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.
372 Reviews
CRITICS GET OVER IT. This is not a bad movie.
Vaseal12 July 2001
Well I have to say I am not as horrified as I thought I was going to be. Highlander Endgame as action movies go is not at all bad. The film has a nice pace; the acting OK, and the actions scenes are pretty good. (Best I have seen since the original Highlander) Overall this movie is pretty enjoyable.
Now that I have got that out of the way, what exactly annoys every film critic that sees this movie? Which is after all just a harmless piece of escapism. OH I've got it! . the story!!
What difference does it make that the Highlander movies did not follow each other? Why have the critics such a problem with the lack of continuity that is the enigma of the Highlander story.
Take them all as separate entities, DIFFERENT STORIES with the same characters. Like the TV show Sliders. I do see anyone having a problem there.
These movies are supposed to be fun. They are not going to change your life. And if you feel there are holes in the story line, just explain it to yourself as Conner did in the Highlander Endgame.
What is their reason for being?? Who knows, THEY JUST ARE?
Now that I have got that out of the way, what exactly annoys every film critic that sees this movie? Which is after all just a harmless piece of escapism. OH I've got it! . the story!!
What difference does it make that the Highlander movies did not follow each other? Why have the critics such a problem with the lack of continuity that is the enigma of the Highlander story.
Take them all as separate entities, DIFFERENT STORIES with the same characters. Like the TV show Sliders. I do see anyone having a problem there.
These movies are supposed to be fun. They are not going to change your life. And if you feel there are holes in the story line, just explain it to yourself as Conner did in the Highlander Endgame.
What is their reason for being?? Who knows, THEY JUST ARE?
Not the worst film ever. But not the best.
krypton_son6 June 2015
The Highlander series has these problems and more, being first a film franchise that started well and then went suddenly sickeningly wrong, then a syndicated TV show, and now again a film property. Moreover, the underlying concept behind it all — a global race of immortals locked in combat since the beginning of time — lends itself so easily to story and backstory permutations that the Highlander mythos has become a huge, convoluted tapestry that only the most hardcore fans can follow. Highlander: Endgame makes a valiant effort at cleaning things up, presumably to hand the films over to Adrian Paul (star of the TV series, whose producers, Davis/Panzer Productions, are at the helm here), but in the end it's just too massive a job. Nice fight scenes, though.
The nail in the coffin of the already confused Highlander Franchise.
Fenris Fil27 December 2007
Unfortunately the "Highlander" concept has been heavily tainted by multiple visions from a variety of people and a constant push from the money men to milk it for all it's worth. Each individual addition thus far, while reasonable in isolation managed to damage the overall reputation of this franchise and directly damage the quality of the original classic movie when the whole thing is considered together.
Now what they have done with this fourth movie is created something that can't even stand in isolation and when put together with everything else tears it all to pieces, spits on it and throws it in the bin, just for the sake of giving this particular piece some feeling of importance.
One of my biggest pet peeves with movie sequels is when the writers of the latest piece decide to essentially re-write the whole thing and ignore where others have taken us up until this point. For better or worse, we have been taken to a point and it is just arrogance to assume you can re-write it all better then those that have gone before, while it shows limited skill to not be able to work inside that framework. There are many ways they could have made a tie in between the TV series and all the movies work, but they chose to make this a partial reboot instead.
The Critical mistake they made was to belittle the original film. No franchise should dismiss the reason that it is a franchise. Although it would still annoy me, they could have gotten away with the partial reboot, if they had just ignored the 2nd and 3rd movie. They even would have gotten away with not fully following on from the series. But they couldn't resist messing with the original to the point that they almost totally dismissed the events of film as meaningless and so it's no surprise that this has scored the low rating it has here on the IMDb.
I watched the whole of the series as well as all the films and this movie fails to adequately fit in with any of it. One day I hope movie makers will learn that you either need to do a full reboot or get people capable of working with what they already have. Don't just let the new guys mess up everyone that went before them.
Now what they have done with this fourth movie is created something that can't even stand in isolation and when put together with everything else tears it all to pieces, spits on it and throws it in the bin, just for the sake of giving this particular piece some feeling of importance.
One of my biggest pet peeves with movie sequels is when the writers of the latest piece decide to essentially re-write the whole thing and ignore where others have taken us up until this point. For better or worse, we have been taken to a point and it is just arrogance to assume you can re-write it all better then those that have gone before, while it shows limited skill to not be able to work inside that framework. There are many ways they could have made a tie in between the TV series and all the movies work, but they chose to make this a partial reboot instead.
The Critical mistake they made was to belittle the original film. No franchise should dismiss the reason that it is a franchise. Although it would still annoy me, they could have gotten away with the partial reboot, if they had just ignored the 2nd and 3rd movie. They even would have gotten away with not fully following on from the series. But they couldn't resist messing with the original to the point that they almost totally dismissed the events of film as meaningless and so it's no surprise that this has scored the low rating it has here on the IMDb.
I watched the whole of the series as well as all the films and this movie fails to adequately fit in with any of it. One day I hope movie makers will learn that you either need to do a full reboot or get people capable of working with what they already have. Don't just let the new guys mess up everyone that went before them.
