Bad Movie: Highlander: The Source

Released: 2007

Movie Trailer

Director: Brett Leonard

Run Time: 86 Minutes

Rated: R

Cast:
Adrian Paul: Duncan MacLeod
Thekla Reuten: Anna
Peter Wingfield: Methos
Jim Byrnes: Joe Dawson

I’ve decided I’m going to try something new here.  There’s a ton of truly awful movies out there, and I’ve seen a lot.  I have an interesting idea.  At least I think it’s interesting.  Some of these movies are so dreadful they deserve a category of their own.  I figured maybe once a week I should watch one of these abominations.  It might be good for a laugh.  To celebrate the birth of this new category, I have chosen to watch the last of the live-action Highlander films: The Source.  Back in 1986, there was a little fantasy movie starring Christopher Lambert and Clancy Brown called Highlander.  It was about a group of immortals who fought each other in order to win The Prize, something that would give them the power to rule the world or destroy it.  The only way to kill an immortal is to take his head and with it his knowledge and life-force.  The film tanked in the States, but it did pretty well overseas.  Over the years it did find its audience.  As a result, we got 4 live-action sequels, an anime spin-off(which was amazing by the way), a live-action TV series with its own spin-off and a cartoon.  Highlander: The Source was the last of the live-action sequels.  There’s a reason for that.

Set in a future where governments no longer exist and civilization has fallen into decay, a group of immortals lead by Duncan MacLeod have discovered that an unusual planetary alignment.  They believe that alignment will point them to The Source, the immortals’ Holy Grail where they believe that their immortality came from, or so the previews of the film would have you believe.  The only thing standing in their way is The Guardian, the most generic of all the Highlander villains.  You know, back in 2003 or 2004 I had started hearing rumors that they were going to make a fifth live-action Highlander film starring Adrian Paul, the guy who played Duncan MacLeod in the TV series and Highlander: Endgame.  A while later, the rumors had evolved to the point where it seemed that The Source would be the first in a new trilogy of films.  The Source happened, but the aforementioned trilogy?  Nope.  Why?  It debuted on the Sci-Fi Channel.  That’s NEVER a good thing.  I knew there was a problem when that was announced.  So, what went wrong?  As it turns out, damn near everything.

Let’s start off with the fact that the film debuted on the Sci-Fi channel instead of theaters.  The Source is the first in the series to skip theaters entirely.  Given the quality of the work that’s on the screen, I’m not surprised.  Any movie that debuts on the Sci-Fi channel is generally not very good.  Next, the whole film is set in a nearly post-apocalyptic future.  That would be fine, if it didn’t look so fake.  There’s a lot of green-screen shots here.  It’s very obvious.  There are precious few scenes that actually take place on location.  It’s low-budget fare, but they really could have done without the excessive CG backgrounds.  Some of the Quickening effects aren’t too shabby.  But that leads into another problem.  There’s only one scene where the quickening happens when someone loses their head.  That’s towards the beginning when The Guardian corners an immortal.  It’s pretty spectacular watching the whole building explode when that happens.  But that leads into several OTHER problems.  One: There are no other encounters between immortals where one takes another’s head and gains his power.  Yeah, heads do roll, but there’s nothing terribly spectacular about it.  Next, and this a big one: The villain.  The Guardian is one of the most laughable and non-threatening villains I’ve ever seen.  At times he’s trying to sound like the Kurgan, and others he’s coming off as an announcer of sorts.  He even looks ridiculous.  Not only that, he moves like Tazmanian Devil from Looney Tunes.  That also leads to some fairly one-sided and silly confrontations.

