i like the fist highlander movie, but then they made 3 sequels. the dumbest movies ever made, 2 made no sense and then 3 he was all of a sudden back in time. Endgame was just, well i cant even thing of a word to describe the horrible, wait theres one. There can be only one!
Unfortunately,there are now plans to film the fifth "Highlander" movie early next year.
Maybe this time,they can have Duncan MacLoud travel to the Highlander planet to lead a rebellion against its tyrannical rulers,and bring an end to both the game,and these movies,with Connor's spirit helping him out,if they really want to make this a good movie this time out.
Otherwise,they didn't announce if both Christopher Lambert and Adrian Paul will be back for this one.
And I agree with you,Josh,for "Endgame" was truly terrible,completely cluttering up what the last two movies(with "The Final Dimension" being the true Part Two,and "The Quickening/Director's Cut" being Part Three)established in what time era both of the MacLouds faced their dilemma at.
And,seeing the Director's Cut version of "Highlander 2" is the only way that movie will make any sense(and is more enjoyable).
What happened was the 1st Highlander was pretty cool... Then they made a 2nd movie that was so *stupid*, didn't make any sense, and wish we could turn back time and shoot whoever decided to make that movie.
Seriously though you'll notice that #1 was good, #2 was painful, #3 contridicted 2 totally... This is on purpose.
#2 was so bad that they made up #3 so that it would pick up from where #1 left off to make more sense, and then to say everything the opposite of what was said in #2....so it's like #2 never even existed. It's like they're saying "forget about #2, we admit it was a horrible movie, we apoligize, forget it ever existed, please burn what ever copies are out there."
I liked the sequels other than "The Quickening" (#2) and will look forward to another movie.... of course I'm a Christoper Lambert fan so I'm biased
The first movie established some nice, simple rules for the immortals, and went out of its way not to explain too much. It told a good story with a very definite ending - MacLeod was the last of the immortals, he won the prize, and that was that.
Anything more, in my opinion, just messed up what was already perfect. Some stories, like Star Wars, lend themselves to continuing adventures in a growing universe. Highlander was written as a completely self-contained story. After it was finished, there was nowhere else to go without ruining something. By Endgame, the prize seems to have been completely forgotten, and immortals are now some weird subculture, pretty much like vampires have been portrayed of late. They even went as far as having immortals making other people immortal. What a crock. What happened to them just being born different? What happened to it being a mystery? What happened to MacLeod being the last one?
The only possibility for more Highlander movies might have been through prequels, dealing with Connor MacLeod's past adventures, but they would have been anticlimactic after already seeing him win the prize.
The first was the best, 2 and 3 were woeful and in my opinion 4 wasn't so much a film, rather a feature long episode of the show.
Highlander is a great flick, but with the sequals(I like 2 and 3 but not sure what to make of 4) and the TV series(Didn't care for "The Raven" or the animated version all that much but the original show was good) they screwed up the continuity. This has hurt it inthe long run. and it's a damn shame. But I can allways pop in my DVD of Highlander and sit back and enjoy it for hor how it started out.
>made up #3 so that it would pick up from where #1 left off to make more sense
Except that 3 didn't make any sense. How could he win the prize if there were still a bunch of immortals buried in a cave? If they were going to use magic, they should have had them turned to stone until the curse was broken, or sent forward in time.
>I liked the sequels other than "The Quickening"
Also known by its more proper title, "The Sickening".
AndyC wrote:
>
> The first movie established some nice, simple rules for the
> immortals, and went out of its way not to explain too much.
> It told a good story with a very definite ending - MacLeod
> was the last of the immortals, he won the prize, and that was
> that.
>
> Anything more, in my opinion, just messed up what was already
> perfect. Some stories, like Star Wars, lend themselves to
> continuing adventures in a growing universe. Highlander was
> written as a completely self-contained story. After it was
> finished, there was nowhere else to go without ruining
> something. By Endgame, the prize seems to have been
> completely forgotten, and immortals are now some weird
> subculture, pretty much like vampires have been portrayed of
> late. They even went as far as having immortals making other
> people immortal. What a crock. What happened to them just
> being born different? What happened to it being a mystery?
> What happened to MacLeod being the last one?
>
> The only possibility for more Highlander movies might have
> been through prequels, dealing with Connor MacLeod's past
> adventures, but they would have been anticlimactic after
> already seeing him win the prize.
I agree 100% Except what do you think would have happened if another immortal was born? I mean all of them could not have been born in one time period, that is just naive. it may be on in a billon shot but they had to be born through out the years
lol
I'll admit that #3 didn't make much sense but it was a lot more tolerable than "The Quickening".
