Highlander II: The Quickening (1991) User Reviews

I think Ebert said it best.

[Tom_Benton · 4/10 · 26 July 2004]

Ah, friends. Come sit with me as we experience the Quickening. If we both stick our hands into a puddle of orange, shiny goo, we'll be shocked, and yet, united. Then we can battle the evil Katana and save Zeist from ... from what?

This is the effect of HIGHLANDER II.

HIGHLANDER II: THE QUICKENING is set in the future. Well, at least, I think it is. The film begins on Earth in the year 1999. Then, it heads off to the planet Zeist 500 years before. Following that, we're back to Earth in the year 2024. I'd say the film is pretty much divided between being on Earth in 2024 and Zeist 500 years before, but I think it was meant to be on Earth in 2024.

Now that that's cleared up ...

Imagine, if you will, that most of what they told us in the original HIGHLANDER was crap. Immortals don't come from nowhere, they come from the planet Zeist. The entire original HIGHLANDER movie was lies! Lies! Lies!

And if you believe that, I've got some $200,000 property for you down in sunny North Carolina.

Connor MacLeod, the main character of the original film (played by Christopher Lambert), is old and dying. When, in 1999, the Earth's ozone layer was nearly completely gone, MacLeod created The Shield Corporation, which then created a shield which would protect the Earth from the sun's violent rays. But in 2024, the world is a dark dungheap, and MacLeod's pretty much to blame.

Now let's go back to the planet Zeist. General Katana (Michael Ironside) is pretty pissed. MacLeod's still alive. So he sends his two retarded minions to kill MacLeod. The extremely elderly MacLeod somehow starts dancing around like Dean Martin and beheads both of them. The power of their lifeforce makes him young once again and free to kiss terrorist Louise Marcus (Virginia Madsen) and then try to take down the world's anti-Ozone shield. Oh yeah, the ozone's healed, by the way.

So then Katana comes to Earth to kill MacLeod, who is suddenly super-cool and ready to kill Katana. But for some reason, he needs help. So the producers paid Sean Connery $3.5 million. Behold! Juan Sanchez Villa-Lobos Ramirez is resurrected from the dead and comes back (for nine minutes of screen time) to help MacLeod shut down the shield.

If you haven't figured it out by now, HIGHLANDER II is completely messed-up.

I haven't seen a sequel this bad in who knows how long. It contradicts the entire HIGHLANDER mythos, and thus was ignored in every other sequel and television series that followed.

But there is a good side to the film. I think Ebert said it best in his review of the film: he describes HIGHLANDER II as being "a movie almost awesome in its badness". How awesome do you hear that? But that's exactly what HIGHLANDER II is: almost awesome in its badness.

It may be one of the worst films ever made, and it may be the worst sequel, but it is also a very fun and frequently (unintentionally) funny film. In the words of the Immortal Ramirez, "If you can summon it all up, at one time, in one place, you can accomplish something glorious."

Whatever that means.

NOTE: There are two versions of the film. The theatrical version, called the Quickening, has just been reviewed here. The director's cut has been re-named the "Renegade Version" and changes much of the film's story. The film has also been completely re-edited. The Quickening version runs 89 minutes, while the Renegade version runs 109.

HIGHLANDER II: THE QUICKENING by Russell Mulcahy. * 1/2 out of ****.

McCloud from Outer Space

[Archduke-1 · 3/10 · 11 April 2004]

All true Highlander fans will simply not acknowledge the existence of Highlander 2, wih good reason: Planet Zeist.

if you were to see part 2 and not the Original, it would be ok, cuz it would make sense in its own way. H1 and H2 are effectively unrelated films. But Highlander was quite an original story. H2, unfortunately, is a bit goofy and out of sync. Quite laughable in its own way.

If you want a good laugh, check it out. It's high cheese. If you're a Highlander purist, it DOESN'T EXIST. The intention was probably good, trying to show the aftermath of McCloud's mistakes after winning the original "tournament", but the premise is ruined by Planet Zeist, and Michael Ironside is just rehashing the Kurgen. He's a bit funnier in the villain role, but it doesn't save the movie from being silly

Guilty pleasure

[Bored_Dragon · 5/10 · 6 November 2018]

Let's start with a quote that perfectly sums up the coherence of the plot: "Ok, let me just see if I can get this straight. You were mortal there, but you're immortal here until you kill all the guys from there who have come here and then you're mortal here. Unless you go back there or some more guys from there come here, in which case you become immortal here again."

