Afouotos
Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.
Aneesa Wardle
The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.
Brennan Camacho
Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.
Edwin
The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.
rgm-24256
Again Like Highlander II, don't look at this like a sequel, only a stand alone, nice beautiful story, nice scenery, nice music, beautiful well done.
Morbius Fitzgerald
Highlander 1 is a movie that should never have been considered for a sequel but unfortunately, executives wanted money so they pumped out as many sequels as they could, hoping the fans would like them. They didn't.Highlander 2 had WAY too many weaknesses. Setting Highlander in the future is really stupid and that movie said that they were from another planet. The director of THAT film saw the mess and tried to make a directors cut saying that Connor and Ramirez were exiles from the past which made me cringe even more.Then we have this. I will start with the compliments. The music is rather well scored and the fight sequences are - as usual - worth a watch and Christopher Lambert does the role of Connor justice as he does in the other 2 (he just needed a better script for the second one).Now the complaints. They introduce Sorcery in this film which destroys the first one because the premise of that universe is "Everything's normal except we have these immortals running around trying to cut off their head." What makes that even weirder to me is, even though they never say this, was that their excuse for the immortality? Its better than "the planet Zeist" but...its not great.They introduce a villain who has a deep voice and is like The Kurgan in the fact that he wants the prize that MacLeod apparently didn't get at the end of the first (???).The love interest happens to look like a girl that Connor bedded in the 1800's which destroys the character, Heather was his only love and when she died we are supposed to believe that Connor shut himself out from anyone else until Brenda Wyatt in 1986 New York. On that note where the hell was she in this? No information as to where she went, no "John, Take care of your mother".Overall this is a better sequel than "The Quickening" but its still crap.
LevynLeenen
First of all, let's forget Highlander II: The Quickening ever existed. This is a great and logical sequel to the first Highlander movie. Highlander II was a complete disaster and all copies of that movie should be burned. This is a vital thing to keep in mind if you want to enjoy any Highlander movie. Of course I did not expect much of this movie since it has a 3.9/10 rating. I suppose most of you did not watch the entire movie or simply fast forwarded it because of the disaster that is The Quickening. Highlander III is a decent sequel and unfortunately does not get the credit it deserves. If you enjoyed Highlander, I'm sure you will enjoy Highlander III.
Frank Markland
Christopher Lambert reprises his role as Connor McCleod who this time goes up against an evil immortal Kane(Van Peebles in a terrible performance) who is thawed out of suspended animation, of course once he defrosts, it's up to McCleod to put him (back) on ice. I admit that this is probably my favorite sequel, only because the beginning reminds me of kung fu sequel, with Mako teaching Lambert swordsmanship and kung fu, however that aside the movie is fairly uninspired but not too dull and really it makes logical sense, even in comparison with the original (The only sequel to do so.) The suspended animation thing is a lame way to bring up a new enemy but at least it doesn't explain that they are from a different planet, or completely contradict the original like the fourth. The fight sequences are decent and the production values while somewhat cheap play passably on screen, so overall it's a mediocre sequel. Nothing special but at least semi-watchable.* * out of 4-(Fair)
