Look, I'm an overall fan of the Highlander mythos. I especially like much, though not all, of the TV series. However, I've gotta say that the first film is among the most overrated I've ever seen. Really, I can only give the first film high marks for the overall concept and the music...okay and maybe for some of the performances. And, yes, the sequels are even more abysmal. My point is, I don't think a decent remake and reinvention of this franchise would be a bad thing, because I submit that we haven't even had a completely decent Highlander movie yet.
I would agree with this. The original movie is '80s B-grade schlock, elevated to a bizarre level of entertainment as a result of the combination of a Frenchman playing a Scotsman, a Scotsman playing an Egyptian and Clancy Brown trying to cut each other's heads off to the pounding sounds of Queen, directed by an Australian madman who knew nothing else than to make it as over-the-top as possible.
Highlander has appeal because of its concept -- Gregory Widen hit on a pretty good idea with regard to immortality. However, Widen is
not a particularly talented writer, and so what he created was an entertaining, but seriously flawed, original movie.
The television series, though deeply flawed itself, was able to use the best possible applications for the
Highlander concept, going deeper into the mythology of the Immortals, exploring the life and loss that arises by living for several hundred years, and introducing interesting ideas like Watchers.
However, the fundamental problem here is that while
Highlander itself is a fairly good concept, it really doesn't apply well at all to the cinematic medium. The stories you can tell in a two-hour movie are pretty limited, ranging from the story told in the original (hero character defeats a powerful psychopath to become the final Immortal), the story attempted to be told in
The Quickening and
The Source (delving into the genesis of the Immortals) and ... well, not much else.
