Highlander II: The Quickening Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
It's a kind of magic.
It's time for a new kind of magic.
Connor Macleod and Juan Sanchez Villa-Lobos Ramirez return in this all action sequel to 1985's Highlander. The year is 2024, and MacLeod is now a mortal old man. However the world has become a very dead planet since the creation of "the shield", an artifical ozone layer - which MacLeod supervised construction of. It turns out that MacLeod was banished from a distant past with his mentor Ramirez. MacLeod's old nemesis from the past (General Katana) travels into the future to kill Connor once an for all. MacLeod calls upon the spirit of Ramirez to help him defeat Katana, before Katana kills him. MacLeod is also aided by Louise Marcus, an environmental activist that believes the ozone layer as repaired itself and "the shield" is no longer necessary.
| Sean Connery | Juan Sánchez Villa-Lobos Ramírez |
| Virginia Madsen | Louise Marcus |
| Christopher Lambert | Connor MacLeod |
| Michael Ironside | Gen. Katana |
| Allan Rich | Allan Neyman |
| John C. McGinley | David Blake |
| Phil Brock | Cabbie |
| Rusty Schwimmer | Drunk |
| Ed Trucco | Jimmy |
| Steven Grives | Hamlet |
| Jimmy Murray | Horatio |
| Pete Antico | Corda |
| Peter Bucossi | Reno |
| Peter Bromilow | Joe |
| Jeff Altman | Doctor |
| Russell Mulcahy |
3.40 out of 10 (10196 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Oh, the pain...
posted on 04 Jul 2009There is only one thing worse than seeing this horror on video: paying money to see it at the movies with your friend who is a huge fan of the original film like you are. Oh yes! I had the unfortunate experience of doing so.
It was so bad it actually ruined the first HIGHLANDER for me for about two years afterwards. It is definitely the most terrible and unworthy sequel ever filmed, with the only possible competition being PROBLEM CHILD 2. The only time I have ever been as disappointed by a sequel was at the beginning of ALIEN 3.HIGHLANDER is one of my favorite movies, and it pains me greatly that such a terrible follow-up was allowed to be released. Didn't anyone at the studio WATCH this before they sent it out? It's mind-boggling that a movie as bad as this is allowed to exist. It almost makes you think that maybe those firemen in Fahrenheit 451 had a point...I'm giving this my third 1/10 out of about 500 movies I've voted on here.
(The other "1"s are SUPERMAN IV and PROBLEM CHILD in case you are wondering.) I live in fear that I will flip past HIGHLANDER II on one of our movie channels and accidentally view a few stray seconds of it.
Sequels, and movies in general, just don't get any worse than this.
better than they say
posted on 04 Jul 2009Not a patch on the original and as a sequel makes little sense but this is a genuinely good movie. I can never understand why it gets slated by everyone, the plot is fantastic (strange rather than brilliant) but it is very entertaining and does make an interesting addition to the originals storyline. Sure it makes no sense but the original was hardly a masterpeace this is good entertaining nonscence for fans of the original, but a word of warning do not go any further highlander 3 the sourcerer is awful and the fourth, i think its called endgame, is a complete joke its a shame that such a good film could be dragged down by such inferior sequels.Highlander 2 the quickening watch it!, its not as bad as your so called film buff mates say!
Too bad we cant choose negate 10 out of 10
posted on 04 Jun 2009In the world sewer where all the worlds crap ends up, this movie thrives.I saw this a couple years after it came out and thought "I must have missed something" and watched again to see if I could comprehend gibberish. Apparently I could not.So while the first film wasn't spectacular we all enjoyed it because who hasn't thought about what it would be like to live forever? Well if I had to star in a movie such as this, I wouldn't want to live on anymore.Why Sean Connery even agreed to it (did he lose a bet or something?) is beyond me. Not only does that cause a loss of respect, but he was already killed off in the first one! Since plenty of people have already reviewed the plot (if that's what you can call it) there is no reason to punish my keyboard to recount this piece of trash.All we can wonder is if someone misfilled everyone's prescription with stupid pills and the writers took an overdose of it.If someone reads this and doesn't see the movie, then my job is done. After all, this makes Sean Connery's role in "The Avengers" look like it deserved an Oscar.
Awful
posted on 14 Apr 2009I understand the CIA is going to be using this movie to interrogate suspects now. The amazing part is that everyone along the chain of command thought it was a good idea to release this movie into the general public. This movie needs warnings on the cover to stop people from renting it.
