Was just on the official Highlander site today and they posted a rumor that shooting for the fourth Highlander movie was suspose to start in October 1999. Both Adrian Paul and Christopher Lambert are suspose to be in it.

Further update for the next movie. Methos and Dawson are in it as well.

Apparently, Connor's first wife from the first film is also in it.

It seems that the producers have changed the title again. It is now Highlander 4 Endgame. It is scheduled to be released in October 2000.

Edge, the Vampire blood brother of the WWF- turned five second big teeth poser, has filmed some sceans for this film.

My local film mag gives a US release date of August 26th as opposed to October. Which is correct?

I just saw the film's trailer yesterday, and the answer is neither. The release date tagged to that one is September 1st.

As for the trailer itself, I have just one word: AWESOME!!!

Is it available to download? Then again, I'm not sure if I want to watch it to keep spoiler-free.

I don't think it's downloadable yet, because I tried the site earlier that day, with nothing but a field for an e-mail address as contents.

From what I saw, though, there weren't any real spoilers, so the trailer should be okay. What I'd recommend staying away from, though is Dark Horizons (an Austrailia-based movie site). I read some definite spoilers off of there, as well.

I read today that the ending of the movie had to be reshot in June because the final fight scene was too graphic. Good news for the DVD version when it comes out.

Highlander? Too graphic? This could be interesting...

Lambert and Paul both appeared on WWF Smackdown with Edge today. They were Gangrel fans.

www.highlander-official.com has the trailer available for download (4.24mb) I can't get the sound to work, do I need to upgrade my MoviePlayer? Has anyone seen the movie yet?

I saw it yesterday, with my friends. FINALLY!!!! A good sequel!!!! I hope this is the last one, though, so it ends on a relative high note.

I haven't seen highlander yet but lets hope that duncan survives because he is a better french actor than conner. Plus if the movie works out he might have another series on his hands.

Warning Spoilers ahead.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
The movie begins in 1990 with Conner's adopted daughter Rachel being killed in an explosion. Then it flashes to present day to the sanctuary where Conner has lived for several years. The sanctuary is a place where immortals who get tired of killing can go and be safe. It is run by watchers who want to keep the prize safe. The price is ones freedom.
We also see the death of Conner's mother by the hands of the townspeople in 1557. Conner kills a priest and his son.
The Sanctuary is then attacked by immortals who kill the immortals being kept there and possibly Conner.
Then we go to Duncan who has visions of the attack and believes Conner is in trouble. He goes to London to find Methos and asks him for help finding Conner. Methos tells him of the attack on sanctuary.
Duncan travels to New York to where Rachel died. There is reunited with his wife who is working with the band of renegade immortals being led by Jacob Kell. Duncan is shot out a window and then is captured by Watchers who volunteer him to be the next resident of Sanctuary.
He is rescued by Methos and Joe, finds Conner and the two learn that the immortal behind it, Jacob Kell, is the son of the priest that Conner killed. Conner believing that Kell is too powerful for the both of them to handle on their own forces Ducan to kill him. Duncan then faces Kell and kills him and then buries Conner with his wife Heather.

Nits:

Kate angry at the Duncan for forcing her immortality accuses him of depriving her of having children. Which is interesting because in the third season Richie thought he maybe a father of child whose mother he had relations with before becoming immortal but Joe tells him it does not work that way. Joe seemed to think that proto-immortals were sterile, but Kate believed they were not and Duncan does nothing to dispel that belief.

The mob tries to force Conner's mother to denounce Conner as a son from her loins. Wouldn't the mob know the Conner was adopted.

I assume that Conner did not disappear until after his last meeting with Duncan when they faced Slan Quince which occured in 1992. (Two years after the death of Rachel)

We learned that Duncan and Conner met in 1625 which I believe works in the continuity.

I would like to know if the marriage to Kate took place before the gypsy's woman prediction that he would bury hundreds of women but never marry.

Overall a good movie much better than the second one.

So since Conner dies in the present in this movie, the events of the second movie never happened? (sigh of relief)

From what I understand the events of the second movie happen in a reality seperate from the series and Highlander four.

Thanks for putting the spoiler right in your first line.

Eesh.

What the smeg was this?

I saw this movie tonight, and was not at all impressed.

Conner spent just about the entire movie depressed and without hope... That is certainly not how I would want to remember Conner.

This Kate woman that Duncan was involved with... She seemed like a rather flat character, as if she existed only to die and give Duncan reason for vengeance.

The entire movie... It seemed as if the characters existed only to service the plot, and it really should be the other way around, shouldn't it?

A few nits I spotted...

One is the exterior of Russell Nash's shop. It said on the door something along the lines of (mind you, I've only seen the film the once...) "Elenstien / Macleod Antiques" and below that it said something such as, "Proprietor: Russell Nash". In the first film, it simply said, "Russell Nash Antiques."

And now the big nit... Why is Conner with Rachel Elenstien? What happened to, "You're not coming back... Even if you kill him, you're not coming back." What happened to Conner going off with Brenda and being with her?

Hell, what were the powers that be thinking with this piece of tripe? I'm terribly sorry for the overly negative tone of this post, but the only good thing I can think of to say about this movie is, "At least they did not once mention the planet Zeist."

All in all, even though there is some other good Highlander out there (and this isn't it), I still feal that there is nothing out there as good as the first movie, especially the director's cut of that one. Why they ever felt the need to make any more is beyond me...

Especially since any Highlander beyond the first movie leads to the biggest nit of all. "Kastiger is gone. Only you and I remain." And once the Kurgan was gone, this leaves only Conner... And Conner has won the Prize. Seems pretty clear, doesn't it?