Oh, there’s still more crap here for me to talk about.  The acting is atrocious.  Adrian Paul is the only one who seems to be pulling his weight along with Peter Wingfield.  Everyone else is either underacting or completely overdoing it.  Like I said before, The Guardian is an absolute joke.  I’m not blaming the guy who plays him, but the character is just poorly written and not explained very well.  Then again, nothing is explained well in this movie.  Planets that move out of their usual orbital paths to show the way to The Source?  Astrophysics aside, that’s….stupid.  The whole planetary alignment nonsense has been used in sci-fi and horror movies for decades.  It’s a stale plot device.  Let’s talk about The Source itself.  According to the film’s ever-changing mythology, The Source is apparently where immortals can find answers to who and what they are as well as gaining power.  But it turns out that only one can use The Source with a woman to have a child………WHAT?!?!  So all that jazz over the previous films and TV series about the mantra that there can be only one and The Prize is all B.S?  Pretty much.  I’ve seen sequels that piss all over the mythology that the previous films had established, but not like this.  Let’s discuss the film’s music.  The orchestral stuff isn’t too bad.  Low-budget, but it’s pretty tolerable.  The songs they use though: Oh, man.  It’s clear they couldn’t get permission from Queen to actually use their songs in Highlander: The Source, so they paid somebody else to cover certain songs, namely Princes of the Universe, and Who Wants To Live Forever.  Those are two of my favorite songs from the original Highlander.  They really butchered them here.  Princes of the Universe isn’t horrible, but the other one is an absolute joke.  The original version of Who Wants To Live Forever was excellent because it combined Queen’s music with Michael Kamen’s musical score.  It was brilliant.  The version for The Source?  Abominable, embarrassing and terrible to listen to.  I’d rather listen to finger-nails on a chalkboard.

Is there anything good about the movie?  Well, there’s Adrian Paul.  He’s brooding and somewhat emo, but he still manages to kick some serious tail in the film.  Some of the action isn’t too shabby either.  The sequence in the tower at the beginning of the film is actually fairly engaging and has some pretty interesting visuals.  There are certain ideas that could have panned out if the writers actually used their heads.  Unfortunately, the majority of action sequences involving the Guardian are poorly edited and choreographed.  Watching Methos antagonize Duncan was pretty amusing.  Some of the explosions were pretty big.  One of the songs that was not a Queen cover wasn’t actually bad.  The film also runs for 86 minutes.  I would say that it doesn’t overstay it’s welcome, but I don’t think Highlander: The Source was welcome in the first place.  This movie was universally panned as the worst Highlander movie ever made.  I can’t argue with that assessment.  This movie was a disaster right from the get-go.  There was another Highlander film released around the same time called The Search for Vengeance.  Now THAT was a good Highlander film.  Why?  It took a really different direction and went anime.  I feel that Japanese anime suits the franchise.  For visuals and story-telling, The Search for Vengeance wound up being the second-best Highlander film ever.  That one I highly recommend.  The Source?  No, just…no.  The only reason I have the film on DVD is because I’m a completionist.

Because of Highlander: The Source, the franchise got buried, along with the video game that was announced for 2008.  Somebody decided that it may be a good idea to re-make the original film.  It could work if they get the right writers and director for it.  But if it sucks, it’s going to bury the franchise for good.  So…my final verdict for Highlander: The Source?  As an action film: 6/10.  As a Highlander film: 1/10.  Do yourselves a favor, stick with the original or the anime.

Calling Out Michael Moore

Normally, I use this space for reviews or other articles about movies.  It’s my passion.  But over the past couple of days there’s been a lot of talk about the film American Sniper starring Bradley Cooper.  I’m not going to talk about the film, as I haven’t seen it yet.  No, what I’m going to discuss is filmmaker Michael Moore’s spiel about snipers in general.  This what he had to say on Twitter, courtesy of CNN: “My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren’t heroes. And invaders r worse.”  Now he did come out and clarify that it wasn’t directed towards American Sniper.  What he did was lump all military snipers into a group that he classified as cowards.  Now, he said that his father called them cowards, but it seems he’s parroting that opinion.  His father is wrong and so is Mr. Moore.  These people have no idea what the role of a sniper really is: Reconnaissance.  These guys are highly trained and specialized soldiers that scout routes, observe enemy formations and use stealth tactics.  It has absolutely NOTHING to do with pulling the trigger.  If the mission calls for it, they can do more damage than your average solider, by taking out important officers and communications.  Yes, they do it from a distance, but that helps confuse the target(s).  That ends up weakening the enemy to the guys who do charge in.  Even if there is no main objective, a sniper will seek out targets of opportunity.  These guys have the ability to break the enemy’s will to fight more so than an overwhelming force.  They are also used in support roles by covering soldiers infiltrating an enemy compound.  They are also not ordered to shoot people, but also destroy important equipment such as radios, vehicles, fuel and water supplies.

