Plot Details: This opinion reveals major details about the movie's plot.

As a die-hard Highlander: The Series fan, I met the release of Endgame with an eagerness and enthusiasm. I was never a big fan of the Lambert Highlander films, but I felt that the series had taken the Highlander saga in a different direction, and i felt that this movie had promise.

sigh. What a disappointment.

----

Disclaimer: It's uncharacteristic of me, but something just needs to be said about the Big Plot Hole that occurs in this film. Thus, this e-pinion DOES SPOIL A MAJOR PLOT POINT. If you're anything like me and can't stand to know anything about a film before you see it, read another e-pinion instead.

----

THE GOOD:

The saving grace of this movie was the relationship between Connor and Duncan. Both the scenes of the past and the present did a decent job of making the viewer understand the close relationship of these two MacLeods and their ties together. You see them during times of laughter, struggle, happiness, hardship. The realization of this is built throughout the movie in such a way that it makes the climax of the film really effective, regardless of the fact that that climax is built on a faulty premise.

The portrayal of Kell was also pretty decent - I thought he made an effective arch-enemy for Connor. I wish his character had a little bit more depth to it (see below), but he was great at playing the sinister, cold enemy.


THE BAD:

The characterizations of Duncan and Connor were decent, but not great. The characterizations of the other known and unknown roles in the film were horrible. All of the new characters we meet in the film seem very surface level. Kell had the motivation to be Connor's enemy and he portrayed the evil enemy well, but after that there wasn't much else - some of the things he did didn't make a lot of sense to me, and in the end... there was nothing extraordinary about him. Nothing like some of the big enemies in the series, like Peter Horton or Kronos or Xavier St. Cloud.

The relationship between Duncan and Kate was confusing and didn't seem to add anything to the story at all. It was almost as if the writers saw that all they had so far was a "good guys vs. bad guys" film, so they wanted to create some sort of tension. So let's give Duncan a former lover who hates him and make her part of the gang of bad guys. And as an addition, it was surface level and rang hollow, on both sides. Plus, it wasn't very consistent with Highlander: The Series.

The big character gripe I had, however, was Methos. One of my favourite characters on the series because of who he was and the tension of his relationship to Duncan was completely absent in the film. It might as well have been anyone - it just seemed to be a way for Peter Wingfield to get on the big screen. Not only did his role disappoint and add nothing to the movie, it actually plays a big part in the Big Plot Hole.


THE REALLY BAD:

The Bad stuff relates to and creates a bigger Really Bad - the Poor Script/Story writing.

One of the great things about the series over the movies was that it understood that depth of character and the relationships of characters is what made the most complex plots work. It wasn't a straightforward "good guys vs. bad guys" series, especially in the latter seasons. There were reasons why things happened. There was a logical sequence of events concerning the characters, growing out of the characters, creating the plot.

This plot... lacked all of it. Lack of depth. Character. Consistency. It seemed like the author of the story line had maybe seen maybe a handful of episodes and decided that he wanted to write a story in the Highlander universe without really understanding all of the characters. It would have been just as easy to create the movie with its plot without having Duncan play the lead. Introduce a new immortal. Use Amanda. Use anyone. Duncan's character wasn't really him. He just happened to fit the height description. Who is Kate anyway? Don't you think she would have come up earlier in the series? Why didn't we ever hear about this part of Duncan's history? And why was his regular history with Tessa and Richie and Amanda suddenly so vacant? The movie was full of questions like this.


THE TRULY UGLY: (SPOILER IN THIS PARAGRAPH!)

Okay, so the big question about this movie is: How do we defeat Jacob Kell? Connor comes up with a solution: We can't beat him alone. We need to fight him together. You need to kill me, so that you get my quickening and you have my strength in addition to yours. That way, we can beat him. Duncan says, "okay!" (well... i'm skipping a lot here) and they kill Jacob and all is right with the world again.

HOLD THE F*IN' PHONE! Hello? Anyone home? Remember Methos? Oldest living immortal? Anyone?

In our first introduction to Methos in the TV series, Methos has this exact same confrontation with Duncan. Methos (like Connor) has been out of the game for so long that he's lost his edge in sword fighting. Someone is after Methos's head (like Kell is with Connor) to try to gain all of his quickening knowledge. Methos invokes a fight with Duncan (like Connor... sense a theme?) to lose so that Duncan will take his head and be able to defeat this guy. Duncan prepares to make the killing stroke and CAN'T DO IT.

Now if he can't do it for someone that he just met, why would he do it for Connor? Why not just go back after Methos? Why not just try to overcome it like he did with Methos and come out on top anyway?


CONJECTURE:

There were a lot of inconsistencies in the film in the characters and in some of the plot, but in a way, it almost seemed deliberate. It reminded me of Star Trek: Generations. One of the points of that movie was to transition from the old to the new. Endgame seemed to be a similar design - moving the focus away from Connor and onto Duncan so they can make more effective sequels and people know that Connor isn't going to ever be a part of the Legacy anymore.

It also seemed deliberate to neglect any of Duncan's TV series past. They tried to stress as little as possible the fact that Methos was the oldest living immortal and its significance. As opposed to keeping with Duncan's past history with Tessa, Amanda, Richie, Charlie, etc. etc., they bring in this new character and create a past independent of the TV series because they want to create new fans who don't have to know anything about the series to latch on to future movies. At the same time, they still use a few of the old characters to try to hold on to those who are fans of the series.


RESULTS

The result of all of this is a confusing mish-mash. For fans of the TV series, the movie isn't loyal to it or do justice to it at all. For newer fans, it just doesn't have enough depth of story or characters to grab people like the series did. It was as if they tried to do everything half way in order to please as many people as possible. In the end, i think they ended up losing a lot more people than gaining.


--
A NITPICKY FOOTNOTE:

I never watch trailers of movies i'm interested in seeing. It jades the movie for me in a big way because trailers lack the ability to capture what I want to know about a film. I usually watch the trailers afterwards, though, so after seeing Endgame i found the trailer and watched it and was so annoyed that half of the scenes shown in the trailer didn't make it to the final movie. My guess is that it's because the original premise of Jacob Kell as an enemy was meant to be a supernatural immortal, but then they took that out and just made him to be just a powerful but normal (?) immortal. So the scene in the trailer where Connor cuts him in half and now there's suddenly two Jacob Kells, or the scene where he has Connor's face in a bubble and then blows it away in some mystical way didn't fit. So why does the trailer still have it?

Okay. So i'm nitpicky. I admit it. :)

----


Recommended: No

Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age