When this film came out, it was awesome to me. I was eleven back then and it bought me with a dark atmosphere, strong cast, very good effects for its time, fast pace, entertaining action, and sexy Virginia Madsen. Now, I still liked all of that, and in addition, I enjoyed several examples of great camera and directing, as well as the very good soundtrack, but this time all of that was not enough to cover for one of the worst screenplays in the history of cinema.

"Highlander II: The Quickening" retains the actors and characters from the first film, while completely ignoring the original story. Not only that it is neither sequel nor a prequel, but the stories of these two films are mutually so contradictory that it is impossible to fit them in any way. Even if we completely ignore the previous film, this one is for itself full of holes and illogicality, and it is incredibly stupid. When it comes to story, in this movie every spot is a weak spot. Immortal's mythology doesn't work, quasi-science also doesn't work, and even romance, which is completely redundant, also doesn't work. I mean, they meet for the very first time and minutes after initial introduction they are attacked. He hides her into a garbage can, fights the attackers and kills them. Then she leaves the container and has sex with him against the wall in the middle of the street. Yea, right, very believable. How much this scenario stinks is best illustrated by Michael Ironside statement:

"Yeah, listen, I hated that script. We all did. Me, Sean, Chris... we all were in it for the money on this one. I mean, it read as if it had been written by a thirteen-year-old boy. But I'd never played a barbarian swordsman before, and this was my first big evil mastermind type. I figured if I was going to do this stupid movie, I might as well have fun, and go as far over the top as I possibly could. All that eye-rolling and foaming at the mouth was me deciding that if I was going to be in a piece of crap, like that movie, I was going to be the most memorable thing in it. And I think I succeeded."

For the nine days of work, Sean Connery received three and a half million dollars and donated the whole amount to charity. I suppose he was just trying to wash away the shame. However, apart from the story, everything else in this movie I liked pretty much, so I can not completely bury it with the rating. Audio-visually I would give it a strong seven, and maybe three for the story.

5/10

It's not that bad...

[dylman17 · 8 August 2002]

...if you watch the Renegade Version on DVD. It includes nineteen minutes of additional footage, and does not once mention the planet Zeist. This version makes a lot more sense and follows the plot of the first Highlander film a lot more closely. If you're going to get this movie, get the Renegade Version.

It's hard to imagine a sequel that alienates fans more than this one.

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 21 July 2021]

"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!

Dead from the neck up

[David_Frames · 1/10 · 23 April 2005]

Never in the field of human endeavour has there been an act of such instrumental, destructive, diabolical folly as this justifiably reviled, quasi-sequel to the original 1986 fantasy in which immortal warriors duelled throughout the ages until one remained. Yes, its Highlander II - a film so bad that Robert Mugabe refused to show it to white farmers on the grounds that it would be "exceptionally cruel". Needing to grasp on to a strand of optimism, perhaps only the thickness of a human hair, I long ago decided that the film existed purely as a textbook demonstration for future filmmakers on how not to make a successful sequel to a hit movie. This theory alone explains the cynicism on screen and the ham-fisted, slapdash, car-crash handling of the material. Don't misunderstand; I'm not saying this thing is poor - poor would be generous praise for a Frankenstein fantasy in which all the invention, both visual and conceptual, inherent in the first film's appeal is frittered to nothing. In fact, the totality of the words already used are only the merest fraction of those required to accurately portray the near total devastation that washed over me as I sat through it (I'm ashamed to say not for the only time) on a stormy night 14 years ago. Russell Mulchay deserves to be poisoned and broad beaten with a tent pole in the male ruminations for his decision to helm the whole sorry affair and grind his original good work to dust. It hardly needs saying but the problem for anyone scripting a Highlander II is that Highlander I concluded business comprehensively with no outlet for a second episode. To get around this the makers of The Quickening simply decided to ditch the back-story of the original film and invent a new one which would enable them to write around the fact that all the immortals, bar M.Lambert were, not unlike themselves, dead from the neck up. So although McCloud was originally born in Scotland and Ramierez in er, Egypt, now they were aliens from a planet called Zeist; handy, because this new ancestry meant that all that was needed to reengergise the concept was that another visitor showed up on Earth and the games can begin again. To fully appreciate how awful an idea this is you need only imagine a Star Wars sequel in which the action is suddenly set in present day Earth for reasons of plot convenience or a second instalment of Titanic in which it's revealed that Jack and Rose are actually time-travellers and are thus able to prevent the disaster and save all their friends. Thus Highlander II is effectively the one line joke in the Player in which the writer of the Graduate pitches the terrible sequel writ large and for real. We can only imagine that the owners of the original film were desperate for more because nothing but desperation could possibly explain how this made it to the screen. If blame were slurry and required apportioning by EU agricultural directive then you'd need roughly 6 tankers worth, each containing somewhere in the region of 40,000 tonnes. The shame of Sean Connery and Christopher Lambert is palpable and everyone who felt any enjoyment during this picture is consciously and deliberately complicit in its evil work. As a purely commercial enterprise with no respect or consideration for the 1st film or its fans, we can only hope that all involved lost millions and that having lost their deposit they were forced to sell themselves into sexual slavery. Highlander III, not exactly itself a great sequel, ignored this one completely as ironically it left no outlet for a third episode but it too was a cynical cash-in and could only continue the first film by ignoring its ending whereas the forth in the series simply didn't bother with the first film at all, opting instead to go with the spin-off T.V series. That's the way the rot spread but here's where it started - now please Hollywood...never again.

