Highlander: Endgame

Lets be fair. This is not Highlander 4, it's the capstone movie to Highlander the Series. The Series has only the name, and the overall plot concepts in common with the original movie, and the others. There really should be no continuity comparisons between this movie and the others, as it follows them only in name, not in story.

The series is it's own storyline, always was. It changed many of the 'established facts' of the original movie to better suit a long running series, rather than a 2 hr film. More or less, the original movie was set late in the 'game', when there were only a handful of the immortals left. The Gathering was near. In the series, the gathering isn't nearing, it's more of a legend. The number of immortals is large (Duncan does quite a bit of thinning, but still there are more), and new ones are being created all the time. This 'game' may run forever. This idea is well suited for a series, something that can last for many many many episodes. You can't string the audience along with 6 immortals for 8 seasons, it would be boring.

Taking the film for what it is, it's all right. I wasn't overly impressed, but it wasn't as annoying or repulsive as 2 and 3. Duncan was a more important character than Connor in the series. Connor was mainly there to introduce the series, and give the pilot a boost. He was really a minor character. In the series, immortals had very complex relationships, and sometimes working together for years. This was in the first movie, but in a more guarded, limited capacity. Ramirez implied he was going to move on once Connor was ready to make his own in the world, and Castagir hadn't seen Connor in 100 years, it being 200 years since they spent any time together. Not as chummy, but not 100% cold shoulder either.

The film works hard to explain differences in the life of Connor from first movie to series/last movie, doing a pretty good job, it does seem rushed, and a little contrived, but it worked. Like most Sci-Fi/Fantasy stories, the more they try to explain 'how things work' the deeper and deeper they dig themselves into a hole. This creates one of the silliest or most confusion elements of the story: transference of Quickening. Which annoyed many viewers.

Overall, for a fan of the series, this should be an enjoyable film. For fans of the original film, it may be disappointing. Personally, I am holding out for a movie version of a rumored screenplay: a biopic of Juan Sanchez Villalobos Ramirez, that Spanish Peacock!!! (Maybe Connery can be talked into it, but I won't hold my breath)

After the "Alien Experience" and the "Remake Sequel", "Highlander" producers decided to add two and two and get someone to write a marvellous script. They went on with the mathematics, and got together Christopher Lambert and Adrian Paul. The result is the long-expected good sequel to the first "Highlander", set after "The Series" ended.

Tired of the endless fights, Connor MacLeod enters the Sanctuary, a place where immortals can rest forever under the guard of the Watchers. However, an old foe of Connor releases him after killing all the other immortals in that place. Not pleased with this, this foe and his posse pays a visit to Duncan MacLeod, who gets away and looks for his clansman. Both MacLeods have sins to purge, and the time has come to do that.

Christopher Lambert, though intended to have a supportive role like Sean Connery in the original film, robs the movie. Though his Connor is hardly the same bad ass of the other films, it's by far the best performance in the film. Adrian Paul manages to lead the film well, like in the TV series. Bruce Payne, playing the embittered Jacob Kell, provides a fine interpretation that is however in the line of the other "Highlander" villains. Lisa Barbuscia as Kate MacLeod is somewhat fine, but I'm inclined to believe the only reason "Fishlips" got cast is her willingness to show her breasts.

The character of the film is indeed Jin Ke, played by Donnie Yen. However brief his presence on screen may be, he manages to give a very good impression, as well as some action. Another two characters worth mentioning are Rachel (the late Sheila Gish) and Heather (Beatie Edney), who appear again in a "Highlander" film. Briefly, but it's something.

Why don't I give it a 10? First, the first film (which indeed deserves a 10) is superior to this one. Secondly, the editing of the film is weak. It's not the one of "Highlander II: The Quickening" but this one has some big flaws. In any case, "Highlander Endgame" is a great film, with more action and entertainment than the other sequels, and it's a great choice even for non fans.

Seven!

it was a pretty dull movie with really poor action sequences, but those scenes involving the one and only Donnie Yen made it worth while to watch. i never did watch the series so i was totally lost with all this "watcher" and "sanctuary" crap.

My apologies for the awful joke above, but I do feel it was a just one in this case. Especially as this film is very much a bad joke. A poor and disjointed effort. A foul punch-line.

"Highlander" is a superb and woefully underrated fantasy adventure released in 1986. A high-concept swashbuckler, the film followed the notion that throughout history, a race of immortals have slowly risen- their everlasting life often the result of a traumatic original "death." Now undying, these figures have lived among us for centuries. But it comes at a cost- immortals are destined to eternal battle, only able to be killed through decapitation. Once one is slayed, their powers, memories and abilities are absorbed by the victor through a mysterious transfer known as "the quickening." In the end, there can be only one, and the last remaining immortal will be bestowed with "the gift"- an enigmatic ability that goes largely unexplained throughout the series. However, should the gift be bestowed upon one with a treacherous heart, it may very well spell a dark future for the world...