The latest installment in the ultimate revisionist back-story franchise
tar_palantir119 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Cinematically speaking, I think this deserves about 6 or 7 stars in the alternate reality where I had not seen the previous Highlander films, only the series. The original Highlander with Christopher Lambert was a classic. Highlander 2 was an abomination, riddled with internal (with regard to its own storyline) and external (with regard to the storyline of the original) inconsistencies; WORST SEQUEL EVER (move over Godfather 3) but still a pretty good flick in the alternate universe where I hadn't seen the first. Highlander 3 at least tried to reconcile itself with the original but still fell short of the original. When the TV series started, I kept wondering how they were going to stay true to H1; was the series going to end with Duncan going to meet his death at the hands of the Kurgan? Obviously not as revealed in the "Watchers" episode. Nevertheless I grew to like this new guy and the series although I stopped watching in season 4 (I've heard it really jumped the shark in season 5). I knew b4 I had even seen Endgame that the younger, hunkier one would survive...typical, shallow, predictable Hollywood outcome. At least it's clear there are still other immortals at (least one lesson was learned from the previous films).
"Highlander: Endgame"- Perhaps the filmmakers lost their heads a bit during production?
TedStixonAKAMaximumMadness15 November 2016
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.
"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.
Pleasantly good
owlglass14 October 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Loved the first movie. Hated the sequels (I pretend they were never made). Never saw the TV series, though I knew about 'Duncan'. I tackled the 'Endgame' DVD with trepidation. Now it's been added to my I-want-this-one-! List. Only problem: continuity. How did Connor get from being 'the One' to being 'just one' - and what's the deal with a whole plethora of these guys being around and more waiting? The series purportedly explains that. This I can live with. The movie itself made up for it very well. Lambert exited with grace and honour, and just in time before his age really becomes an issue. I didn't know much about Adrian Paul, but after Endgame I think he's an excellent 'successor' to Lambert. I also hope they leave 'Kate' in. It'd be a nice change to the tone and pace. So, it looks like there's still hope for the Highlander movie franchise - in that they don't have to be crap as they had been. They nicely resurrected the mystical air of the first movie and the villain had a nice motivation for his actions (revenge is a GREAT motivator - much better than lust for power!) and was a better villain than the Kurgan.
I noticed the overall negative comments from fans and critics alike. It's to be expected. Fans generally don't like change much (they usually want more of the same, and killing Connor off just HAD to rile them, never mind that it's the best thing they could do with the aging Lambert, who was definitely starting to look very tired), and critics are losers anyway (that's why they've become critics). Also, it seems to be that Adrian Paul brings an air of character-depth to the part that Lambert, as an actor, was never capable of exhibiting (not without signifcant overacting). So, all around it's a winner. And, contrary to my sentiments after the previous bad sequels now I want to see MORE 8)
I noticed the overall negative comments from fans and critics alike. It's to be expected. Fans generally don't like change much (they usually want more of the same, and killing Connor off just HAD to rile them, never mind that it's the best thing they could do with the aging Lambert, who was definitely starting to look very tired), and critics are losers anyway (that's why they've become critics). Also, it seems to be that Adrian Paul brings an air of character-depth to the part that Lambert, as an actor, was never capable of exhibiting (not without signifcant overacting). So, all around it's a winner. And, contrary to my sentiments after the previous bad sequels now I want to see MORE 8)
I spent money on this?
cwp-25 September 2000
The trailer for this movie had me excited; I love the original movie, and the sequels thus far were less than exceptional. I should have known better, though. Offhand, I can't think of any movie which is the 4th in a series and which is worth seeing. Highlander: Endgame is no exception. The plot is predictable and the acting, marginal. No effort is made to tie up any loose ends or explain why the story went from "there can be only one" to "there can be only one, except for all these other folks." The movie is uninspiring, full of moronic jokes and trite dialog, and worst of all: it's boring. The fight scenes, with one exception, are as formulaic and predictable as the plot. Sadly, though, they're the best part of the movie.
Major disappointment
Max10136 September 2000
I saw the trailer for this film a few months ago and was very excited. It looked like this may be the final installment of the Highlander series, and surely, it would be one of the best.
Opening night I had my doubts as most theaters in my area only had 1 or 2 showtimes - odd for an opening night, I thought. I was a bit skeptical.
The film seemed to jump around a lot. It was hard to follow and did not seem to be very fluid. Lambert was good, as was Paul, however, this was not enough to save a weak plot and cheesy one liners. I was extremely disappointed in this film. One movie goer even made the comment - "Gee, it was almost as good as the second one." Which, most fans would agree, was a disaster.
I really was hoping this would be the grand finale of them all, but was left thinking "that was lame."
Opening night I had my doubts as most theaters in my area only had 1 or 2 showtimes - odd for an opening night, I thought. I was a bit skeptical.
The film seemed to jump around a lot. It was hard to follow and did not seem to be very fluid. Lambert was good, as was Paul, however, this was not enough to save a weak plot and cheesy one liners. I was extremely disappointed in this film. One movie goer even made the comment - "Gee, it was almost as good as the second one." Which, most fans would agree, was a disaster.
I really was hoping this would be the grand finale of them all, but was left thinking "that was lame."