errrrr....okay?..

[chunkylover53-2 · 2/10 · 6 November 2006]

I have cried in a total of 3 films in my life... Number 1, Bambi, when his mum dies.... Number 2, City Slickers, when Norman the Calf gets dragged down river and nearly dies... and finally, Number 3, Highlander II, as it soooo bad! Remember Highlander? The Locations, The Soundtrack, The Kurgan, The Plot...

Now, take it all away and replace it with...

Awful red sky effect throughout the film, Couple of old Queen songs from the 1st film, Michael Ironside doing a bad Kurgan impression and a "plot" that doesn't have any relevance to the original plot...

That is Highlander II.

Worst sequel ever - Highlander II: The Sickening

[cpudsey · 1/10 · 5 May 2003]

Worst sequel ever, bar none. If you are a fan of the original Highlander (a great movie in my opinion), and for some reason haven't seen this yet, for pity's sake, don't! It will contaminate all the good memories you have from the first film. *SPOILER ALERT* (As if this piece of muck could be spoiled) This movie tells us the immortals from the first movie, steeped in mysticism and ritual, are actually...aliens. Yep. You heard me. For some reason these exiled aliens become immortals when on Earth (sounds like a pretty good exchange to me - exile for immortality). Sounds stupid? It is. No real reason is given for this ridiculous twist. Oh, and Sean Connery's character from the first movie (Juan Ramírez) manages to come back to life for a little while, to help Conner MacLeod. How? Magic...but didn't they just tell us these guys were aliens and not the mystical warriors we were led to believe in the first movie? Maybe they're magic aliens - that must be it. I actually saw this farce at the cinema, much to my chagrin. Have I mentioned that I am a big fan of the original Highlander movie? If any film ever made me wish we had the technology to selectively delete portions of our memories, this is the one. Avoid at all costs.

One of the worst

[Antagonisten · 1/10 · 16 January 2005]

This has to be one of the worst sequels ever made. Not that "Highlander" was a great movie to begin with. But still, destroying a concept so completely is almost enviable.

It's the year 2025. The whole earth is covered by a shield that stands in for the ozone-layer that has been destroyed. Connor McLeod has killed all the other immortals and is slowly dying of old age. But something happens and immortals are suddenly starting to show up again and Connor must fight once again.

I don't want to know which drugs the script-writers were using when coming up with the plot for this movie. How DO you start with a movie about immortal warriors on the Scottish highland, and end up with aliens fighting each other under a red sky in 2025?! Do we even want to know? It has to go down into movie history as one of the worst ideas ever. Taking something that was almost a solid story and destroying it completely by introducing weird elements like aliens and shields in the sky.

So, apart from that? Well, even if we do overlook that major flaw this is still complete garbage. What did they pay Sean Connery to appear in this? Either he was well paid or the man doesn't take any pride at all in his work. The action scenes are pathetic, the effects are awful. Christopher Lamberts wheezing voice makes the VIEWERS want to slice his head off.

I consider myself quite the connoisseur of b-movies. I can actually enjoy movies purely because they stink. But this is just so bad that it's not even funny. I rate this 1/10.

Highlander in a dark atmosphere on the future, far away to be bad!!