Part of the issue with the "Highlander" universe is that by virtue of the story, it's not a concept that supports the idea of a franchise. It's a one-off adventure. A self-contained tale with a distinct beginning and end. And through trying to endlessly sequalize the franchise with follow- ups, spin-offs and even animated series, it leads to an ever-growing level of contrivance and convolution. And nowhere is that more apparent than in 2000's "Highlander: Endgame."

An attempt to close the gap between the outstanding original film and the admittedly fun television franchise, we follow original movie hero Connor (Christopher Lambert) and television series lead Duncan (Adrian Paul) MacLeod, two immortals born in the Scottish Highlands centuries ago. Connor has grown cold and disconnected, as an evil immortal from his past called Jacob Kell (Bruce Payne) has been following him through the ages, and has began killing off those he holds dearest. Duncan soon learns of this treacherous villain, and of another revelation- an immortal who was once his own wife (Lisa Barbuscia) is one Kell's most devout followers. And so, our two immortal protagonists must band together to try and stop this deadly threat... but at what cost?

To give what little credit is due, there is a bit of fun to be had from time to time. Adrian Paul seems to be having an absolute blast, and there's a handful of entertaining flashback sequences to his adventures with Connor throughout the ages. It is these scenes where Lambert also is able to loosen up, and the two share a nice chemistry. It's also great fun seeing Martial Arts superstar Donnie Yen in one of his earlier American roles as one of Kell's followers. And a few of the new concepts introduced, while half-baked, are intriguing enough for long-time series fans and help expand the universe a bit.

However, any fun to be had stops with these limited and highly infrequent sequences. The script courtesy Joel Soisson is a fundamental mess. As is standard with the film franchise, continuity is thrown right out the window, with the film constantly and consistently contradicting not only previous films, but even elements from the television series. Many scenes feel forced and abrupt, and there's no real sense of pacing to be had. It's both jarring and boring all at once, causing you to check out almost instantly and never look back.

Performances outside of Paul are routinely foul and never connect with the audience. While he is given the occasional light-hearted flashback, Lambert is otherwise settled with dreary material as a man hollow from his loses, and comes off as all too bland. A real shame given how powerful he was earlier in the franchise. Barbuscia is just flat as a pancake, lacking charisma or emotion in what is merely a substandard love interest. And Payne. My god, Payne. The man doesn't chew the scenery... he swallows it whole. Alternatingly shouting and whispering his lines on a whim and over-emphasizing words at random, Payne is just a horrible joy to behold. Seriously, dude. Ease up on the caffeine!

But at least the action is good, right? Nope! Director Doug Aarniokoski seems in over his head, with the entire film imploding around him. He has no sense of style or scope, and his direction lacks basic composition and flow. Shot after piled on shot are all just bland and often uninspired, relying on first-year film-student logic, with little thought or effort. Key moments in the film lack dramatic weight or impact as a result of the haphazard staging. And even the action comes off as boring, with an over-reliance on static wide shots mixed with hilariously misjudged uses of visual effects and slow-motion. I can only assume at least once, the camera crew was confusingly told: "Well if we put the one camera somewhere vaguely over on the one side of the room... and then put another one at the other end of the room facing the opposite direction and maybe with a different lens, we can kinda cut between them and make a scene, I think? That's how directing works, right?"

The really hilarious thing though is two rather amusing side-notes to the film. First, even though it's still a mess, the DVD release has an unfinished workprint available as a special feature, with the intent of showing the audience how much a movie can change during production. And the kicker? The workprint, even in its unfinished state is a significantly better film that the final version! And the second: even the trailer was incompetent, being comprised mostly of fake footage created specifically to sell the film without being in it!

If you have to use fake footage to get people into the theater, you know your film is a mess. And so, "Highlander: Endgame" gets a very bad 3 out of 10.

Overall, this was not a bad flick. It's not quite as good as the first one, but is much better than the second. I'd have given it a higher rating than I did if they'd just left out the high speed kung fu stuff - it's too much like all the cheap Bruce Li rip off movies. Anyway, the story in this one is good and it tidies up everything rather nicely at the end. They do leave one thread hanging but I don't think that was to provide the backdrop for another film. I think this one's the last Highlander film - at least I hope so. I believe that the Highlander "thing" has gone about as far as it can. It would be difficult to come up with anything original for another film. Again, this film isn't bad at all and nearly makes up for the poor middle of this series. The tie-in between the film McLeod and the TV McLeod was handled very well, I thought. I really liked the first film and I like this one pretty well also.