mind is how a movie like The Box can be greenlit (greenlighted?), while a movie like this is sitting on the shelves, waiting to be rereleased into the theaters. Anyone who thinks a guy with a chunk taken out of his face offering Cameron Diaz a million dollars as long as someone dies is better than Sean Connery looking the way I just described standing with his butt out, also needs to do some soul searching.



Like I said above, this is the best Miles movie ever. One of the amazing things was seeing him act opposite people like Sean Connery and Peter Cushing. Usually he's in movies like Cave Dwellers and Cartel with a bunch of nobodies. The best he's ever done as far as I can tell is Fred Williamson, Rowdy Roddy Piper, or Robert Patrick. What's good about that, is it makes Sword of the Valiant the most accessible of Miles' films. I mean, don't get me wrong, this is horrible, but it's a hilarious horrible, and all the familiar faces will make it easier to get through and make fun of for the bad movie novices out there. A great place to start for anyone wanting to get into Miles O'Keefe's oeuvre.

Speaking of oeuvres, whither Sean Connery? At least as far as this film was concerned. In 1983 he had just done Never Say Never Again, which was a major commercial success (though not doing as well as Octopussy), and right after this was Highlander, which wasn't a huge success, but garnered a cult following. Not only that, but he was only three years away from Last Crusade. The only thing I can think is he did this in part for the money, and in part because he saw names like Peter Cushing and John Rhys-Davies, and thought he'd be all right. Believe me, this feels more like a Miles O'Keefe film than a Sean Connery one. That being said, this was way better than Finding Forrester.



One final note to make is the pairing of John Rhys-Davies and Sean Connery, because they both played Egyptians at one point or other in their careers. What is it about Scots and Irishmen that makes us believe they're Egyptians? And it's weird, because a day doesn't go by where I don't have egg on my face mistaking one for the other. You'd think I'd learn by now. I'm watching those new Star Wars movies and I'm like "that Obi Wan is played by an Egyptian." Turns out Ewan McGregor is Scottish! I went and saw U2 with a buddy, and after I'm like "that's the best band to come out of Cairo ever." Turns out U2 is all Irishmen. It just makes sense to cast people of Scottish and Irish decent as Egyptians.

If you haven't seen this, you need to get on it right away. Netflix has it, so your best bet is to stick it at the top of your queue immediately, and return any movies you currently have at home. Also, I would strongly advise watching this one in a group. You'll need other people with you to share in the experience of one of the greatest films of all time.

For more info: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084750/

Zardoz (1974)

A friend of mine got a copy of this. He'd only heard good things, and it just seemed right up our alley. Apparently Sean Connery had trouble finding work after the Bond movies, and so the film makers got him on the cheap. Hopefully he made his money back in Rising Sun, Entrapment, and Highlander 2.

Zardoz takes place in a senseless future (meaning to the viewer, it makes no sense). Connery is a scantily clad savage that gets guns from the mouth of a big stone head and uses them to kill dirty businessmen. Curious about the head, he climbs inside and it takes him to a group of immortals who saved all of the world's achievements. The immortality comes from a crystal. The brutality of the savage Connery upsets the fragile society, but maybe for the good... I guess... anyway, he eventually slides into the crystal, shoots something, then sits next to one of the women, and the two age into skeletons.



This movie makes zero sense. I'm not sure what it was trying to say, if it was trying to say anything at all. At some point, I think after the opening credits, I gave up. This would be an absolutely horrible thing, if the movie wasn't so damn funny. The outfits, the stone head, the Connery: it all just worked, even if the film itself didn't. When people talk about watching bad movies, this is what they're talking about.

The Connery factor is too sweet. He's dressed in this leather harness thing that was probably the inspiration for the Spartan garb in The 300. He's also got this long, braided ponytail. The whole thing is fabulous. If Connery as a Russian or a Spaniard by way of Egypt or even barking out orders in Japanese excites you, then this will blow your mind. It's that hot.

Men in business suits are tracked by people like Connery and shot at or in caught in nets. The only possible explanation for this is the film maker's attempt at a metaphor for Weber's iron cage of bureaucracy. Connery and his cronies might be the representation of the all-powerful state enforcing holding the bureaucrats in their cubicles. Maybe, on the other hand, I'm reading too much into this to link it's abject silliness with Max Weber's analysis of human society. It's probably that.



The crystal made no sense, especially how it imparted immortality. One of the things that the immortals could do was make one of their own old. Connery found this huge nursing home where they stored all the oldies. They tried to kick his ass, and he barely made it out alive. Had this old age home thing happened early on, it would have seemed strange and out of place. By the time we see it, though, we're so lost already, that the only recourse left is to laugh at it, which I personally think is better, because it really is funny.

If you consider yourself a connoisseur of bad films like I do, this is a must have. I really should have my own copy, but instead am settling for having a friend with one. For a while it was on the free movies section of ON Demand, which is an amazing deal, because this is worth paying for. I'd pay $10-$15 for it on DVD, which if you've seen the other columns, that's a pretty big recommendation. I must stress, though, that if you're someone who can't handle a film that makes no sense whatsoever, is silly beyond recognition, and has a scantily clad Sean Connery, avoid it at all costs. For me, those three things make it the Tops, as they used to say, so I'm all about buying it.

For more info: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070948/