[elo-equipamentos · 7/10 · 20 September 2020]

Yesterday night I have revisited this sequel of Highlander, in a future world at 2027 a shield over the planet built by Dr. Neyman and Macleod in 1999 is no longer necessary, the ozone layer already restore itself during last twenty nine years, in an dreadful orange atmosphere over the planet Earth needs a new outlook, our hero in getting older when a rebel gang attacks the complex in order to destroy the worthless shield to give life to the Earth, how I've never query any rating at IMDB before watch a movie, today l saw mere 4.3 on an average sequel, I've wondering why so many reviews 1 out 10, this rating is for worst movies only, otherwise they voted by hate, we have the finest and good moods Ramirez (Connery), also one of greatest villains in the cinema history of all time Michael Ironside as the wicked Katana and the sexy Virginia Madsen as Louise the rebel's leader, it really had some mismatches as all sequels, thus I'll keep with my feelings, even knowing that I'll be bombed here with negatives votes, I state Highlander II fair away to be bad!!

Resume:

First watch: 1993 / How many: 4 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 7

A horrible, horrible movie

[EdTheHyena · 1/10 · 29 August 2003]

I've heard alot of bad things about this, but being a fan of the Highlander film and TV series, I had to check this out. That was a mistake. This movie has almost nothing to do with the first movie, and even by itself sits on laughable premises. The writing is terrible, the characters are one-dimensional (at best), the effects look like they were done out of someone's garage. Hey, let's summon back dead characters for no apparent reason. Hey! Let's pretend everyone's from another planet! You know what? Let's through in a conspiracy for the hell of it! This movie seems like it didn't leave the script-writing process until they finished shooting, and then they skipped editing. I shudder to think the horrors I would have witnessed had I not been watching the directors cut.

I prefer the Renegade Version - F**k the original version an Underrated flick!

[ivo-cobra8 · 8/10 · 16 October 2016]

Highlander 2: Renegade Version is MILES way better than the original theatrical version! This is the version that it supposed to come out in theater but the movie was cut to 1h 31 min which was ridicules! Highlander II: The Quickening sucks ass and it is one of the worst movies of 1991! I understand why everyone hates this film and I agree with all the haters this movie sucks, but the Renegade Version does not suck! That is why I am giving a score 8 out of 10, but that doesn't mean this movie was epic, perfect or the best, on the contrary it is not even a close movie to an original film! But I like it a lot and I am going to count the reasons what I like about this version. I have a lot of problems with this sequel but Renegade Version was entertaining! I have this movie on Blu-ray Renegade Version which it really surprised me.

Plot: It's 2024 and MacLeod (Christopher Lambert) and Ramirez (Sean Connery) are back to save planet Earth. Ozone depletion, time travel and corporate greed are at the core of all the thrilling twists and turns in this stylish action sequel. Featuring new state-of-the-art special effects and digital re-mastering, it's HIGHLANDER II like you've never seen or heard before.

Thing's I love in this movie: Christopher Lambert is reunited with Sean Connery and director Russell Mulcahy. I absolutely love the old cast from the first film. Juan Sánchez Villa-Lobos Ramirez played by Sean Connery become really a beloved character from the first film. The original film was directed by Russell Mulcahy and I am glad he directed the sequel good for him. I love those three in this movie!

Michael Ironside is an awesome bad ass villain as General Katana, he is not the best villain like was Clancy Brown as The Kurgan, but he was really close evil tough bad guy, that we all wanted him dead. Ironside was also the bad guy in Total Recall (1990) my all time favorite Schwarzenegger movie. That is one of the reason why I like this movie.

I love that this movie is set in 2024 it is a sci-fi futuristic film, you see mostly dark and red world which it is a futuristic world and I love that in this movie.

I love the song One Dream performed by Lou Gramm Band I love the song score which is perfect to this film.

Highlander 2: Renegade Version really reworked the movie in to kind a the original version supposed to be: they are not really an aliens, they are kind a, just put trough time and they are finding that out. So basically one of them is shipped trough time and they shipped them trough time. They have to fight each other in a combat to the death, when you behead someone you take their energy away and when you kill all the immortals you become mortal and that is basically what happens with a Highlander 2: Renegade Version.

The reason I love this movie is because it takes place in the future and it is cool, there is a guy with a wings going after him, those guys are kind a nit. They are some really kick ass fights scenes in it.

I love the fact that Ramirez comes back I don't care, that it doesn't make sense or it dopes makes sense. It is Highlander, it is immortals beheading each other to become the one. It is not supposed to be realistic who cares. He use The Quickening energy to bring back Ramirez I would do it. I love that Ramirez comes back he is a cool character and I love him.

