08 Jun 2003 @ 4:16 PM 

Considering the first movie was relatively coherent and straightforward, what’s up with the sequels?

I just got done watching Highlander 2 and Highlander 4 today. For whatever reason (I’ve heard it was laughably bad), Sci-Fi Channel didn’t play the third one.

In the second movie we learn that the immortals are not mysterious, that Ramirez had been keeping things from MacCleod back in the 16th Century, and that dead immortals return from the dead somehow. Also, it is implied that there have never been any other immortals on Earth until 2024. So, who were the bad guys in Movie 1?

In the fourth movie, we forget all about that alien shit, make the immortals mysterious again, throw away Ramirez entirely, and create somebody named Duncan that seems like an important person to have been omitted from the first movie. For that matter, the mother burning would have been something you’d think would have made an appearance in the first flick as well.

I think if I watch the third movie, it will just make me more confused. Did they decide to just tell four different stories with some of the same characters, but in completely different universes?

Posted By: Gary
Last Edit: 08 Jun 2003 @ 04:16 PM

EmailPermalinkComments (3)
Tags
Categories: Entertainment

 Last 50 Posts
Change Theme...
  • Users » 3
  • Posts/Pages » 2,265
  • Comments » 894
Change Theme...
  • VoidVoid « Default
  • LifeLife
  • EarthEarth
  • WindWind
  • WaterWater
  • FireFire
  • LightLight

MythTV



    No Child Pages.

Who is Bunk?



    No Child Pages.