Mulcahy did his best
posted on 05 Apr 2009'Highlander' is a movie that shouldn't have sequels at all. The first movie is almost perfect, from beginning to end. The fact that the original story doesn't explain a lot about the immortality element, makes its characters more believable in a poetic kind of way.Since they had to create a sequel, this was the only way to do it. In what other way can you approach this movie for a second time, without trying to extend and analyze the elements of the original movie? How can you bring back the highlander, without coming up with a concept similar to the quickening?Of course, this doesn't mean that the story is good. It is one of the worst sequels of all time, but it still is as good as a Highlander sequel could be.Russell Mulcahy did a fantastic job directing 'Highlander II'. The opera introduction contains some of the most spectacular cinematic scenes ever filmed and the whole movie has a very intense Gothic atmosphere. The sets are wonderful and I believe one of the sets is one of the largest sets ever created for a movie.That's what's great with 'Highlander II'; it provides a great cinematic experience, something that is missing since the heavy use of computer graphics. Even though computers create very realistic virtual sets, the trained eye can always tell when a set is artificial and evidently less effective. Perhaps Burton's 'Planet of the Apes' is the first movie that brings back that old feeling, with the space station introduction.Another thing that is great about 'Highlander II' is Sean Connery's performance, which brings fun to the story for a second time. Michael Ironside is great too.The producers, in an attempt to rescue some of the sequel's pride, came up with the 'Renegade version' a few years later. Although it is more down to earth (in every sense) than the 'Quickening version', it is less over the top and since it didn't become a masterpiece, it is more boring.So, even though 'Highlander II' is based on a weak story, it contains some brilliant elements, namely the direction and the performances. Russell Mulcahy will be directing a new installment next year and I am sure that it is going to be great. A talented man wouldn't repeat the same mistakes for a second time, would he?7/10
3.5!!! How did it get that high!!!
posted on 02 Apr 2009So, it's years after the first film Connor MacLeod has grown old and fixing the earth's Ozone layer as he has the prize, but when in the first movie we where told he was from Earth, he wasn't. He was from Zeist, and er, he was involved in some civil war there and banished to Earth, er, and so was Ramirez but like 1500 years earlier and er, he isn't immortal there but he is here and Michael Ironside is bored that he's old and immortal and wants to kill him and, er, according to the back of the video cover, Connor MacLeod is back tracking time-warps (Tracking time-warps?!!! WTF!!!) Having seen the first film at the pictures I was sure this could not fail to at least be okay, boy was I wrong. As an idea it's almost as bad as "Good Will Hunting 2: Hunting Season" but at least that was a spoof, this is real. To be fair as a film on its own it only sucks really bad and maybe that would be okay, but as the sequel to Highlander? The film might as well be called Terminator 2 because it has much relevancy to that film series as it does to this one.The acting is tired and ineffective, much like the direction which seems to largely be about how many windows they can blow up as there wasn't enough glass shattered in the first film. The story and script are abysmal and just re-write and ignore every little scrap of info we gleaned from the first film, it's almost as though the writers have picked up the video of the first film, read the back and thought, "That sounds good, let's write a sequel!" without even watching the first film! This is without doubt the worst sequel of all time and avoid at all costs, the rating is higher than it should be.Addendum: Interesting point of fact, the first film, like Raiders of the Lost Ark, got bad reviews from a number of critics, unlike Raiders, it also failed at the box office but lived again through home video, the poster for this film was full of reviewers plaudits, but the film was terrible, the lesson of the story? Film critics do not understand how to review action films. Beware the film critics. Thus endeth the lesson.
Not As Bad As You Think
posted on 30 Mar 2009This film was not as bad as it was made out to be. Alright, so maybe the acting and the special effects were nothing to write home about, but it wasn't so bad as to ruin the film. I thought some of the performances were actually good, especially Michael Ironside as Katana. And Christopher Lambert is always good. But I have to say, the idea of bringing back Sean Connery's character was not the best idea in the world. Once an immortal is killed, you should not be able to resurrect him!!!! But, aside from that, the film wasn't that bad. On a scale of 1-10, I'd give this film a 7.
