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

"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!

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