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?
Previous 
Next 
Categories
Tag Cloud
Blog RSS
Comments RSS
Last 50 Posts
Back
Void 
Life 
Earth 
Wind 
Water 
Fire
Isn’t Duncan the character from the TV series?
That presupposes that I’ve ever actually watched the TV show. 🙂
LOL! Well, I assumed there had to be a reason you would suddenly watch a set of lame sequels. My presupposition is withdrawn. 🙂
That actually reminds me of the Halloween series of movies, which were mostly lame after 2, until H2O, which was moderately okay. 4 and 5 were unbelievably BAD, and I don’t even know why I watched them, except that maybe I was really bored, or it was the train-wreck effect. But the events in one of those two, leave us with Jamie Lee Curtis’ character of Laurie dead (not in that movie, but having already been, apparently)…but in H2O, she’s alive, and has a kid.
There are times it’s never a good idea to watch the sequels.