Clevercell Very disappointing...

Micitype Pretty Good

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

generationofswine The Highlander movies are a great explanation why people like me throw out a lot of hate about remakes.We are going to take what you love, ret-con away all the things that you loved about it and remake the movie only worse.The joke is that the movie was actually titled Highlander III: The Apology.Now, for those of you that haven't seen them, or don't read my reviews it worked like this.Highlander was fantastic and the game was over at the end of the movie. Connor won it by taking the Kurgan's head and he claimed the prize. It was a stand- alone and the audience adored it...myself included.Highlander II was a sequel, and because the first one was a stand alone and the game was over leaving no room for a sequel...they did a retcon, made them all aliens, and took away everything the fans and critics loved about the first one. Just like remakes and reboots tend to do.Highlander II realized the mistake of Highlander II and they did yet another retcon, ignoring the abysmal failure of Highlander II and brought back the things that the fans loved about the original...but, the original was a stand alone, so they retconed the ending again to give us a third movie and it didn't work.It did not work.Again, these are movies about immortals, there are thousands of years in which to make a movie...but instead of doing the obvious thing they did a retcon, of a retcon and it doesn't exactly work.But it didn't fail as much as Highlander II, and they didn't bring Sean back from the dead again, so...we were stuck with the TV show to redeem it all.

swedzin From my point of view, this was an attempt to put back puzzle in normal after the terrible "Highlander 2 - The Quickening" sequel. Well, they did it, but still, the film is nothing special. What I like about is film... it has a very different way of telling story, different tempo of the proceeding through the film. In a way, it's a kind of lemonade film... a quite relaxing. Everything is relaxing and nothing special, just like some kind of TV film from "Hallmark", you know, when come back home, after the work, you eat something, than you sit back, or lie down on your favorite couch and you stumble upon this film, and then you just relax.Simply nothing is touching you so deep about this film, everything is hollow. Everything is like "oh, OK", "oh, they have a sword fight, right", "allrighty", "nothing here..." "that's good..." in kinda boring way.Actors: Christopher Lambert - wooden, doing nothing but talks like a bored Frenchman. Deborah Kara Unger - about her later. Just keep reading. Mario Van Peebles - his performance was funny, He keep it creepy and ugly, the way his character is supposed to be, well that's his way to perform it, his way to see this character, but it was weird that he keeps remind us on Kurgan, and that pig growls... damn... spit out those slimes from your throat... Jesus! Mako - His "guest role" was fine and relaxing as a great Japanese immortal sword master. And to mention Raoul Trujillo (warrior 2) from "Apocalypto" and "True Blood" season one (the Longshadow vampire dude), it was interesting to see him from his younger days.OK - now for the highlight of review... Probably the best thing in whole film, was no more or no less - the SEX scene! The sex scene between Christopher Lambert and Deborah Kara Unger was more than impressive! Wow, they did it without a double. That was a real talent between the two of them. Good movements and good "coreography" during the sexual "work", combined with a "f..kable music during the scene. The sex scene music was more than exciting, it's like... the band members were there, watching the horny couple and they composed the music on the spot and say, "allright, let's perform it!" Damn... that was good. Too bad I can't find a soundtrack. For me, this sex scene is 'number uno' in the motion picture history. The Best. About Deborah Kara Unger... her performance in film was so not interesting, that everybody expect thesame "Go on, Connor! F..k her!!!" YEeeeeeeeahhh!!!! They did it!! To mention about music, it was also a fine thing, it was good and relaxing. Highlander - The Sorcerer film is nothing more than, relax... take it easy... but you'll get horny during the sex scene he he.