Finally a sequel
carlos_b8417 August 2005
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!
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!
Best since the first one for fans, but non fans beware!!!!!
Tin Man-54 September 2000
About five minutes into "Highlander: Endgame," the last film in the franchise which has given "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" a run for the money in the most "unique" fans, I realized that in the Highlander series, there are two separate universes that exist: The universe in which Connor MacLeod (Christopher Lambert) became the final immortal and won the prize in 1986 (in the first film), and the one where, in the year 2000, the fight is still going on. In this universe, which was established in the TV series, Duncan MacLeod, Connor's younger brother (Adrian Paul) is the runner up for the prize, the major fight that took place in the first film was not the final battle between the last two immortals left, but merely one of many battles that were still to come.
This film takes place in the latter series, and the final battle is at hand at long last, and it's down to two good immortals: Connor and Duncan, and an ancient, evil immortal (Bruce Payne) who has a posse of other immortals following him like he's some kind of anti-christ. He's also got a deadly agenda against Connor for something that took place in the past. It's cleverly written, so I dare not give anything away.
"Endgame" is a sequel to the first film as it took place in the TV series' universe, and a continuation of the TV show, which went off air some two years ago. In order to fully appretiate this film, the viewer needs to be familiar with both...and like them. Otherwise, he or she will get confused and bored. Make no mistake: It is a film by Highlander fans FOR Highlander fans, and little explanation is given for anything in this, because it assumes that anyone watching will be familiar with the premise and the rules of the immortal game upon entering the theater.
As a serious film critic, I found the first film to be a masterpiece. Combining full-throttle thrills, an excellent premise, and top-rate performances, Highlander introduced us to the world of the immortals, and the premise was so thought-provoking that it drew the viewer in, and it made it easy for he or she to suspend their disbelief, if only for two hours. It deservedly joined the rank of "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" as one of the most successful and influential sci-fi films ever written. The second film didn't do so well, but the director's cut was definitely worth watching. "The Final Dimension" was a poor entry, and it was the last to take place in Connor's world, where he became the final immortal and took the prize.
With all of this said, as a fan of the first film, I can tell you that if you liked it, you will fall in love with "Highlander: Endgame." It's name implies that it is the final chapter, and it is, but not to the film series....no, this is the final chapter in the TV show, and it nicely caps the series. It is a most satisfactory wrap-up, with all the elements that made the first film and the TV show successful: Great camera-work, intruiging characters, flashbacks from all around the world, engaging conflicts, and some of the finest sword-fighting sequences that I have ever seen put to film. And the surprise ending in which one of the MacLeods makes the ultimate sacrifice will leave no fan with a dry eye (and if you are a fan who's seen it already, DON'T PANIC! Remember, this is not the same universe as that of the film series!).
There are also some nice touches that only fans will enjoy: It was wonderful to see Heather, Connor's old wife, again, if only for a few brief moments. Watching the training sequences between Connor and Duncan are also well-written (and NOT a rip off of the stuff seen between Connor and Ramirez in the first film). The different aspects of immortality that are explored are nothing short of ingenious, and the characters of both Connor and Duncan are very nicely developed. Joe and Methos's cameos from the TV show are also appretiated.
If you're not a fan, walk away slowly with your hands raised in the air. If you like the series of films and the TV show, enjoy this gem which nicely seals the Highlander universe. Indeed,for those of us who have come to realize that "there can be only one," this might be the best film of the summer!
***1/2 out of **** (best since the original).
This film takes place in the latter series, and the final battle is at hand at long last, and it's down to two good immortals: Connor and Duncan, and an ancient, evil immortal (Bruce Payne) who has a posse of other immortals following him like he's some kind of anti-christ. He's also got a deadly agenda against Connor for something that took place in the past. It's cleverly written, so I dare not give anything away.
"Endgame" is a sequel to the first film as it took place in the TV series' universe, and a continuation of the TV show, which went off air some two years ago. In order to fully appretiate this film, the viewer needs to be familiar with both...and like them. Otherwise, he or she will get confused and bored. Make no mistake: It is a film by Highlander fans FOR Highlander fans, and little explanation is given for anything in this, because it assumes that anyone watching will be familiar with the premise and the rules of the immortal game upon entering the theater.
As a serious film critic, I found the first film to be a masterpiece. Combining full-throttle thrills, an excellent premise, and top-rate performances, Highlander introduced us to the world of the immortals, and the premise was so thought-provoking that it drew the viewer in, and it made it easy for he or she to suspend their disbelief, if only for two hours. It deservedly joined the rank of "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" as one of the most successful and influential sci-fi films ever written. The second film didn't do so well, but the director's cut was definitely worth watching. "The Final Dimension" was a poor entry, and it was the last to take place in Connor's world, where he became the final immortal and took the prize.
With all of this said, as a fan of the first film, I can tell you that if you liked it, you will fall in love with "Highlander: Endgame." It's name implies that it is the final chapter, and it is, but not to the film series....no, this is the final chapter in the TV show, and it nicely caps the series. It is a most satisfactory wrap-up, with all the elements that made the first film and the TV show successful: Great camera-work, intruiging characters, flashbacks from all around the world, engaging conflicts, and some of the finest sword-fighting sequences that I have ever seen put to film. And the surprise ending in which one of the MacLeods makes the ultimate sacrifice will leave no fan with a dry eye (and if you are a fan who's seen it already, DON'T PANIC! Remember, this is not the same universe as that of the film series!).