Why did I bring this up?  It just so happens that I had a grandfather who fought in World War II.  More specifically, he was part of the Pacific Theater campaign.  Guess what?  He was a United States Marine sniper at Iwo Jima, one of the bloodiest battles of the campaign.  My grandfather survived, but a lot of his friends and battle buddies didn’t.  He never discussed it, and having studied the history of that particular battle, I understand why.  The only way to survive an assault like that is to stay down and still, and even then you would probably end up getting torn to shreds.  Was I lucky to have my grandfather?  Absolutely.  He passed away back in 2006, but I think he would be absolutely livid to hear crap like what Mr. Moore has said.  For Michael Moore to say what he did about snipers is not only insulting my grandfather, but also soldiers who fought and died for his right to spew such poison.  Not just today’s warriors or the soldiers of my grandfather’s generation, but all the American soldiers who willingly gave their lives in service to this country since it was founded.  Mr. Moore: If you are going to accuse soldiers of being cowards, why don’t you go after the deserters or the ones who deliberately kill innocent civilians?  Leave the rest alone.  Actually, I have a better idea:  How about you lose some weight, put on a uniform, grab a rifle, and toe the line?  “”My dad always said, ‘Snipers are cowards. They don’t believe in a fair fight. Like someone coming up from behind you and coldcocking you. Just isn’t right. It’s cowardly to shoot a person in the back. Only a coward will shoot someone who can’t shoot back.'”  There is so much wrong with this statement, I don’t know where to begin.  First things first, I guess:  There’s no such thing as a fair fight.  Never has been, never will be.  Anyone caught in a serious situation is going to do whatever it takes to survive.  It’s just clear to me, that Mr. Moore’s father had no clue about what snipers are used for.  Lastly, you have a better chance of success of taking somebody out without them knowing about it.  It’s not cowardly, it’s practical.  A stand-up fight isn’t always the best solution.  The whole thing about shooting people who can’t shoot back?  If they’ve got a weapon, they are a threat.  It’s as simple as that.  So, Mr. Moore:  Anytime you would like to remove that foot from your mouth, now would be a good time.

That’s my soapbox moment, I guess.  When people generalize the military in a negative light, I tend to take issue with that.  These people have more courage than anyone else to put on that uniform and walk into hell.  That’s what my grandfather did, and what my ancestors did.  We wouldn’t have the rights we do today if it wasn’t for them.  I would appreciate it if Michael Moore would show more respect.

Best Sequels Ever Made

When a movie is very successful financially, it makes a certain kind of sense to capitalize on that success.  By capitalize, I mean make a follow-up film that supposedly retains the best elements of the original while trying to do something new.  The main issue with sequels is that more often than not, they just don’t live up to the legacy of the previous film.  With movies like Superman III and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III, it’s very difficult to take the idea of a sequel to a respected film seriously.  Granted, the ones I just mentioned are third entries into a franchise, so they have an even harder time being successful or even being good.  That’s not always the case, as there are a good number of sequels that stand out among their peers.  This article is going to be about the best movie sequels that I have seen.  Some of these movies are going to be fairly recent, like in the past few years, and some that are not so recent.  This list is also not going to be in any particular order, so let’s get this show on the road, eh?

Wolf Creek 2

When the original Wolf Creek was released back in 2005, it garnered mixed reviews with most being fairly positive.  It was praised for being an incredible intense movie with one of the most interesting villains ever seen: Mick Tayler played by John Jarratt.  Others lambasted the film for being slow and needlessly mean-spirited.  Personally, I loved it.  It was like Texas Chainsaw Massacre set in the Australian Outback.  While it was inspired by actual events, it still had its own identity as a solid thriller.  9 years later, we got a sequel.  Instead of being a slow-burner that gets under your skin, Wolf Creek 2 kicks things into full gear.  Right from the get-go we are introduced to Mick Taylor, and it’s not long before things go crazy.  What we have is a high-octane slasher film that doesn’t take itself too seriously.  This is why the film is so much fun.  John Jarratt’s performance is nothing short of brilliant.  At times he’s pretty funny and charming, but then he changes into a total lunatic.  The film doesn’t pull any punches in terms of the red stuff, but it’s not as dead serious as the first film.  This is one of the rare occasions that a sequel outdoes the original film.  For horror movie buffs, I definitely recommend this one.  Will there be a third film?  It’s hard to say at this point.  As it stands, though, Wolf Creek 2 is another great effort by Australian director Greg Mclean.

