Highlander : Are the sequels worth watching?

Are the sequels worth watching?

We all know how it will all end in the first movie, do the sequels just expand on the past or do they try to change how it ends?

Re: Are the sequels worth watching?

The sequels are generally considered terrible to god-awful, depending on which one you watch. I've only seen Highlander II, so that's the only one I can verify is on the god-awful end of the scale. It truly is one of the worst films ever made:

Highlander: The Quickening is set in the year 2024. Connor is a scientist who has developed an atmospheric energy shield protecting the earth from cosmic rays (the ozone layer having been depleted by man-made pollution.) Along the way, we have a lousy storyline of a greedy, evil corporation gouging people for the use of the shield's protection, annnnd we find out Connor and the other immortals are actually space aliens from the planet Zeist. That's right, they are alien creatures exiled from their homeworld. Nevermind that Connor was born into a family in the first film. He's actually a SPACE ALIEN from the planet Zeist.

Re: Are the sequels worth watching?

HELL NO.

Each and every single one of them were worse then the last.

Re: Are the sequels worth watching?

I kind of envy you if you've never seen the sequels. I suggest you don't. I've never seen any of the Matrix sequels and I don't plan to.

To answer your question though, both. Highlander III is the only one that is not an insult to the original, but it's cheap fun at best. Still, it was nice that they showed Connor training with another mentor after Ramirez and explained why he sounds French by have a backstory of Connor in France. Back story in France didn't add much else but showed Connor forced into a situation of having to change identities and the people and life he had to leave to do it. Something just alluded to in the original with his long list of identities. I thought that was pretty cool.

End Game and The Source actually follow the tv series, which is another continuity all together. They are bad, in fact, The Source is worse than Highlander II. The show itself is good, but uses a retconn of Connor winning the Prize and their ever being a low count of immortals in the first movie to continue the story.

Highlander II is campy fun, once you get over the awfulness of it. It's interesting that it takes place in the post-Prize world but the retcon of aliens/time travelers is ridiculous. Still, not a horrible idea that the "Dawn of Time" was an actual time and place, just done horribly like Flash Gordon or something, just stupid.

The idea was toyed with again in The Source, only made even more ludicrous, if that can be believed.

If I didn’t talk the way I talk I wouldn’t know who the hell I am, Sean Connery on his accent

Re: Are the sequels worth watching?

Sounds a lot like the Hellraiser franchise.

Re: Are the sequels worth watching?

O yea, how so? I stopped watching after Bloodline, though I saw Hellseeker since it was the return of Kirsty and Barker said he did uncredited rewrites. Thought it was alright. Haven't seen any new ones since.

We’re trying to pretend as if these comic books don’t exist. - David Goyer on the DCEU

Re: Are the sequels worth watching?

The first part creates a universe with strange rules one just experiences on an intuitive level. With the second film, those rules get formalized and make it feel like an awkward party game. Pretty much like the Highlander franchise took this not exactly explained idea of who gets immortal and why and overexplains it to the degree that the lack of room for imagination makes it impossible to enjoy for someone older than 12.

Hellraiser indeed has this anomaly that is does not get worse in a linear manner, but has extraordinary bad sequels and some which are just normally bad. But compared to the first part everything is still crap, just like Highlander.

Re: Are the sequels worth watching?


End Game and The Source actually follow the tv series, which is another continuity all together. They are bad, in fact, The Source is worse than Highlander II.


I don't think I've even made it 30 minutes past The Source. I still have it on my hard drive. I've made a few attempts to watch the whole thing but I always fail. I think I'd rather watch the theatrical cut of Highlander II again than try to finish The Source.

DISPLAY thy breasts, my Julia!

Re: Are the sequels worth watching?

Watch Spoonys review of the source. It covers all you need to know. Seriously, the first 30 minutes are bad, and it only goes downhill from there.

Re: Are the sequels worth watching?

You might as well watch it at least once just for the so bad it's good laughs. The Guardian and Methos and particularly atrocious in the film. I recommend the so-called Moscow cut.

We’re trying to pretend as if these comic books don’t exist. - David Goyer on the DCEU

Re: Are the sequels worth watching?

the sequels are what I find to be a Choose Your Own Adventure type of thing.

the story ends with the first film, but if the viewer wants more adventure, then they can choose to go different routes.

Highlander II - seeing Connor and Ramirez on a sci-fi adventure. its a slightly different take on the characters. gives a different kind of story while still trying to be about guys with swords having it out.

Highlander the Series- starts with Connor MacLeod hunting down an evil immortal. the adventure is in being introduced to a new hero, Duncan MacLeod. from there the viewer follows the adventures of the new MacLeod. its much more in tone with the original film, but expanding on the story. this is ultimately where the franchise reached the height of its success. its a good show with strong writing and

Highlander III- takes place 7 years after the events of the original. its more of the same thing in that its the same formula as the original. it has its good moments but it has a lot of disappointments as well. i prefer it for the sake of seeing a bit more of Connor MacLeod.

Highlander Endgame: picks up after the tv series while trying to pay homage to the first film. it reunites Connor MacLeod and Duncan MacLeod as they face an evil immortal who is on a quest for revenge, while breaking some of the rules.

Highlander the Source: a sequel of sorts to Endgame. it follows Duncan MacLeod and his pals as they go on a quest to save the world somehow.

Re: Are the sequels worth watching?


Are the sequels worth watching?


No.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Are the sequels worth watching?

Sequels? What sequels?

Re: Are the sequels worth watching?

The sequels basically erased the ending of the first film, introducing more Immortals so "the Game" would resume. By far, the worst of them are "Highlander II: The Quickening" and "Highlander: The Source". There's good elements in both "The Final Dimension" and "Endgame", but the original is still the best. If I had to rank them, from best to worst, this would be my list...

Highlander
Highlander: The Final Dimension
Highlander: Endgame
Highlander II: The Quickening
Highlander: The Source

Christopher Lambert does not appear in "The Source", since that film is based solely on the TV show starring Adrian Paul.
Top