Only not quick enough - spoilers
posted on 06 Mar 2009Incomprehensible nonsense, the 'plot' of which completely undercuts the quirkiness of the original. Sean Connery's demonstrates his usual chameleonic versatility, showing that a medieval Spaniard is in fact indistinguishable from an Irish street cop in Chicago in the 1930's, or a Cold War Russain submarine commander. Christopher Lambert is French, not Scottish. That's French, rather than Scottish. He also appears to have been administered a powerful sedative (or sedagive) prior to filming each scene. The plot reveals that the immortals from 'Highlander' are in fact aliens from the planet Zeiss. The 'One' from the first film has grown old, but the arrival of more aliens rejuvenates him. A private company pretends that the ozone layer has deteriorated so that they can provide an artificial layer at an inflated cost. Michael Ironside gives his worst screen performance as the bad guy, the great John C McGinley is wasted, and it turns out that Connery can do real magic. By the end you're thinking 'please - make it stop'
Better than H3...
posted on 13 Feb 2009Actually, given that I've seen the H2 Director's Cut, I rather like The Quickening. I prefer it to H3, which shamelessly rips off
every element of the first movie (tongue-wagging villain, chicken car race,
loved one kidnapped, a mentor who gets killed by the main bad guy). Say
what you will about H2, it's _original_. I'll take original/bad over
unoriginal/mediocre (i.e., H3) any day of the week. And Sean Connery (with
a big "I'm getting a big check" grin) and Michael Ironside are at least
entertaining.
Poor, poor Virginia
posted on 04 Feb 2009I feel awful for Virginia Madsen. She is not only extremely beautiful, she has quite a lot of talent. Unfortunately, it's consistently wasted in one crummy movie after another. I think she's so wonderful that I try to see everything she's in. The good movies like "Fire With Fire" and "Creator" are so few and far between that sitting through her filmography will give you piles in your eyes. What's wrong? Blame the directors! Blame her agent! Just don't blame her. It's like she's the Beverly D'Angelo of her generation. It's hard to imagine, but "Highlander 2: the Quickening" is one of the worst. It's just so stupid. In middle school, I knew this girl who wrote short stories about talking unicorns with laser guns strapped to their haunches. I was reminded of her while watching this movie. "Highlander 2: the Quickening" is ridiculous in the way that nerdy science fiction eggheads are ridiculous before they go to college and get their act together by hanging out with theater majors.
A terrific film (Renegade version only)
posted on 17 Jan 2009Firstly let's establish one thing: The original version of this film was confusing, badly edited and didn't make a lot of sense, but was visually stunning.The reason for this being threefold: 1. The film was never completed before cinema release. 2. It was edited together by studio executives. 3. 19 minutes of the film was cut, leaving gaping plot holes.Recently the director (Mulcahy) and producer (Panzer) using their own money completed the film and edited it back together following the original story boards and script. The result is the Renegade Version. To my knowledge it has only been released this way on R1 DVD and laserdisc.This version of the film is terrific. All references to the main characters originating from an alien world are gone. It is edited with the missing 19 minutes included to give the story a compelling imaginitve story arc. The special effects have been enhanced and look stunning, all the edited violence put back in and the original 2:35:1 aspect ratio is presented. In short Highlander 2 'The Renegade Version' has turned out to be a highly enjoyable, visually stunning science fiction action feast. The best improvement is that the movie now does not look out of place within the trilogy.The original version (Quickening) should only be viewed to bare witness to how studio executives have now idea what film making is about. Every director who has to suffer the incompetence of interfering executives should quote this example.In brief Highlander 2 'The Renegade Version' is terrific science fiction and an easy 7 out of 10.
Unfairly maligned; okay, it's not Citizen Kane, but it's not plan 9 either!
posted on 30 Dec 2008The first time I saw this, it was the French cut, which still stands as the most coherent of the bunch( the Renegade version is close, but still not quite there). I get the feeling that most people expected a lot more from this movie because their memories of the first Highlander are a little cloudy. It was pretty stupid too, but people seem to place it on this pedestal to which no sequel, even if it was better than the first, could ever aspire. If you enjoy this sort of thing, do yourself a favour and rent the first Highlander and the Renegade version and watch them back to back; you'll see my point. We're talking about a former music video director for Duran Duran, a star who can barely speak english playing a Scotsman, and a genuine Scot playing a Spaniard(!). Any pretensions to reality should be thrown out the window. This is mind candy, pure and simple. I mean, come on! You're going to give higher points to a movie that had Roxanne Hart as the obligatory love interest over Virginia Madsen? What planet are you from? And Michael Ironside is just as capable of portraying menace as Clancy Brown, and to boot, he has more fun. You will too, if you stop taking it so seriously!