X2: X-Men United

When Bryan Singer released the original X-Men film back in 2000, it was a surprise hit.  It had a fantastic cast of characters with unique powers.  Patrick Stewart played Professor Charles Xavier, while Ian McKellan played his friend/enemy Magneto.  But the real big surprise of the movie was Hugh Jackman as the Wolverine.  While I feel the film suffered from being an origin story of sorts, it was Hugh Jackman that helped make the movie what it was.  It was so good, that Fox Studios wanted another.  Bryan Singer was brought back as well as most of the original cast members.  Now that the characters are established, Singer had room to explore the characters, particularly Wolverine.  Wolverine’s always been my favorite of the X-Men, and Jackman’s performance is astounding.  He really gets to dig into the role in this sequel which was one of the best action movies of the year back in 2002.  As far as sequels go, X2 is pretty hard to top.  It gets everything right.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

When James Cameron released The Terminator back in 1984, it became a cultural phenomenon.  It also catapulted Arnold Schwarzenegger into superstar status.  It was a great sci-fi movie with great characters and a great story.  James Cameron and Arnold Schwarzenegger would re-team for a new Terminator film in 1991.  The result is a sequel that more than does justice to its predecessor.  The story in T2 takes on a different direction as the titular Terminator is there not to destroy but to protect young John Connor, played by newcomer Edward Furlong.  While the film has been criticized for essentially turning the Terminator into a babysitter, I feel it’s a better option than having Sarah Connor being a direct target again.  Terminator 2 revolutionized visual effects, thanks to a new Terminator: The unstoppable T-1000.  Played by Robert Patrick, the T-1000 was every bit as intimidating as Arnold’s original character.  Almost even more so, because the T-1000 was liquid metal and could disguise itself as anyone.  While the original Terminator film is still the best of the bunch, Judgment Day is nearly as good.  Great action, visuals, characters and a terrific story help make Terminator 2: Judgment Day one of the best science fiction movies of the last 25 years.

Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior

Now, here is a movie that tops the original in every way.  Don’t get me wrong, the original Mad Max is a fantastic movie that gave the world Mel Gibson, but it was The Road Warrior that really gave the world Mad Max.  The original film didn’t really give us a good glimpse of the post-apocalyptic world that Mad Max was a part of.  Mad Max was an astound film which gave us awesome chase sequences and stunts, but it was the follow-up film that took things to a whole different level.  Mad Max 2 is about as action-packed as you can get.  The chases in this film are absolutely crazy.  The last 30 minutes of the film is a sustained car chase sequence.  It was one of the most memorable action sequences I’ve ever seen, and nobody has been able to top it.  Mel Gibson is simply fantastic as Max.   The Road Warrior is easily the best Mad Max film.  We’ve got a new film coming out this year starring Tom Hardy: Mad Max: Fury Road.  It looks great, but The Road Warrior is going to be hard to beat as far as sequels go.

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back

Okay, who didn’t see this one coming?  Raise your hands.  You knew I had to put a Star Wars movie on this list.  The Empire Strikes Back is more than just a sequel to one of the most influential movies ever made, it’s also one of the best movies EVER.  While some would argue that the original Star Wars is the better film, I think that The Empire Strikes Back tops it in every way.  It takes a much darker tone with the Rebellion facing the full might of the Empire.  This movie has it all:  Action, betrayal, romance and a twist that most people had no idea was coming.  The story is very compelling and emotional at its core.  With the talents of Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill and Billy Dee Williams, The Empire Strikes Back is what many consider to be the greatest sequel of all time.  It’s kind of hard to argue with that assessment.  It’s definitely the best film in the series, I think.