I love that Brenda J. Wyatt returns in this movie but this time she is played by Karin Drexler when we find out what happened to the character from the first movie.

Katana (Michael Ironside) does respect the rules, the immortals never fight on a holly ground.

The sky is red in this film because of the field energy.

The only problem with film I have is: The renegade version may be a better edited movie than the original crap fest The Quickening, but it still suffers from terrible screenplay which had problems from the very beginning.

The fight between MacLeod and Katana was cut short and it could be a longer duel. I wish there would be more an epic swords fight like was in the first movie.

Ramirez music score was horrible, Ramirez acting in this movie like an idiot was horrible. I wish they would cut those scenes out when he lands in an opera, I really wouldn't want to see that.

In my opinion this is the true original sequel to the original film.

Overall: I like this movie it is a childhood movie of mine I grew up watching this movie. I love sci-fi in this movie and I love Highlander 1 and 2 to death but I love Highlander (1986) the best! B 8/10 Renegade version, Original version F 1/10.

Highlander II: The Quickening is a 1991 American science fiction action film directed by Russell Mulcahy and starring Christopher Lambert, Sean Connery, Virginia Madsen, and Michael Ironside. It is the second installment to the Highlander film series, and it was released on 12 April 1991 in the United Kingdom and 1 November 1991 in the United States.

8/10 Score: B Kismet Entertainment Film Distributors Starring: Christopher Lambert, Virginia Madsen, Michael Ironside, Sean Connery, John C. McGinley, Allan Rich Director: Russell Mulcahy Screenplay: Peter Bellwood Story by Brian Clemens, William N. Panzer Based on Characters by Gregory Widen Producers: Peter S. Davis William N. Panzer Rated: R Running Time: 1 Hr. 49 Mins. Budget: $30.000.000 Box Office: $15,556,340

Over-criticized

[quridley · 7/10 · 12 June 2018]

It's not nearly as exciting, fun or cool as the original but it's still a creative and well-made sequel that is hated because of a horrible version that had nothing to do with the director/writer. It's no Blade Runner yet it's the first of a zillion films that tries to be. The drastic changes from the original film were panned at the time but in a culture swamped in bad remakes and redundant sequels, maybe posterity will appreciate how Highlander 2 ramps up the political and existential themes that were wallpaper to its more exciting predecessor.

utterly woeful

[dan-su · 1/10 · 29 February 2004]

i saw the premiere of this film in edinburgh at the odeon. the theatre was packed and having really enjoyed the first movie, like i guess most of the audience we were all really excited to be seeing the sequel. you can imagine our dissapointment. lots of ppl, including us , left 20 mins before the end, quite a few patrons were quite angry at how ineptly bad it was. having recently seen it again on cable it is still utterly woeful. i would rather go and clean the toilet than sit thru it again. on second thoughts i'd rather come and clean your toilet and i don't like clieaning toilets and don't know you. get the idea???

Don't bother with the original release!

[FM-10 · 10 June 1999]

Do yourself a favor, and don't even bother seeing the original release.

GET THE DIRECTOR'S CUT! It rids itself of the alien rubbish, adds a few sequences that bring some coherence and generally makes the movie less painful for true Highlander fans.

From what I understand, the movie was never made the way the director and stars envisioned it (due to Corporate involvement), so they went back and reshot some sequences and did some serious editing. When they were done, it fit much better into the Highlander universe, and compromised the story line much less (although there are still some holes).

So, if you get a chance, SEE THE DIRECTOR'S CUT! Otherwise, don't bother...

This is why you do not throw good money after bad

[mentalcritic · 5/10 · 18 September 2005]

In the late 1980s, a quirky independent fantasy film called Highlander became a minor box office hit and an even bigger hit on home video. In this money-above-all-things film business, that means a sequel was greenlit faster than most people could view the contents of a film at the time. A script was quickly approved, stars were signed, deals were negotiated, and filming locations were chosen. Unfortunately, one of the locations they chose to film in was Argentina, which began to suffer major inflation during production. So major, in fact, that the insurance company took control and made the film they believed would make the most money. Instead, what they produced would keep the Highlander franchise on that fabled B list henceforth, and permanently doom the career of most of its cast. I first saw the theatrical cut when it was released on home video, and it was eighty-odd minutes of the most incoherent mess I have witnessed to date. However, I am going to comment on Russell Mulcahy's preferred version of the film. Suffice to say that comparing the two is like comparing apples with dog droppings.