There are also some nice touches that only fans will enjoy: It was wonderful to see Heather, Connor's old wife, again, if only for a few brief moments. Watching the training sequences between Connor and Duncan are also well-written (and NOT a rip off of the stuff seen between Connor and Ramirez in the first film). The different aspects of immortality that are explored are nothing short of ingenious, and the characters of both Connor and Duncan are very nicely developed. Joe and Methos's cameos from the TV show are also appretiated.
If you're not a fan, walk away slowly with your hands raised in the air. If you like the series of films and the TV show, enjoy this gem which nicely seals the Highlander universe. Indeed,for those of us who have come to realize that "there can be only one," this might be the best film of the summer!
***1/2 out of **** (best since the original).
A final(?) piece of a brilliant puzzle.
bdparsons1 September 2000
The last installment of the Highlander movie series is a brilliant blend of the original movie and the popular television characters. The story line is weaved through past history (as Highlander fans have come to expect) and picks up where the television series ended. It still stands alone as a movie in itself, though I will admit it may be hard for a non-highlander fan to grasp all of the concepts that are thrown at them. All in all, Davis/Panzer have once again given credit to this wonderful science fiction series by watching the details of the character's pasts and still creating unknown events in their lives. This is the beauty of this series, just when you think you know the character something pops up from their past. This will be an emotional movie for diehard Highlander fans, just as the "To Be/Not to Be" t.v. finale was. In my opinion, even though this is dubbed as the final act of this series, there is still one minor issue that still remains....there can be only be one!
the movie that separated highlander fans
gianpa28 February 2001
this movie was one of the better tries at a highlander sequel, which it is not... For those of you introduced to highlander with the series the movie may be quite good, but if you are a fan of the original film this movie will disappoint you. take note that this is highlander: Endgame not Highlander IV or 4 the numeral was cleverly omitted for obvious reasons...here all things go... Personally I do not think the film merrits a theatrical release I think that a mini-series would of been a better format providing more time and better care of the characters... PS I saw the so called New Cut which runs Apprx. 1hr 32 min from the time the title is seen to when the credits start rolling... This is not the end?
Gimme the prize or gimme death!
fmarkland3231 July 2006
Duncan McCleod(Adrian Paul) searches (For eternity it feels like) for his brother Connor(Christopher Lambert) who has dropped out of the game, however when Jacob Kell(Bruce Payne) an evil immortal who has more quickenings than them, needs to be stopped, it's up to the McCleods to join forces to take him out and while I won't spoil the ending, we'll just say that it contradicts everything that came before it. Highlander Endgame was made I'm guessing for fans of the TV show while I never tuned in for the show (It was on USA network, after Silk Stalkings for goodness sake!) I figured this would be the best sequel since it had the most going for it. One it would tie up the conclusion of the TV show, it could work as a prequel to everything before and overall you would have at least a coherent sequel. Then came an ending that comes so out of nowhere you are left to ponder exactly how it could possibly work. The answer is, it doesn't. I understand Lambert is getting older but seriously how many Highlander fans can there be left by 2000 after the show was canceled for some time and the last movie was made six years before? It is of course some bright executive who thought, hey let's get Adrian Paul to take over this exhausted series since he doesn't cost as much as Lambert to hire and say let's completely contradict the series all together. I admit Lambert is no great actor but he is leaps and bounds far more charismatic than Adrian Paul and although thankfully we are spared another Lambert sex sequence, we are left to watch Paul interact with his girlfriend in the movie, in scenes so embarrassing, that had it gotten more press, this would have been a Razzie contender for worst performance of the year. Endgame despite being a very bad movie, is at least better than The Quickening but I say that if you really want a good movie about immortals, check out the original.
* out of 4-(Bad)
* out of 4-(Bad)
Lambert is ONLY 2 YEARS older then Paul!!!!
Me Grimlock15 April 2003
All you people saying that the Christopher Lambert is too old to play an immortal should realize that he is only 2 years older then Adrian Paul!!! My God, some of you act like Lambert is 20 years Paul's senior! These guys are basically the same age, so if you call Lambert old, then you are calling Paul old. Lambert is 45 years old, and Paul is 43. At the time of this movie's release in 2000, Lambert was 43 and Paul was 41. Some generational gap eh? If Lambert looked sickly, then it's because he is suffering from myopia, a condition he has always had that has been getting worse.
