Words fail me. I'm not saying that to be eloquent in communicating an awe and respect inspired by a film of staggering artistry. I'm saying it because I literally just finished watching Highlander 2 on DVD and now I know why it was only $9.99 at KMart.

Wait, here's a word: Why?

Usually when a sequel is filmed, it bears at least some sort of resemblance to the original, either because it is a very poor copy of the original in an attempt to cash in on previous success (*cough*Batman*cough*), or because the sequel shares some common elements with the original. Highlander 2 has exactly three things in common with Highlander: Christopher Lambert, Sean Connery and swords.

The good news is that you do not need to have viewed the first Highlander movie in order to understand the second. The bad news is that even if you have viewed the first Highlander movie, you still will not understand the second.

The movie begins with Connor MacLeod (Christopher Lambert) falling asleep in an opera house in the year 2024. He is surprisingly old. Why "surprisingly old"? As a Highlander MacLeod is immortal (well at least until his head gets chopped off) and should not age, yet he is undeniably an old man (with an extremely creepy voice, almost falsetto...Lambert's idea of what old age sounds like?) This inconsistency never is explained, but that's ok, neither is anything else, including why this movie was made.

Apparently MacLeod helped to design, construct and activate an electronic shield to replace the ozone layer which finally gave out in 1999. Pretty impressive for an uneducated clansman from 16th century Scotland. Perhaps he picked up a degree in rocket science during his extended lifetime. This accomplishment earns him both scorn and respect from other people, although no one wants to get too close to him, however they feel.

Except for one woman whose name I now can't even remember because the movie was really that boring. I think it was Louise, so let's call her that. Louise is some sort of...eco-terrorist, or that's how she's labeled, and she thinks that there's something "wrong". Specifically she thinks that the ozone layer has repaired itself and that the shield is only still active because it makes the company in charge of it a lot of money.

Oh yes, there is also a parallel plot which was thrown in, probably to give Sean Connery something to do in his reprised role as Ramirez, MacLeod's mentor, and someone to fight, some sort of general, uh...I can't remember his name either. Katana? I remember that the name sounded a lot like the princess' name in Mortal Kombat. Apparently there was some sort of rebellion, although the movie never reveals where, when or why. At least that much is consistent.

There is so much that bothered me about this movie that it's difficult to know where to begin. But as we must begin somewhere, let's start with the entire "where the Hell does this fit in with the 'Highlander' storyline?" question. *deep breath* "Where the Hell...etc." I tried and tried to figure out exactly how this movie fit together with the first one and try as I might, I just don't get it. The entire feel is disjointed and wrong and if the characters weren't the same I would laugh at anyone who called this movie a "sequel".

Secondly: if you are going to travel forward (or backward) into time, then for Heaven's sake, please be consistent about it. During the film a handful of characters are sent into the "future". Ramirez and Katana are two of these characters. Sometimes they're believable. Ramirez is almost run down by a truck because he had never seen anything more advanced than a horse-drawn carriage. Katana however, spouts "modern" dialogue that he could not have possibly picked up in the short time that he had been in the future, such as when he tells his taxi driver to "put it on his tab" after he destroys the taxi with his sword. Yet another script falls prey to the writers' desire to be "hip" and "now" with their lingo.

I was actually very surprised by how little time the film devoted to toggling between the future and whenever it was that Ramirez and MacLeod were rebelling against Katana. In the original movie, at least half of the film is devoted to 16th century Scotland. The result is that the viewer is better able to understand who MacLeod really is and what is expected of him. I still don't know why there can "be only one", but at least I had some more background.

Perhaps if there were more "background" scenes then I would feel less confused. There would certainly be more believable interaction between the characters. Why does Louise suddenly fall for MacLeod? Is it because there's just something so incredibly sexy about immortals? Did the producers of this movie think that Christopher Lambert really needed to have a love interest and the woman from the last movie refused to come back? And would someone please tell me why Katana and MacLeod hate one another so much. Are they mad because they have the same hairstyle? Does Katana think that he has a better sword than MacLeod? Oh and speaking of swords...

If swords are going to play a major part in your film, then please make sure that your actors know how to wield them, thank you. That's some advice, gratis, from me to any movie producers/script-writers who might be reading this review (or rant if you will). As in the first movie, the actors still don't know what they're doing with their swords, they just sort of swing them around and if they thwack their opponent, hey, bonus. This was not what I meant by consistency, people.

As a whole, the movie lacked energy and originality. The plot moved along feebly, and the climax was so slight that I blinked and almost missed it. I didn't care about any of the protagonists (sorry Chris, sorry Sean) and the antagonist did not scare me in the least. If the creators of this movie wanted to give the audience something new and different, that was a noble intention, but they forgot that the reason why someone would want to watch this movie is because they liked the first one. Except for that damn "Who wants to live forever?" song. That can go. Please.

The only two good things about the movie in my opinion are Sean Connery and Christopher Lambert's laugh. Sean Connery has a wonderful presence, he's always so sure of himself no matter what role he plays. The few scenes that he takes part in are somewhat more bearable than others in the film. However, if you would really like to see Sean, then you probably should look elsewhere (i.e. a better movie). I personally recommend Hunt for Red October and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Christopher Lambert has a great laugh, deep and throaty, almost like a bark. He also tends to let it loose at the most inappropriate and unexpected times, through a knowing smirk. To experience the Lambert Laugh, try watching Mortal Kombat (the original movie, not Mortal Kombat: Annihilation I wouldn't wish that movie on anyone, talk about stinky sequels), where he plays the role of Radan (Radon? Radan, Radan...it all sounds like a brand of pesticide to me) god of thunder and lightning.


Recommended:
No

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: None of the Above
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older