The most major improvement in the director's cut of Highlander II is that the story is now coherent within itself. It is still very much a B-film, and it still grossly contradicts its predecessor, but it has the virtue of sequencing things in a manner that leaves the viewer thinking something other than "what the hell did I just watch?". Michael Ironside's character is given a little more depth, and anything that entails more screen time for Michael Ironside is a good thing. The story of the big energy shield that covers the Earth also has more development, and we get to actually see, rather than be simply told, why our hero built the thing in the first place. The process of locating the shield generator and turning it off also makes quite a lot more sense this time around. There are also more fight sequences, none of which stretch out past their welcome. Or rather, the fight sequences that were in the theatrical release have been edited differently, putting them in an order that flows properly.

According to IMDb estimates, the theatrical version of Highlander II cost thirty million dollars to make. It recouped a little over half of that at the box office, as word of its incoherence caused audiences to stay away in droves. A similar box office performance was enjoyed by RoboCop 3, proving once again that money men are not the sort of people who should be making films. Roger Ebert gave the cut that the insurance company delivered half a star, and Russell Mulcahy was apparently so impressed that he could only endure the equivalent of a reel before walking out. Obviously, he has never let go of the fact that money men took away his film and changed it in an effort to please everyone. So, once the DVD-Video format came out of its infancy, after the copyright arrangements expired, he took the film, recut it to his wishes, and rereleased it. He believes that the film he intended to make would enjoy better success. Response to the Renegade version, as it is called, has vindicated him on this issue.

Roger Ebert called the theatrical version of Highlander II a film "almost awesome in its badness". This is why Roger Ebert is arguably the most famous film critic of all time - although he sometimes completely misses the point, nine occasions out of ten have him hitting the nail on the head so hard, said nail becomes a projectile. This raises the question of what he would think of the Renegade version, which at least has the distinct advantage of having a beginning, a middle, and an end, as opposed to just one lengthy beginning. Among Highlander II's other virtues, in both cuts, is Michael Ironside. This man could be doing a commercial for cotton candy, and his indescribable habit of pulling mean faces would make it the most compelling celluloid on Earth. Highlander II plays upon his strengths, casting him as some kind of general from the past that decides first he hates Christopher Lamber (understandable), and second, he wants in on the corporation that runs the ozone shield. This is one of the problems with both versions of the film - both cuts give our characters the most idiotic, meaningless backgrounds.

Among the Renegade version's finer moments are the duels. The original version of the film ended with a long, proctracted duel between Ironside and Lambert. Apparently, Lambert nearly severed one of Ironside's thumbs during this duel. What nobody told the audience was that the footage used to comprise this duel was intended by the director to be two separate, distinct battles. Not only do the battles make more sense this way, they are simply more enjoyable to boot. Unlike many recent films involving battle, Highlander II was made with the belief that it was better to leave the audience wanting more, rather than wondering if this action sequence will ever end. The characters have more life in them, their stories make more sense, and they seem to have more motivation for what they do. Battles over which cut of the film should be seen by audiences have become a yearly thing in Hollywood, but Highlander II could almost qualify as the first. It certainly qualifies as the best example of such a battle where the wrong side won.

I gave the Renegade version of Highlander II a five out of ten. The theatrical cut is a two out of ten, a film so bad that it does not merely make one pity whomever is responsible for it, it makes one want to crucify them. If you are new to the Highlander II saga, make sure you see the Renegade version. If you have only seen the theatrical cut, wait until you see the Renegade version to pass judgement.

Absolutely Hideous

[TheNorthernMonkee · 1/10 · 22 June 2004]

SPOILERS

In 1986, with a Queen soundtrack to be proud of, there was "Highlander". With Christopher Lambert as Connor McLeod of the clan McLeod, 80s cinema had a hero worthy of our attention. With that in mind, it feels obvious now that a sequel was always going to appear. This sequel eventually would make an appearance in 1991, but to this day, I'd be very surprised if anyone felt this film was a good idea.

In "Highlander II: The Quickening", Connor McLeod is an old man. Having become mortal at the end of the original feature, McLeod saved the world with a "shield" to protect the world from the typical 1980s terror that was Global Warming. Twenty five years later and the shield has become a plague upon mankind, covering the skies and leaving the world in eternal darkness. With the help of his old friend Ramirez (Sean Connery) and Louise Marcus (80s icon Virginia Madsen), McLeod does battle with old enemy General Katana (Michael Ironside) as he attempts to fix his old mistake.