I stated this in a comment I posted on IMDB.com's "Highlander The Series" section and I will state it here. Christopher Lambert is the superior actor to Adrian Paul. Not only that, but I prefer Lambert's Connor MacLeod to Paul's Duncan MacCleod. I found Connor to be an everyman character, while Paul was an over the top, over manly character. Adrian Paul is so over hunky with that muscular body and pony-tail, that he is unintentionally hilarious. Paul looks like one of those male models spoofed in the movie ZOOLANDER. Come on, the guy looks like a male stripper that should be named "Rico" or something. Guys like Adrian Paul, Antonio Banderas and Lorenzo Lamas are so over hunky that they are all unintentionally hilarious. I know the ladies love Paul, but I found I could relate to Lambert/Connor far more then I could ever relate to Paul/Duncan. Connor was an everyman with a sense of humour, and yet at the same time he came across as well cultured and as well traveled as you would expect an immortal man to be. Duncan was an otherworldy and unreal character with little sense of humour. Duncan was too dark, too brooding. And yes I did find it insulting that the focus of the movie series moved to Duncan. To hell with Duncan, Connor is the real Highlander. I like the TV show, it's very well made and has far better writing and stories then Highlander II-IV ever had. But I wish the TV show revolved around Connor instead of Duncan, if it did it would have been more then a cult favorite. If the TV show was about Connor then it would have really been something on the scale of X-Files or Star Trek. Too bad it had to be about the over the top Duncan.
Long live Connor MacLeod!! The TRUE Highlander!!!!
I stated this in a comment I posted on IMDB.com's "Highlander The Series" section and I will state it here. Christopher Lambert is the superior actor to Adrian Paul. Not only that, but I prefer Lambert's Connor MacLeod to Paul's Duncan MacCleod. I found Connor to be an everyman character, while Paul was an over the top, over manly character. Adrian Paul is so over hunky with that muscular body and pony-tail, that he is unintentionally hilarious. Paul looks like one of those male models spoofed in the movie ZOOLANDER. Come on, the guy looks like a male stripper that should be named "Rico" or something. Guys like Adrian Paul, Antonio Banderas and Lorenzo Lamas are so over hunky that they are all unintentionally hilarious. I know the ladies love Paul, but I found I could relate to Lambert/Connor far more then I could ever relate to Paul/Duncan. Connor was an everyman with a sense of humour, and yet at the same time he came across as well cultured and as well traveled as you would expect an immortal man to be. Duncan was an otherworldy and unreal character with little sense of humour. Duncan was too dark, too brooding. And yes I did find it insulting that the focus of the movie series moved to Duncan. To hell with Duncan, Connor is the real Highlander. I like the TV show, it's very well made and has far better writing and stories then Highlander II-IV ever had. But I wish the TV show revolved around Connor instead of Duncan, if it did it would have been more then a cult favorite. If the TV show was about Connor then it would have really been something on the scale of X-Files or Star Trek. Too bad it had to be about the over the top Duncan.
Long live Connor MacLeod!! The TRUE Highlander!!!!
B-movie sequel debacle
Leofwine_draca25 July 2011
HIGHLANDER: ENDGAME is the worst HIGHLANDER film yet, and that's saying something considering the quality of the second and third film in this series. The main problem is that this film has the unwieldy task of tying together both the film and TV series, two entirely different beasts that just don't gel. The resultant film feels like a television movie or a longer episode of the series with Christopher Lambert in an extended cameo role.
It's hard to know what hurts this film more: the derivative script or the pitifully low budget. Certainly the dialogue is stale and the characters boring, with the storyline content to rehash tired concepts and formulas instead of bringing anything new to the table. Unsurprisingly it's Lambert's last appearance in the chronology, and you have to feel for him here: he's looking old and tired, his wind stolen by an actor who's both younger and better looking. Adrian Paul is okay, but speaking from the point of view of somebody who's never seen him act before he didn't really impress.
The story jolts from one historical flashback to the next, throwing in some cheesy bedroom sequences en route as well as the requisite number of swordfighting sequences. Bruce Payne pops up as – surprise, surprise – the bad guy, and he's really slumming it here, never really getting the chance to shine as the evil immortal madman that he plays. It's also slightly embarrassing to see Donnie Yen popping up in the role of a minor thug – knowing his abilities and stardom in China, his relegation to the sidelines here is nothing more than a slight and his frenetic martial arts work sits ill at ease with the mannered swordfighting found in the rest of the movie. The filmmakers desperately throw in some shoddy gore effects in an effort to attract viewers, but they can't disguise the fact that this is a movie that never should have been made.
It's hard to know what hurts this film more: the derivative script or the pitifully low budget. Certainly the dialogue is stale and the characters boring, with the storyline content to rehash tired concepts and formulas instead of bringing anything new to the table. Unsurprisingly it's Lambert's last appearance in the chronology, and you have to feel for him here: he's looking old and tired, his wind stolen by an actor who's both younger and better looking. Adrian Paul is okay, but speaking from the point of view of somebody who's never seen him act before he didn't really impress.
The story jolts from one historical flashback to the next, throwing in some cheesy bedroom sequences en route as well as the requisite number of swordfighting sequences. Bruce Payne pops up as – surprise, surprise – the bad guy, and he's really slumming it here, never really getting the chance to shine as the evil immortal madman that he plays. It's also slightly embarrassing to see Donnie Yen popping up in the role of a minor thug – knowing his abilities and stardom in China, his relegation to the sidelines here is nothing more than a slight and his frenetic martial arts work sits ill at ease with the mannered swordfighting found in the rest of the movie. The filmmakers desperately throw in some shoddy gore effects in an effort to attract viewers, but they can't disguise the fact that this is a movie that never should have been made.
forget this movie
ggamiog7 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I don't like this movie. It destroy any consistency of the Highlander movie's universe.
