"Highlander II" makes one of the worst mistakes a sequel can make...ignoring the plot of the original film. This is even worse when there is a huge cult following. The first ""Highlander" one was enjoyable and engaging...the sequel clearly was written by folks who never saw the original film as so much contradicts it....which is guaranteed to make fans hate the sequel...which DEFINITELY is true as the film has a pathetic overall score of 4.2! The original? 7.1!
In the original, Ramirez (Sean Connery) was an important character....an important character who died in the story. Yet here, once again, in the sequel we have Ramirez....again! How? By showing needless flashback scenes...and considering the sequel takes place decades after the first film, this is an annoying choice...as well as a lazy one. But that's not enough...despite being beheaded, he does somehow get sent to 2024! And, to make it worse, the film ALSO is a sci-fi film...set years after the original!
So is the film worth seeing? And, is it as bad as 4.2? No. It is pretty bad and completely betrays the fans of the first film...which is confusing as I read through reviews and some of these die-hard fans actually claim to love this sequel and think it was a work of genius!
The worst thing about it, clearly, is the nonsensical sci-fi plot....it's not only confusing but bad. Also, having Connery in a sequel (he would have been fine in a prequel) was a bad choice. Also, some of the problem is Christopher Lambert's performance as an old man. Instead of being convincing, he wasn't because his idea of an old man was to whisper all his lines! It just didn't make sense. You can also blame the director for not catching this...or caring enough to change it. Other bad things were explosions just for the sake of explosions, the many anachronisms and contradictions as well as goofs (the IMDB goof section is VERY long). This all just seem to point to the notion that at a certain point they filmmakers gave up on even trying to make a good film.
By the way, as bad as the film is, I could really identify with the angry woman who gave MacLeod the finger and then bashed him on the head with a beer bottle. I am sure I'm not the only one and I hope to think she was doing it for all the fans!
In the original, Ramirez (Sean Connery) was an important character....an important character who died in the story. Yet here, once again, in the sequel we have Ramirez....again! How? By showing needless flashback scenes...and considering the sequel takes place decades after the first film, this is an annoying choice...as well as a lazy one. But that's not enough...despite being beheaded, he does somehow get sent to 2024! And, to make it worse, the film ALSO is a sci-fi film...set years after the original!
So is the film worth seeing? And, is it as bad as 4.2? No. It is pretty bad and completely betrays the fans of the first film...which is confusing as I read through reviews and some of these die-hard fans actually claim to love this sequel and think it was a work of genius!
The worst thing about it, clearly, is the nonsensical sci-fi plot....it's not only confusing but bad. Also, having Connery in a sequel (he would have been fine in a prequel) was a bad choice. Also, some of the problem is Christopher Lambert's performance as an old man. Instead of being convincing, he wasn't because his idea of an old man was to whisper all his lines! It just didn't make sense. You can also blame the director for not catching this...or caring enough to change it. Other bad things were explosions just for the sake of explosions, the many anachronisms and contradictions as well as goofs (the IMDB goof section is VERY long). This all just seem to point to the notion that at a certain point they filmmakers gave up on even trying to make a good film.
By the way, as bad as the film is, I could really identify with the angry woman who gave MacLeod the finger and then bashed him on the head with a beer bottle. I am sure I'm not the only one and I hope to think she was doing it for all the fans!