There really is little good that can be said about this second Highlander film. Simply put, it never should have been made. Rather than trying to think up any good points, let's just look a few of the problems with it.

Firstly, the plot of "Highlander II" destroys elements of the original film. Whilst in the original, McLeod was born in medieval Scotland and Connery's Ramirez was an ancient Egyptian, in this film they are exciled rebels from a different planet. Sent to Earth as punishment, they are told they may only return home once there is only one of them remaining. This new twist to the Highlander idea is hideous and quite frankly, farcical.

The second truely awful thing about this film is the acting. Whilst not a massive fan of Sean Connery at the best of times, in this film he is particularly attrocious as the Egyptian Alien with a Scottish accent who dies to the sound of Scottish Bagpipes. Alongside him is the tedious Christopher Lambert who speaks so softly during the film that the volume needs to be raised to a degree that any sound effect deafens the audience. Whilst a novel if unbelievable partnership in the first film, in the sequel Connery and Lambert are generally awful.

The final problem with this film which is worth talking about is the colours and the lighting involved. As a result of the "shield" being bright red and blotting out the Sun, the vast majority of this film is set in either pitch black or in a brain haemorraging red and black mix. It is impossible to follow the events in this film, not just due to the abysmal plot, but also because if you look at the screen for too long, you find your retina burning inside your skull.

In an attempt to summarise, whilst the creators of "Highlander" produced a simple action film which was simple to relax and enjoy, when they created this first sequel to it, they created an abomination. "Highlander II" is in the worst 100 films of all times list on this website, the only criticism to be made of this is that it isn't in that list at number one. Avoid this film like the Black Death.

Awful

[BlackStrain · 1/10 · 1 May 2002]

I understand the CIA is going to be using this movie to interrogate suspects now. The amazing part is that everyone along the chain of command thought it was a good idea to release this movie into the general public. This movie needs warnings on the cover to stop people from renting it.

Highlander 2: Renegade Version (A Great Sequel)

[cj120uk · 4/10 · 11 June 2002]

Sure the original theatrical version was bad but that was not due to the makers, it was due to a financial company that backed the production. Here (in the directors cut) is the way that it was supposed to be made. It has great action, great production value plus the return of Sean Connery. It gives some explanation as to how the competition began and it shows how Connor used the "prize" from the first film. It's a lot better than any of the Highlander films and series that followed. If this had been the version that was originally released on the theatre's in 1991, then the series would still have been alive today.

THE Worst Movie Ever

[Altern8 · 1/10 · 30 March 2001]

This movie should be the standard by which ALL other awful movies are judged.

I propose that Highlander II should be made the S.I. Unit of Bad Movies. There should be a scale from 1 to 10 and Highlander II should be the only movie at the Elite #10 spot. No other movie would be allowed to achieve #10 status. The really bad ones could only hope to attain a 9 on the Highlander II scale.

Highlander II is so bad, it reaches back into the past and spoils the first one. The first one did not try to explain the immortals. That was one of the coolest things about it. Fans who watched the first one could come up with their own interpretation of why the immortals were immortal. After you saw the first one, you could develop your own personal cool theory and explain it to your girlfriend / discuss with mates about why they were immortals...

Highlander II decided to destroy that "cool factor" with their silly idiotic explanation. The twits that made the movie must have been high on something! Or perhaps they got a mentally retarded 5-year old to come up with that explanation! Did they ever hear the phrase "leave well enough alone?"

You would definitely have a lot more fun flushing your money penny-after-penny down the toilet than spending it to watch this movie. If you ever make the mistake of watching it, make sure you have a brain surgeon handy to remove the brain cells that contain any trace of its memory from your brain right afterwards...