They killed the hero. The producers ruined the original concept made by G. Widen.
The movie has not the mystery of H1. That seems a simple action movie with karate noises.
I think G.Widen should be angry with this movie. He leaved the project when knew they decided kill Connor.
Without Connor, the highlander idea has no sense.
Its a bad chapter of the series. Just that.
They killed the hero. The producers ruined the original concept made by G. Widen.
The movie has not the mystery of H1. That seems a simple action movie with karate noises.
I think G.Widen should be angry with this movie. He leaved the project when knew they decided kill Connor.
Without Connor, the highlander idea has no sense.
Its a bad chapter of the series. Just that.
An Honest Review
generationofswine16 December 2016
So 14 years have passed since the first Highlander movie...in which Connor won the prize but yet still spawned 2 horrible sequels that retconned it and then retconned it again.
But in that time they created Highlander the Series...with Duncan and that was actually good. It still ignored the fact that Connor already won the game, but it stayed a heck of a lot truer to the original and was actually amazingly good up until the final season...which was made to find a spin-off and it showed.
But because the series was so good, and had so many fans from the first Highlander movie and developed so many fans of their own...they decided to make a movie...
...Again...
Connor was in the first episode of the TV series, but it really came into it's own in the 6 years that followed and...well...it grew apart from the original film.
Plus, despite the fact that 14 years had passed between Highlander and Highlander End Game, Christopher Lambert who plays Connor aged 50 years and he's supposed to be playing an ageless immortal.
It really could have done without him. It should have done without him.
But they threw him in there anyway.
And they tried to twist a story around the both of them, Connor and Duncan that never exactly worked. Whilst doing this, they sacrificed screen time for the supporting cast of the TV series that the fans all came to know and love.
What they gave was a promise of turning the series into a movie franchise. What they returned was a movie that was afraid to let Duncan and the supporting cast stand alone (even though they did for 6 years) and made a film about an aging immortal and his cousin.
Needless to say it failed and the producers, making just as many mistakes as they had in Highlander II--albeit entirely new ones--and in the process lost the opportunity to make the series into a movie franchise.
Had they stayed with the theme of the television show, stayed true to those types of stories, it all would have gone over better. There were more stories to tell and they had a great cast to use.
They blew it.
But in that time they created Highlander the Series...with Duncan and that was actually good. It still ignored the fact that Connor already won the game, but it stayed a heck of a lot truer to the original and was actually amazingly good up until the final season...which was made to find a spin-off and it showed.
But because the series was so good, and had so many fans from the first Highlander movie and developed so many fans of their own...they decided to make a movie...
...Again...
Connor was in the first episode of the TV series, but it really came into it's own in the 6 years that followed and...well...it grew apart from the original film.
Plus, despite the fact that 14 years had passed between Highlander and Highlander End Game, Christopher Lambert who plays Connor aged 50 years and he's supposed to be playing an ageless immortal.
It really could have done without him. It should have done without him.
But they threw him in there anyway.
And they tried to twist a story around the both of them, Connor and Duncan that never exactly worked. Whilst doing this, they sacrificed screen time for the supporting cast of the TV series that the fans all came to know and love.
What they gave was a promise of turning the series into a movie franchise. What they returned was a movie that was afraid to let Duncan and the supporting cast stand alone (even though they did for 6 years) and made a film about an aging immortal and his cousin.
Needless to say it failed and the producers, making just as many mistakes as they had in Highlander II--albeit entirely new ones--and in the process lost the opportunity to make the series into a movie franchise.
Had they stayed with the theme of the television show, stayed true to those types of stories, it all would have gone over better. There were more stories to tell and they had a great cast to use.
They blew it.
Do not see this movie(spoiler alert)
Terror X7 September 2000
Warning: Spoilers
This movie might have been given an average rating if "They did not totally destroy the first 3 movies plots by killing off Conner MacLeod(Christopher Lambert's Character)." Destroying history via a time travel paradox still would not be a viable reason for saying that I wasted my money seeing the first 3 movies. They way this movie ended was a joke. It ends like any other highlander kill. Where is the climax, that which ties the actions of the movie together. If there was one then it was so weak that I blew by me. And I see a lot of movies and I am usually pretty forgiving but this was a waste of my time and money as well as everyone involved from concept to movie-goer.
There should have been only one...
Geist_4207 September 2000
Warning: Spoilers
One word review. WHY?!
The first one was GREAT. I love it. This movie was as bad as the 2nd one. <shudders>. Ok, the sword-fighting was a little better, and the Sanctuary was a good idea, but it was still BAD. <SPOILER> What's up with the lame morphing?! Since when does that happen? What about the EHRT? (Emergency Highlander Response Team) -=LOL=- Duncan falls out a window, lands on some rebar in cement and within minutes, a group of "Watchers" is there with just the right tools to cut him out fast... lol. A database that tracks the kills of Immortals? From thousands of years ago!?
Also, now we know that an Immortal can make another person immortal by simply stabbing them in the chest and watching them die. Right. Ooookayyy...