One of the worst.
posted on 30 Dec 2008Sequels are often awful.But this one is so bad that it actually
manages to ruin the original.That's quite a feat since Highlander
is one of the best movies ever.The original's concept was mystic and original.The sequel tries to change that to a simplistic space movie.Whomever came up with it ought to be shot with warm s**t at daybreak.Of course H3 is even worse.
A Good-looking, Bad Film...
posted on 21 Nov 2008Ok, a good-looking terrible film. In either of its versions, Highlander 2 is pretty atrocious-a disgusting look at the depths of which cinema can plunge. I couldn't help but be struck by the beauty of the cinematography, but that was not nearly enough to keep it from creating a new level of bad. This is one of the few movies that I hate. Seriously, I loathe Highlander 2. I hate the acting, the writing, the costumes, and the story. This film is a vile insult to the whole of humanity. We should preserve this film for posterity; future generations need to remember true horror, so as not to repeat it.
"There should have only been one..."
posted on 16 Oct 2008"There should have only been one..." is what a good friend of mine said after seeing this movie.I did like the first Highlander movie a lot, so I thought, "Oh come on. How bad could the second movie be?"I should have listened to my friend.The action sequences are, well, amusing. Let's put it this way; you ALMOST can't see the strings on some of the effects.Also, I'll admit that I thought Christopher Lambert was kind of cute in the first movie. But from a girl's perspective, Christopher Lambert done up as an old man through most of Highlander 2 is not something I find too appealing.I know the first movie was a fantasy also, and not super believable if you look at it in the "real life" point of view. But somehow it was interesting enough to make you want to be absorbed in the story told by the movie.Highlander 2's story is not only a SSSSTTTTRRRREEEETTTTCCCCHHHH, it also jumps around too much to make any sense.I must say, as a fan of the original Highlander, I was quite disappointed by Highlander 2.The only reasons I would suggest it to anyone are: if they are either morbidly interested to see how it compares to the original; or they gleefully revel in watching ultra-cheesy movies.
If not for Sean Connery...
posted on 16 Oct 2008...this thing would be well-nigh unwatchable. Honest to Isis, 95% of this movie is just as bad as you've heard. The plot makes virtually zero sense and half of it (the Shield) is both scientifically impossible AND utterly unnecessary. There are broad, hammy performances, jarring leaps, and inconsistencies by the carload. And has anyone got any idea how/why the Zeistians ever evolved their bizarre immortality code? If I ever make a list of the ten most jaw-droppingly stupid movies, this will definitely be there. BUT....I give it a three [and not a two or below] solely for the charm and humor of Sean Connery's performance as Ramirez. Unlike others who, having apparently decided to play their roles here for laughs, went totally overboard into eye-rolling panic or guffawing villainy --Connery plays every one of his scenes in this strange new century with delightful lightness and panache. Whether gracefully bowing out of a stage performance of HAMLET, paying off a snooty men's tailor with his pearl earring, experiencing his first airplane ride (a wonderful sequence!) or giving his life to save MacLeod & girl from a Nameless Evil Machine, Connery is the definition of the gallant cavalier, and saves what otherwise would be an unsavable film. I salute him.Watch it for him if you think you can stand the rest of it....
Amusing, incoherent, shameless cash-in sequel
posted on 01 Oct 2008In "Highlander II: The Quickening" fans of the original were introduced to an origin story for the immortals which reduced the original mystical intrigue to that of cheap run-of-the-mill Sci-Fi: they're all alien exiles from another planet sent to earth to fight for the Prize, the option to be mortal and die on earth or return to Zeist, a barren war ravaged wasteland ruled by a tyrant. (Think colonial Australia.) Uh-huh. Here, the exposition in the flashbacks has been edited and dubbed to reveal them to be from an ancient Earth civilization with time travel technology where immortals are exiled to the future for treason. Immortals are deemed unholy by the ruling council of priests whom Katana (Ironside), despite being ruler, curiously defers rather subserviently, if begrudgingly. The rest of the film's story (depleted O-zone replaced by a Corporate controlled electro- magnetic shield) is the same but has been expanded to include an extra Shield subplot. This brings us to the other problem with Highlander 2, it's eco-commentary. The first film was such a hit with fans b/c it was apolitical; pure escapist fantasy with mystery, romance, tragedy and a cracking good vs. evil battle at the heart of it all. Nevermind the fact that the science of the Shield would shame a 6th grader, fans don't want an environmentally relevant story with Highlander, especially at the expense of a romance, exploration of the experience of living for centuries (reduced to a few jokes here) and a battle motivated by the Prize (as defined in the 1st movie) not an illogical power struggle over a war-torn desert wasteland. At least McGinley and Ironside chew up scenery as an evil Corporate duo, Connery is a delight and Lambert is clearly having fun unlike in Highlander 3 and 4. This is an amusing little sci-fi action pic that abused the sentiments of fans and insulted their intelligence and blatantly contradicted the original from premise to themes to style.