Superman II

In 1978, Superman: The Movie was released to audiences world-wide and is considered by many, including myself to be the quintessential comic-book movie.  It was an extraordinary film that made us feel like we were flying like Superman.  Nobody had ever attempted a Superman film of this scope before, and Richard Donner knocked it out of the park.  It had amazing characters: Lex Luthor, Perry White, Lois Lane and the man himself: Superman.  This is the movie that defined Christopher Reeve’s career.  He was a newcomer, but ended up becoming a household name overnight.  His performance as Kal-El a.k.a Superman is iconic and nobody else has done it the way he has.  No one ever will, either.  Superman: The Movie also gave us a glance at who would become the main villains of the second film.  General Zod, Non and Ursa as well as Lex Luthor, would give Superman his greatest challenge yet.  Of the three supervillains, Zod steals the show.  Terrence Stamp is simply astounding as Krypton’s former military commander.  Superman II was the movie that really gave Superman a chance to show what he was made of, and he didn’t disappoint.

Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Peter Jackson has a talent for creating epic movies.  The Lord of the Rings Trilogy is quite possibly one of the most successful movie trilogies ever made.  The first entry, The Fellowship of the Ring was simply astounding with great action, characters and a story that took us on an incredible adventure to the fictional Middle-Earth.  While there have been attempts at making The Lord of the Rings into movies, the only one who was truly successful was Peter Jackson.  Nobody else took it seriously enough or had the talent.  The Fellowship introduced us to Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Legolas, Gimli and Gandalf, and set the stage for what would become one of the most epic movies trilogies ever made.  The Two Towers took things further and like Star Wars it was a much darker film.  We get to see Frodo begin to struggle with the One Ring as it slowly corrupts him.  The Lord of the Rings is an apocalyptic tale to be sure, but The Two Towers really gives it a more personal touch.  The Battle of Helm’s Deep was nothing short of amazing, but it’s really the interactions between Frodo, Sam and Gollum that steal the show, I think.  The Return of the King was the biggest of the bunch, but I feel The Two Towers was more about Frodo and Sam’s journey.  The whole series is absolutely amazing.

Aliens

In 1979, the world was exposed to a new kind of terror: Alien.  Directed by Ridley Scott, Alien was an extraordinarily frightening tale of survival against a creature that was as intelligent as it was lethal.  While the themes of rape and sexual domination were fairly evident, it was the atmosphere that really gave the film its sense of dread.  It was claustrophobic, dark and quiet.  Alien was one of the greatest science-fiction films of the 70s and it gave us a new heroine in Ripley, played by Sigourney Weaver.  It was such a success that Fox Studios would revisit the franchise with James Cameron’s Aliens.  Not wanting to try and one-up Ridley Scott’s film, Cameron took the franchise into the action film direction.  Strangely enough, by doing that, Cameron almost one-upped the original film.  While Aliens still retained a sense of claustrophobia, it was more of a combat film.  Marines with amazing firepower were brought in to deal with the xenomorph menace, only to find themselves outnumbered.  Ripley also evolved as a character as she basically adopts an orphaned girl named Newt.  The Special Edition of the film revealed that Ripley was a mother herself, and after 57 years in hypersleep, she discovered that her daughter had passed away, so Newt basically filled that gap in her life and give Ripley a renewed sense of purpose.  It certainly helps that Sigourney Weaver is backed up with some serious acting talent including Michael Beihn, Bill Paxton, and Lance Henrikson.  The result was a movie that not only paid respect to the original, but also made its own mark.  Sigourney Weaver was also nominated for the Oscar’s Best Actress award.

There we have it: The most memorable sequels that I have ever seen.  Some of these might not necessarily be surprising.  A lot of folks out there have similar lists, so it’s probably nothing new.  There are a great many sequels out there that are absolutely fantastic.  So, I’m going to make a list below of the ones that didn’t really make my top 9:

Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Jackie Chan’s Police Story 2
Hellbound: Hellraiser II
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Back To The Future 2
Guyver 2: Dark Hero
Once Upon A Time in China 2
Rambo: First Blood, Part 2
Ninja II: Shadow of a Tear
Blade II

 

 

 

 

 

