What's with all the hate on for planet Zeist?

[Darrin Drader]

I don't get it. Highlander 2 is far and away the best Highlander movie in the series. It was good to get the background behind the immortals. The shield was an interesting plot device, and Michael Ironsides made a much better villain than the dude in the first one. Some of the scenes, such as the one where Sean Connery's character bought the farm, were incredibly deep and meaningful. Plus this one didn't have rampant flash-forwards and flashbacks.

Now I admit that the theatrical release kind of sucked, but the special edition more than makes up for it. By comparison #3 and #4 were absolutely horrid. I think they should have continued along the storyline they established in #2 rather than go off on more tangeants about immortals that somehow escaped the gathering.

And what's not cool about spikey alien immportals on flying skateboards? Movie gold, this is!

But I guess that's just my taste in movies.

 

[CCamfield]

*snicker*

I'm reminded of why I am happier not having seen any of the Highlander sequels.

 

[buzzard]

What a rotten time to forget the alchemist fire.

buzzard

 

[Starman]

*snicker*

I'm reminded of why I am happier not having seen any of the Highlander sequels.

Huh? I didn't realize there were any.

Starman

 

[Umbran]

It was good to get the background behind the immortals.

Okay, I'll take a stab at actually answering the topic question...

It was not good to get the background as presented in this movie. It took something that was wonderous and mysterious from the first movie, and reduced it to poor and unimaginative pseudo-science. Completely deflating the mystical nature of a favored movie is simply uncool.

Right up there with trying to give a scientific explanation to vampires and werewolves. Just let it be magical, goon writers!

 

[Welverin]

Okay, I'll take a stab at actually answering the topic question...

It was not good to get the background as presented in this movie. It took something that was wonderous and mysterious from the first movie, and reduced it to poor and unimaginative pseudo-science. Completely deflating the mystical nature of a favored movie is simply uncool.

Right up there with trying to give a scientific explanation to vampires and werewolves. Just let it be magical, goon writers!

Stop trolling!

 

[Crothian]

Ya, that wasn't even a good troll. Just waste of time troll

 

[Darrin Drader]

Hey, can't a guy like a movie without being called a troll? Imagine if I had started a thread talking about how I liked the Two Towers? Would that be a troll? Or is it that its OK to talk about liking some movies that have already been deemed worthy but not like other based on the relative unpopularity of that movie? So far I see 5 posts calling me a troll and 1 post actually answering the question.

Personally I think that as a science fiction movie, Highlander 2 stands up well.

 

[Umbran]

Personally I think that as a science fiction movie, Highlander 2 stands up well.

Perhaps. But the problem is that the franchise as established in the original flick is modern fantasy. So, watching the sequel is rather like ordering a sundae with strawberry ice cream, and being given chocolate. It may still be a fine sundae, but it wasn't what you ordered.

 

[kingpaul]

I have to agree, Highlander II, taken in context with I, really skewed the mystique that was built up in I. The way the 1st was ended, there shouldn't have been sequels, as Connor got the 'prize' (prequels, OTOH, would've been cool). I felt #2 a poor excuse of a sequel...that doesn't mean that I didn't like it for itself (I do own it afterall), but as part of a whole it wasn't good.

Now, since they broke the whole 'prize' thing for #2, that opened the door for other sequels. I felt #3 just to be #1 regurgitated. #4 was a good movie, but then, I liked the series.