Please, if you truly love the first movie, save your money. If you HAVE to see it, rent it.
The first one was GREAT. I love it. This movie was as bad as the 2nd one. <shudders>. Ok, the sword-fighting was a little better, and the Sanctuary was a good idea, but it was still BAD. <SPOILER> What's up with the lame morphing?! Since when does that happen? What about the EHRT? (Emergency Highlander Response Team) -=LOL=- Duncan falls out a window, lands on some rebar in cement and within minutes, a group of "Watchers" is there with just the right tools to cut him out fast... lol. A database that tracks the kills of Immortals? From thousands of years ago!?
Also, now we know that an Immortal can make another person immortal by simply stabbing them in the chest and watching them die. Right. Ooookayyy...
Please, if you truly love the first movie, save your money. If you HAVE to see it, rent it.
Attention span and open mind required.
mstomaso8 July 2005
Serialized films and novels focusing on seemingly endless possibilities (Anne Rice's Vampires, Highlander, Star Trek, etc) run the risk of alienating all non-fans to the point of becoming hideous insularities and trite clichés, where Highlander Endgame succeeds in committing itself to being the last, and the only worthy successor to the original. There can be only one? Well, only in legends and other fantasies.
Highlander Endgame is so much more interesting than I expected it to be, that I had a very hard time deciding where to begin this review. This is neither an end to the TV series, nor an end to the movie franchise but rather, a redemption of both - succeeding where the preceding sequels failed so miserably. However, despite and because of this redemption - it is, simply, an end. That said - be forewarned - this is not easy to follow and, frankly, not easy. The key elements of this film are its furious pace and satisfying back-story creating the history of the relationship between Connor and Duncan. The action sequences are good, and well filmed, and the acting is a touch above the norm for this series.
If you pay attention and commit yourself to this film, you will probably find that it pays off much more powerfully than you expected, whether or not you were a fan or the original film or the TV series. Sure, this is a fan film. But, despite the insider themes, and the soap-opera complexity of some aspects of this, an attentive viewer will find food for thought and plenty to entertain. Maybe I'm insane, but maybe this film will be recognized in ten or fifteen years for the quality it brought back to a great imaginative fiction franchise.
Highlander Endgame is so much more interesting than I expected it to be, that I had a very hard time deciding where to begin this review. This is neither an end to the TV series, nor an end to the movie franchise but rather, a redemption of both - succeeding where the preceding sequels failed so miserably. However, despite and because of this redemption - it is, simply, an end. That said - be forewarned - this is not easy to follow and, frankly, not easy. The key elements of this film are its furious pace and satisfying back-story creating the history of the relationship between Connor and Duncan. The action sequences are good, and well filmed, and the acting is a touch above the norm for this series.
If you pay attention and commit yourself to this film, you will probably find that it pays off much more powerfully than you expected, whether or not you were a fan or the original film or the TV series. Sure, this is a fan film. But, despite the insider themes, and the soap-opera complexity of some aspects of this, an attentive viewer will find food for thought and plenty to entertain. Maybe I'm insane, but maybe this film will be recognized in ten or fifteen years for the quality it brought back to a great imaginative fiction franchise.
Immortal villains overact so much....
FlashCallahan5 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Connor Macleod is back, and this time he's brought the English bloke from the TV series with him. When his friend Rachel is killed, he gets all misty, and goes to a place called The Sanctury, which is like The Colony from Double Team.
Then the confusion kicks in, which is just what you'd expect from a Highlander movie.
You see, Lambert killed Bruce Paynes dad, so Payne has taken his time getting revenge, and now wants it. He has a few hench men, and Paul is along for the ride, because the show was quite successful.
Immortals are not supposed to age, but what really distracts you from the film is how different Lambert looks in this dreadful movie.
It's not the fact that he's aged, it all happens to us, but its the fact that he looks like he has a rare skin condition, and it really takes you away from the paper thin narrative.
If you've seen Bruce Payne in any other film, you know that he is a pantomime villain, but he is the best thing in this, and really lifts the film whenever he's in it.
Paul is in it for no other reason than to fight Lambert, and for both Highlander completists, this is something big.
For everyone else though, its a really poor sequel to an average film, with trashy effects.
At least Highlander 2 was funny....
Then the confusion kicks in, which is just what you'd expect from a Highlander movie.
You see, Lambert killed Bruce Paynes dad, so Payne has taken his time getting revenge, and now wants it. He has a few hench men, and Paul is along for the ride, because the show was quite successful.
Immortals are not supposed to age, but what really distracts you from the film is how different Lambert looks in this dreadful movie.
It's not the fact that he's aged, it all happens to us, but its the fact that he looks like he has a rare skin condition, and it really takes you away from the paper thin narrative.
If you've seen Bruce Payne in any other film, you know that he is a pantomime villain, but he is the best thing in this, and really lifts the film whenever he's in it.
Paul is in it for no other reason than to fight Lambert, and for both Highlander completists, this is something big.
For everyone else though, its a really poor sequel to an average film, with trashy effects.
At least Highlander 2 was funny....
Very Underrated, Brilliant Performance.
Gerrit-KvdH27 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Fantastic End to the Game Played,
By Jakob Kell and Connor and Duncan MacLeod.