manitou-full-moon You know a film franchise is running out of ideas when the producers decide to churn out a new film that essentially retells the story of the old one, but badly. I recently rewatched the first Highlander, and saw the two sequels for the first time and came to the conclusion that yes, there should really only have been one.The core concept behind Highlander is a good one: immortal warriors fighting over centuries until only one is left, who will win the Prize, the nature of which varies over the various entries of the franchise, but is usually described as the power of all immortals who ever lived. The only way an Immortal can be killed is by removal of the head, usually via sword.This made for a good film: an epic story spanning hundreds of years, cool swordfights and a good performance from Christopher Lambert made the original Highlander one of the better 1980s films out there. At the end of the film, he had supposedly won the Prize, and that was that.However, because it was so successful, it spawned sequels: the hilariously bad Highlander II, and the one being reviewed, Highlander III: The Sorcerer.The film starts with Connor MacLoed (Christopher Lambert) going to Japan a couple of hundred years ago to learn from the sorcerer Nakano who has the handy ability to make illusions appear from thin air. Nakano is also being hunted by Kane(Mario van Peebles), a villain who is virtually a carbon copy of the Kurgan (is a barbarian, likes to kill women and children, etc) who wants the power of illusion to do bad things. Kane catches up with Nakano, Connor escapes and Kane is buried in Nakano's cave.Skip forward a few hundred years: Connor is living with his adopted son in some Middle Eastern country, until Kane is released from a cave by an archaeologist obsessed with ancient Japan (a variant on the love interest from the first film). Connor becomes aware that Kane is back, and then goes back to New York to kill Kane. Apparently he didn't win the Prize after all, and is in actual fact an Immortal who thinks he is mortal (which he was meant to become at the end of the first film). What follows is pretty much a retelling of the first film. There are two scenes that are really blatant copies of ones from the first film: Kane taunts Connor on holy ground where Immortals cannot fight. The first time he does this they fight and they actually explain what happens when you do fight on holy ground, and the second time is virtually the same as the scene with the Kurgan in the church in the first film.The second time you get a sense of deja vu is when Kane kidnaps Connor's son, and then proceeds to drive around terrifying him by playing chicken with various vehicles. The exact same scene was in the first film, when the Kurgan kidnaps Connor's love interest and speeds through New York. However, any sense of danger in the scene in the third film is removed by the fact that all of the things Kane pretends to collide with are illusions, which cannot actually harm the occupants of the car.Connor and Kane fight, Connor kills Kane, and then wins the Prize again, at least until the next sequel Highlander: Endgame, which at least was trying to do something new. And even the effects of Connor's quickening (the process by which Immortals take the power of those they have killed) were just lifted from the first film and cleaned up a bit. It's just plain lazy film-making.Mario van Peebles makes for a rather camp and unthreatening villain as Kane, who you never believe Connor will have any difficulty in defeating. He does try in some places make his performance different from that of the Kurgan, but the script demands he attempts to mimic the first film's villain.Christopher Lambert just seems rather bored throughout the film, which isn't surprising as he contemplated walking off of Highlander II (which he made through gritted teeth). He probably only agreed to appear in this due to getting a rise and the prospect of some easy money. The other actors are rather forgettable.I sometimes persevere with a bad film if it makes me laugh. Highlander III did manage this, but only in a few bits. Most of the time it just bored me, and the only reason I didn't put it off was so I wouldn't ever want to waste more time watching it at a later date. It isn't really worth bothering with as such - the first film or Highlander: Endgame are better choices. Of course, if you have the boxset, then you already have it, so I'd advise you watch one of the other three films. They are all better than this tired cash-in.

murtisha Don't bother with this one. I loved the first Highlander. This is just a pathetic rehash of the first movie. Boy meets girl, girl finds out he's immortal, bad guy takes the hero's loved one, goes on scary car ride, except for this time it's with the hero's son, etc. The first movie was a masterpiece of sci-fi. One of my all time favorite films. Full of characters you cared about, even the ones that you loved to hate, i.e. Clancy Brown as the Kurgan. I am completely at a loss as to why they have to try and follow a great movie like that with trash like this. I must say I have never been a fan of sequels, but this one is the worst one I have ever seen. A complete and utter travesty.