As Above, So Below

Director: John Erick Dowdle

Released: August 2014

Run Time: 93 Minutes

Rated R

Cast:
Perdita Weeks: Scarlett
Ben Feldman: George
Edwin Hodge: Benji
Francois Civil: Papillon

For some, the found-footage genre is a boon, rich with movies that allow people to get immersed in what’s happening on screen.  For others, it’s a headache-inducing genre.  Some people complain that with these movies it’s hard to see what’s going on because the camera’s shaking so much.  To be honest, most found-footage movies are crap.  The Paranormal Activity movies are some prime examples of excess.  You can only do a movie like that so many times before it becomes repetitive and predictable.  That’s not to say that all movies using the whole found-footage motif are bad.  Not at all.  Movies like Cloverfield, Chronicle, and Into The Storm are just some examples of how to get it right without giving people a major headache.  The genre that the found-footage technique is most associated with is horror.  Starting with Cannibal Holocaust, the technique allows its audience to experience a film from a first-person perspective.  The most famous movie using this technique is actually The Blair Witch Project.

As Above, So Below begins as Scarlett is in Iran looking for clues that will help her locate the fabled Philosopher’s Stone.  After finding a particular clue before the site is destroyed, Scarlett makes her way to Paris, France to find someone who can translate her find.  Her old flame, George reluctantly agrees to translate, and they discover that the Philosopher’s Stone may actually be hidden in the catacombs beneath Paris.  After finding a local team that knows the catacombs, they begin their search.  After discovering a hidden passage, they begin to see…things from their past.  It seems they may have inadvertently stumbled upon a circle of hell that torments them.  It’s kind of difficult to discern what kind of movie that As Above, So Below wants to be.  For a while, it seems like a kind of Indiana Jones-style of adventure, but later it turns into a bit of a horror movie.  This is a movie with a few interesting ideas that don’t really gel into anything substantial or coherent.  What I will say is that is a brilliant idea setting the whole movie in the Paris catacombs.  From what I hear, the necropolis is extremely creepy.  It should be: 6 million dead bodies buried in 200 miles-worth of tunnels beneath Paris.  That is absolutely perfect for a horror flick.  So, what went wrong?

For one, the characters are annoying.  The lead character, Scarlett is an irritating busy-body whose obsession with the Philosopher’s Stone ends up leading to disaster.  Her ex-boyfriend constantly refuses to go with them but ends up following anyway.  The lead catacombs guy, Papillon, is greedy and agrees only on the condition that he and his crew get half of the treasure that they were told is in the catacombs.  These guys are all card-board cutouts.  They’re irritating and mostly expendable, so it’s hard for people to really care when they get bumped off.  There’s a couple of interesting deaths, but this isn’t exactly what I would call a super hard-R film.  It’s not even all that gory, although you do get to see someone’s head get bashed in.  The movie really takes a turn for the worse in the third act of the film.  It’s pure chaos and because of the found-footage technique, it’s really hard to see what’s going on.  You can’t get scared if you can’t see what’s happening.  This is one of the main reasons why I generally don’t like found-footage movies.  It gets really hard to see what’s going on, and by the time you DO figure out what’s happened, the movie’s over.

That’s not to say it’s all bad in As Above, So Below.  It’s very atmospheric.  As I said before, the decision to have the film take place in the Parisian catacombs is nothing short of brilliant.  It’s claustrophobic and very, very creepy.  The sound effects and the music are second-to-none.  It really gives the film a palpable sense of dread.  At least it would if the characters actually amounted to anything.  There are also issues with the story, like why Scarlett is such a believer in alchemy and the Philosopher’s Stone.  The fact that they end up in Hell is really bizarre.  Apparently, Hell exists 741 feet below the surface of the earth.  The film certainly has some interesting visuals and atmosphere, but there’s nothing here that we haven’t seen a million times before, and it’s hard to see anything when the camera’s swinging all over the place.  This isn’t a terrible movie, but it just doesn’t really cut it, not with superior films out there.  It’s an interesting concept with a very unique setting which helps elevate the film above the rest.  Unfortunately, it really doesn’t come together as well as I hoped that it would.  At the end of the day, As Above, So Below is simply…mediocre.  6/10.  It’s worth a rental at least, but nothing more.