The Fierce Hatred Between the two Past Frends (Connor and Jakob)Reaches an Epic Climax in witch Connor and Duncan must Become "One", to defeat Jakob.
Lisa Barbuscia also had her part but wasn't that Impressive at all.
Usually i Highlight The Performance Of A Beautiful Women, But the fact is She was Just another One Of The Cast.
She Looked Pretty but that was all.
Jakob Kell betrayed his Best Friend Connor MacLeod. And then When Connor Tryed To Save his Mother Helped, The People ho were Trying to Burn her.
Connor then Killed Both Jakob as his Priest Father. And an Infuriated Jakob Swore Revenge.
Connor Knew That he was Inmortal.
But also knew that a simple Chop of His Head would take that away.
His Great Brother Duncan, fought in The Great War.
Then Connor Picked him Up and Explained him about his Immortality.
The Two Brothers Began Collecting Immortal Kills and were both about 360 Something of Confirmed Immortal Kills.
But Connor also Knew that Jakob Kell was Getting Stronger And Stronger with a Total Over the 620 Confirmed Immortal Kills.
Kell's Ultimate Goal was to get revenge On Connor By Killing Everone Ho meant Something to Connor, and then to complete his Revenge by Killing Connor as They would Be Only Ones Left To Make the Humiliation even Worse.
In the end He would Be Stopped by the Brotherhood Double Of Duncan and Connor ho became One.
Overall the Scottish Passion was Great and The Mix in Styles When People Fought Showed Great Strengh in Depfh.
Thats why it is a Mystery to me why this Movie is So Harshly Underrated.
It was a Great Movie.
And Truly End Game.
My Score : 10 -
Groeten Gerrit
By Jakob Kell and Connor and Duncan MacLeod.
The Fierce Hatred Between the two Past Frends (Connor and Jakob)Reaches an Epic Climax in witch Connor and Duncan must Become "One", to defeat Jakob.
Lisa Barbuscia also had her part but wasn't that Impressive at all.
Usually i Highlight The Performance Of A Beautiful Women, But the fact is She was Just another One Of The Cast.
She Looked Pretty but that was all.
Jakob Kell betrayed his Best Friend Connor MacLeod. And then When Connor Tryed To Save his Mother Helped, The People ho were Trying to Burn her.
Connor then Killed Both Jakob as his Priest Father. And an Infuriated Jakob Swore Revenge.
Connor Knew That he was Inmortal.
But also knew that a simple Chop of His Head would take that away.
His Great Brother Duncan, fought in The Great War.
Then Connor Picked him Up and Explained him about his Immortality.
The Two Brothers Began Collecting Immortal Kills and were both about 360 Something of Confirmed Immortal Kills.
But Connor also Knew that Jakob Kell was Getting Stronger And Stronger with a Total Over the 620 Confirmed Immortal Kills.
Kell's Ultimate Goal was to get revenge On Connor By Killing Everone Ho meant Something to Connor, and then to complete his Revenge by Killing Connor as They would Be Only Ones Left To Make the Humiliation even Worse.
In the end He would Be Stopped by the Brotherhood Double Of Duncan and Connor ho became One.
Overall the Scottish Passion was Great and The Mix in Styles When People Fought Showed Great Strengh in Depfh.
Thats why it is a Mystery to me why this Movie is So Harshly Underrated.
It was a Great Movie.
And Truly End Game.
My Score : 10 -
Groeten Gerrit
Could have been better, but not exactly something to miss.
principessa_kitana28 June 2001
I have to say that after watching the series, I expected something better. But, overall, it was pretty good. It's not a sequel to the previous three movies, but to the series. The only part that I was really disappointed with was that we saw too little of Methos (Peter Wingfield) and Joe Dawson (Jim Byrnes). I'd give the movie a 7/10.
What a terrible waste of film
Ford Prefect3 September 2000
This movie does not deserve to have the Highlander name attached to it. The concept of the movie was to finally put an end to both the movie and TV show story lines but it fails in these attempts.
The directing was terrible, but not as bad as the writing. The movie starts out slow and then jumps to the end without any proper progression. Suddenly the movie is over and you are left with a big feeling of disappointment.
The movie fails to tie up to the TV series, which it couldn't have done because there were to many immortals to deal with from the show. Joe and Methos play such minor roles that they might have well been left out for all they did.
Edge from the WWF is in one scene plays a useless role, and isn't even an immortal who gets his head cut off as he has hinted.
All in all this movie is one of the biggest waists of time, maybe the director's cut will be better, but at this point this movie ranks only slightly above number 2.
The directing was terrible, but not as bad as the writing. The movie starts out slow and then jumps to the end without any proper progression. Suddenly the movie is over and you are left with a big feeling of disappointment.
The movie fails to tie up to the TV series, which it couldn't have done because there were to many immortals to deal with from the show. Joe and Methos play such minor roles that they might have well been left out for all they did.
Edge from the WWF is in one scene plays a useless role, and isn't even an immortal who gets his head cut off as he has hinted.
All in all this movie is one of the biggest waists of time, maybe the director's cut will be better, but at this point this movie ranks only slightly above number 2.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
