In the fourth and
supposed final film, “Highlander: Endgame,” released in 2000, the Scottish
immortal from the series, Connor MacLeod (Christopher Lambert), finally teams
up with his brother, Duncan (Adrian Paul), the protagonist of the TV show, to
fight against an immortal named Jacob Kell (Bruce Payne) to stop him from
absorbing every immortal power and using it for evil.
Eric D. Snider said in
his review, “Or at least that’s what the trailers and promotional materials
tell us.” Actually, Connor and Duncan don’t choose to fight Kell (or even
completely see they have to) until about the last act. Once they’ve decided
that, the actual winning against Kell is a really automatic role, with no
actual suspense at all.
Snider noted, “What
happens before all that is a lot of jumping through time, to show us vignettes
from the immortals’ lives over the past few centuries, often stylishly filmed
but never amounting to anything.” We know that Connor is really livid at Kell
for ordering Connor’s mother, played by June Watson, burned at the stake. We
also know that Kell is just as ticked at Connor for killing Kell’s foster
father, played by Donald Douglas, while he was trying to save his mother.
If that’s not all for
the revenge to last 500 years, there’s also Duncan’s promise. It looks like he
married a woman named Kate, played by Lisa Barbuscia, who had the chance to be
immortal like him – a nice deal, since she would end up getting old and dying,
which would leave him lonely. To make her immortal, he stabbed her in the chest
(the movie does not explain how, exactly, killing someone makes them immortal).
Now she’ll never die, which is NOT something she wanted, and that makes her
really mad. She even decides to team up with Kell’s group of immortals who go
around creating fear and trying to kill the MacLeods.
For those who may not
remember or know, the only way to kill an immortal is to behead them with a
sword. Snider said, “Of course, this stretches the definition of “immortal” —
“not subject to death” — but you go along with it with “Highlander” out of
politeness.”
Snider continued, “What
you’re not liable to go along with is “Highlander: Endgame’s” random method of
storytelling and the inclusion of things that simply don’t make much sense.”
(If they’re counting on everyone having seen the first three movies, they’re
wrong: the third movie grossed only $14 million, the second did $15 million,
even the original classic made only $6 million in theaters. To put it
otherwise, this is not “Star Wars,” where you can guarantee the audience
knowing the whole story.)
Snider noted, “Perhaps
if you’ve seen the other three films, you’ll know who Rachel is, and why she
was killed, and why Connor is so devastated by it that for 10 years he’s been
in a sort of rudimentary cryogenic “sanctuary.”” Maybe people can fill others
in on why, exactly, “in the end, there can be only one” – and if that’s it, how
there seems to be so many for such a lengthy time. At what point do we get to “the
end,” which must be the deadline where there has to be only one immortal
remaining? Snider answered, “I guess it’s the end of this movie, because that’s
when there’s only one left, and there are no prizes for guessing which one it
is.”
Kate complains about
being an immortal, complaining about “the endless, numbing sameness of it all.”
Snider ended by saying, “I know how she feels.”
This movie isn’t as bad
as the second, but it still is pretty atrocious. Who would have thought of
making all these sequels that don’t hold a candle to the original, which should
have been best left alone? I do remember seeing parts of the series as a kid,
but I never watched it, so I don’t know how good it was, but it has got to be
better then these sequels. Just do yourself a favor and never see this film.
Look out next week
where I look at the last two entries in “Highlander Month.”
No comments:
Post a Comment