Connery almost makes it watchable.
posted on 22 Sep 2008This movie is not as bad as its reputation. Yes, it is without substance and has a very weak plot. I have never seen THE RENEGADE VERSION, which I'm told is better, so I can only judge the studio cut (although its hard to believe that this is salvageable). The only real reasons to watch HIGHLANDER 2 are pyrotechnics and Sean Connery (different for Lambert fans). It opens with Labert sitting in an opera house in the future, suddenly remembering planet Ziest, and this movie's explanation for the immortals. There's some nonsense about an ozone-shield and the sky looks like a neon display. Labert is getting old, then he kills some aliens and turn young in an explosion of sparks. Huh? The film's logic is f***ed. Things drag on noisily in what looks like HIGHLANDER meets BLADE RUNNER until... Connery comes back from the dead (at this point you won't care why). It's no surprise that Connery gets all the best scenes, too. He arrives on Earth in the midst of a performance of Hamlet and mocks the actors. Later he romances a woman on an airplane and they're shown a hilarious flight-safety movie in which a plane explodes. The rest of the picture is sword fights and sparks in dirty, rusty places. Some of the action is good, and Michael Ironside is fun to watch as the villain. But for any one good part, there are at least three bad ones. A particularly stupid scene has two aliens with goggles and rocket packs who torment Christopher Lambert and stick their tongues out a lot. On the whole the movie is pretty silly. The first movie was nothing great but it was better than this. I'd still take this movie over ENDGAME, because this has a s***ty 80s appeal that the TVish ENDGAME could not provide. Mulcahy is a director with vision and not much else. The film would have done well if as much energy had been put into character and story as had been put into design and special effects.
A shame of a movie...
posted on 29 Aug 2008why, oh why I wonder is HL II this bad for me (and a great deal of others)? I asked myself this question many times, and I believe I found the right answer: it's an 80's action b-movie with very lousy bad guys, that was expected to live up to the Highlander myths. Having the immortals come from an alien planet is kind of making "Scent of a Woman 2" with the main character a vampire. just not right.
There should be only one!
posted on 16 Jul 2009Highlander, the 1986 action movie, starred Christopher Lambert as a 450 year old immortal, shrouded by mystery, forced to fight other immortals until they had all died by the sword and one remained, who would claim "The Prize". This happened at the end of the first movie, which pretty much brought an end to the story. Highlander II, well, where do I start? The same actors, same director, it couldn't possibly be terrible right? Wrong! This movie is without doubt the worst sequel ever made, and is high up on the list of "Worst movie ever made". In 2024, Connor is an old man, and remembers that he is an alien from the planet Zeist who was banished to Earth, along with Ramirez (Despite the fact that he was born in the Highlands of Scotland and Ramirez was Egyptian?!?) Some old enemy from his home planet, for reasons not made very clear, dispatches two Hyena/Porcupine buffoons with hover boards to kill Connor (who was an OAP a couple of years from death anyway), Connor, despite being extremely old, manages to defeat them both and is made young and immortal again (huh?!), then his old mentor Ramirez, again for reasons and methods that go unexplained, is resurrected (despite being decapitated in the first movie). So Connor wants to destroy this shield that is covering the world since the ozone was destroyed, and this General Katana guy (a laughable performance from Michael Ironside) has just decided he will come to Earth and get all rowdy. To cut a long story short, Ramirez inexplicably stops a head chopping propeller with bolts of lightning from his hands that play bagpipes, then disappears for good, Connor kills this general guy and shuts down the shield. The continuity in this movie is so shocking it beggars belief. Although the hardest thing in the movie for me to accept is Ramirez, having been resurrected in Scotland, then flies to America. Now exactly how does a 2500 year old Spanish Egyptian Alien who has been dead for 400 years manage to apply for and get a passport in 24 hours?! The acting is terrible, the effects are terrible, the editing is terrible and the plot is possibly the most nonsensical drivel ever committed to the screen. Please avoid at all costs....All I can say is that Lambert and Connery must have been paid well.