Ridiculous, hilarious, and down right silly... I like it

[kargaan · 7/10 · 22 July 2010]

I know what your thinking why am I giving this movie a positive review? Well the reason is I actually enjoyed Highlander 2: The Quickening. The movie for me was so silly and bad that the film itself really didn't turn out that bad for me. Most of the reason why I like this movie is because Cristopher Lambert, Sean Connery , and Michael Ironside( all actors I adore) starred in this movie. If they hadn't then this movie would be complete garbage.I won't go into to the story because it gets really hard to describe and it just sounds plain dumb but thats what I like about this movie. The fact that this movie COMPLETELY contradicts the first film and the ridiculously dumb storyline makes this movie worth a view. From beginning to end(especially if you've seen the first movie) you'll be able to spot so many mistakes and goofs that this movie will make you roll on the floor laughing. The dialog is a cheesy camp-fest and the plot is all over the place. Probably the biggest contradiction to the first film in this movie is that Connor and Ramirez are from another planet called Zeist in Highlander 2. If you've seen the first movie you'll remember that Ramirez clearly states that he has no idea why him and Conner are immortal!!! There is so many things I could have said about this movie but to sum this up Highlander 2: The Quickening is a laughable sequel that's very entertaining if you don't take it too seriously. This is the last good Highlander film.

Wretched; not only as a sequel but on its own terms as well

[TheLittleSongbird · 1/10 · 15 February 2011]

I have seen some truly bad sequels in my lifetime. Highlander II is not quite the worst, but it is down there I reckon. It is a wretched film, not only as a sequel(compared to a I think fun original) but also on its own merits. The film does look decent with good sets and costumes and Michael Ironside is quite good as the villain, but that is it really. The score is generic, with few memorable themes, and the script is just dire and ridiculously cheesy in some scenes. Another big weakness is the plot. It is a very convoluted one, and also one full of inconsistencies and unforgivable mistakes which a few commentators have pointed out already. I have no better news about the action sequences either, on the whole they are very clumsy and lifeless. The pace is off too. Because the script and story has no sparkle, I was hoping the pace would liven it up a bit. Quite the contrary actually, throughout the pace is dull and never recovers. The direction is lethargic this time round, while the acting fares little better. Christopher Lambert is rather bland, and while Sean Connery is better being more charismatic he is cursed by some bad dialogue and a hardly credible accent. Overall, not worth it really. 1/10 Bethany Cox

Never got it's full dues...still hasn't!

[wheycheese · 9/10 · 29 March 2008]

COnceptually Highlander 2 the quickening is an awesome film. THe theatrical cut was a massacre that the famous Ed Wood would find hard to top....

The two subsequent releases of the film are both improvements but they cut the planet Zeist stuff and a lot of other good footage too, so while now a good film with loads of cool stuff from fights, humour, production design etc it still remains a great film straining at the seams to get out.

Try and track down a fan cut which includes more Zeist, more explanations and fairytale ending for the best continuation of Highlander 1 there is going.

An unusual sequel that is not as bad as people say it is

[pitdeadite · 6/10 · 16 August 2000]

In general, sequels suck. We know this. It should be no surprise that this film does not live up to the original. But as a stand alone film, it's decent and worth at least one viewing. Sure...the story is hokey...the special effects are mediocre...but the movie has style. Go out and give the movie a try.

What were they thinking?...

[paul_haakonsen · 3/10 · 7 November 2022]

Right, well the 1986 "Highlander" movie was a genuine fantasy classic, and then there was "Highlander II: The Quickening" from director Russell Mulcahy five years later.

The storyline in "Highlander II: The Quickening", as written by writers Brian Clemens, William N. Panzer and Peter Bellwood, was just a train wreck of a storyline. The plot was all over the place, and it made very little sense. If you put "Highlander II: The Quickening" up next to "Highlander", then this 1991 movie is a sheer dumpster fire. Even with a cast ensemble that included Christopher Lambert, Sean Connery, Virginia Madsen, Michael Ironside and John C. McGinley the movie stood a snowball's chance in Hell. And it was solely the lousy writing and the incoherent script that caused the movie to fail.

The acting performances in the movie were adequate, and they had a good cast ensemble. But the movie was just derailed by the horrible script, and even talents like Christopher Lambert, Sean Connery, Virginia Madsen, Michael Ironside and John C. McGinley could do next to nothing to lift the movie up to a bearable level.

Visually then "Highlander II: The Quickening" was an improvement from the 1986 "Highlander" movie, naturally. But oddly enough, then this 1991 sequel didn't really make all that much use of special effects.

If you enjoyed the "Highlander" movie, then chances are slim that you will enjoy this poorly constructed 1991 sequel. Yet, I managed to endure it and sit through it for a second time here late in 2022 since it was originally released back in 1991. I have to admit though, honestly, that I had entirely forgotten the storyline in the movie, and with good cause, and thus I opted to watch it again here in 2022.

My rating of "Highlander II: The Quickening" lands on a generous three out of ten stars.