I, too, have noticed that Connor won the prize then all of a sudden there were more immortals running around. We all know that in order for an born immortal to *become* immortal he had to be killed. The writers & producers had to figure a way to keep the story going so they decided (hoping fans would not notice) that any mortal human could become immortal if they were killed by an immortal. Did that make sense? I'm not going to defend this point because I totally agree with the fact that they are breaking the rules... Connor & Duncan are going to get the Prize 5-6 times before it's all done.
However, we can nitpick the details and criticize all we want to... I noticed the mistakes too but I liked the sequels no matter how stupid they were. All that matters to me is that I enjoyed the movie. I'll watch it, enjoy it (or hate it..whichever applies), then complain about all the inconsistancies.
Unfortunately,there are now plans to film the fifth "Highlander" movie early next year.
Uh, why? I was lead to understand that sequels are made to capitalize on the success of the previous film, but the last three Highlanders were flops. If only Evil Dead could get so many chances.
I'll admit that #3 didn't make much sense but it was a lot more tolerable than "The Quickening".
My understanding was that since Mario was buried in the rock, no one knew he was alive. The assumption was that it was just down to the Kurgan and Conner, but they were wrong. Since, in the quickening, you get all the power from the immortal you kill, and the Kurgan had a lot of power, Conner was wrong about him being the last one, so Conner got a lot of power, but didn't really get 'the prize'
I think it's reaching to say that Connor didn't really win the prize. Connor didn't just get stronger, he got a new power to read minds, one that could be used for great good or great evil. He also seemed to be aware that he was no longer immortal.
Pointless as Highlander 2 was in every other respect, it did confirm both those things with the elderly MacLeod who had pulled scientists and world leaders together for a project that was at least well-intentioned. Then came a really mind-boggling excuse to bring more immortals into the picture, followed by MacLeod, more mind-bogglingly, becoming young and immortal, and Ramirez, even more utterly mindbogglingly, coming back from the dead. Then it just kept going downhill.
The idea in Part 3, that a few immortals missed the Gathering, was better (i.e. not completely stupid), but was still contradictory. I don't think it would simply have gone ahead without them.
MacLeod was the last immortal, and he won the prize. The prize simply became inconvenient, so it was first tinkered with unsuccessfully in Part 2, then quietly swept under the rug.
As for the earlier argument of more immortals being born, that wouldn't fit in with what, in the original, was obviously part of some divine plan. The immortals were born at various times and in various places, sought each other out for friendship or combat through history. They all seemed very much aware that some force would, at the appropriate time, pull them them to a place where they would "battle to the last." The gathering was the fulfillment of some great purpose that nobody understood and didn't need to understand. Good triumphed over evil, and the best fighter won. He was then given great power to use for the rest of a natural life.
Why? Why does the sun rise? Or are stars just pinholes in the curtain of night?
that was deep
Did Gregory Widen stay through the whole "Prophecy" series? Is that why it had more internal consistancy than the Highlander series?
Conner MacLeod vs Gabriel...could be fun :)
Widen really wasn't as much of a power behind Highlander. I've read his original script; very different, pretty meandering. It lacks a lot of the epic features of the finished screenplay; the Quickening, that whole childless loneliness thing...
Nathan
>The idea in Part 3, that a few immortals missed the Gathering, was better (i.e. not
>completely stupid), but was still contradictory. I don't think it would simply have
>gone ahead without them.
Which is why I thought they should have used magic to turn those immortals to stone or send them forward in time. Then they wouldn't have existed when Connor won the prize and their re-appearance (the curse being broken, arriving AFTER he won the prize) would have upset the natural order of things and made him immortal again. Hey, it makes more sense than just saying they didn't count because they were buried.
Hollywood itself has become "The sequel that wouldn't die" in the amount of sequels they churn out, for good films and even bad. Now the trend is trilogies, which I like better anyhow because at least it's a continuing story vs. rehashing the same jokes, scenarios..etc. that made the original so successful. But in sequeling a movie you diminish the love of the original by turning the characters into characatures (sp?) like michael meyers in halloween. I think the 80's really is responsible for the mass amount of sequels (part IV, V, VI..etc) and now they cleverly make sequels without the number (ie: Austin Powers: Goldmember) with a subtitle vs. a number. I like the original "highlander" but the sequels made a joke out of it, hard to look at the original the same after the proposal that they are aliens. Sheesh, there's something to be said about a little mystery.