I was always under the impression that the TV series (on which Highlander: Endgame is based) took place in an alternate reality, seperate from the first movie. In the reality of the first movie, Connor DOES win the Prize, giving him some sort of rapport with every living creature on Earth (if I interpreted the ending correctly; Connor was having difficulty describing it to Brenda). In the reality of the TV series, Connor still faced and beheaded Kurgan, but they weren't the last two.

So while certain things are the same in both realities (not counting the second and third HL movies), there are certain other things that, in the TV series reality, didn't quite happen the way they were presented in the first movie. (If there was a Duncan MacLeod in the first movie's reality, I believe we can safely assume someone took his head some time before the film began).

I seem to recall the producers saying the HL TV series was set in another reality, but I'm not sure. In any case, that's how I've always interpreted it.

I admit that this is stretching it, a bit, but here's a theory that I cooked up for my fan-fiction stories:

The Gathering works sort of like a tournament, in that Immortals are randomly divided into groups. When few remain in a particular group, those Immortals fight to the death, and the survivour of that one wins *a* Prize. From there, all the survivours will eventually come together, and that surviour will win, for lack of a better term, The Grand Prize, which we haven't seen.

This probably contradicts the set rules a bit, even if it just means stretching them a little, but it's the only reasonable way to make peace between these two series.

Another nit. In Darkness the episode where Tessa is killed and Richie's immortality is activated Richie says to Duncan "You've never been married before."
To which Duncan replies no. I guess Duncan could have been lying to Richie not wanting him to know about Kate and the fact that he is currently married. Probably definately did not want to Tessa to know he had a wife whh was still alive.

I admit that this was probably a mistake on someone's part, but I think that it's reasonable to assume that Duncan got a divorce from Kate at sometime, after the wedding night incident, and simply doesn't count that as a marriage, since it really lasted all of one night.

Your probably right. It just hit me though when I was watching the episode again.

I was always under the impression that the TV series (on which Highlander: Endgame is based) took place in an alternate reality, seperate from the first movie. In the reality of the first movie, Connor DOES win the Prize, giving him some sort of rapport with every living creature on Earth (if I interpreted the ending correctly; Connor was having difficulty describing it to Brenda). In the reality of the TV series, Connor still faced and beheaded Kurgan, but they weren't the last two.

From what the producers of the TV show said. The show takes place in another reality where Connor faced the Kurgan but they were not the last 2, remember the pilot of the series with Christopher Lambert returning as connor. This movie followed the continuity of the TV show. Sometimes movies get adapted to TV shows (M*A*S*H, than M*A*S*H the TV series) Others start as TV shows and transition to movies (The X-Files than The X-files the movie). I think this is the first time that we have a movie that could be called
Higlander: The Series: The Movie,
because it follows the show's cannon, not the 1st and 3rd films.

Finally got to see this film yesterday. It didn't get a cinema release in Ireland so I had to wait for the DVD version. I've only seen Disk 1 so far which has a slightly different ending to the theatrical version. Disk 2 has another version again which some say is the best of the three.

I enjoyed the film but there was some dire editing in it. One part of the fight scene between DM and Kell at the end was blatantly repeated a few seconds later. The fights scenes were good (although they seemed to have been sped up slightly), loved the music and the shots of Scotland.
Problems: Chris Lambert is not aging well. He looked terrible.
There was a scene at the end, which may have been cut in the theatrical version, where Joe kills the Sanctuary watcher, where did this come from? It looked liked it was just tagged in to give extra footage (I believe the Disk 2 version does a better job explaining it)

I found it funny that the watchers had circular saws capable of cutting the metal that DM was impaled on just lying in the back of the van. These guys certainly come prepared.

I'd heard of the Sanctuary before seeing the film but assumed it was the monastery opened by the immortal in the TV series not a different one set up by the Watchers.

I had also heard that the cinema release included a scene where it was discovered that the watchers had made up the 'Holy Ground' rule. This isn't on the DVD version.

I saw this nit on the alt.tv.highlander newsgroup last night. Apparently DM has killed 62 immortals on the TV show, yet when Joe shows the map of the world, there are almost no kills registered where Seacouver is supposed to be.

Yotsuya: It seemed to me that Connor and Rachel had gone into partnership since the events of Highlander: The Movie. Hence her name on the shop front.

The trailer we were all talking about above includes shots never intended for the film release. e.g. Kell splitting in two by magic.

DM also spoke to Connor several times on the phone during the TV series, did the watchers just hold up a cellular to his ear in the Sanctuary.
;-)

That's it for now.

BTW,anyone else get to see the DVD yet?

There was a scene at the end, which may have been cut in the theatrical version, where Joe kills the Sanctuary watcher, where did this come from? It looked liked it was just tagged in to give extra footage (I believe the Disk 2 version does a better job explaining it)

I agree. This is in the standard video cut, as well, but it really felt sudden. Also, I felt it was more than a little out of character for Joe to repeatedly shoot someone who's already down.

I had also heard that the cinema release included a scene where it was discovered that the watchers had made up the 'Holy Ground' rule. This isn't on the DVD version.

This scene never existed, at least not in the theatrical version. What was in it, though, was a line from Methos' description of The Sanctuary, where he says that it was built by the watchers on Holy Ground. This line was removed from the video version, probably because of the "Kell-killed-on-Holy-Ground" problem it created.

Of course Rachel would have taken a larger ownership of the shop. After reading over a script of Highlander: The Final Dimension, I realized that it makes sense. The cops would still be investiating Nash, so someone had to take over while Connor went out to do whatever between the films...

At the bombed out antiques store after Duncan is shot, the immortal thug empties the used shell casings out of his revolver. The shell casings are missing the primer, meaning they wouldn't have fired. Also, the casings appear to be rimless cartriges - for an automatic pistol, not a revolver.

An Ugly film. How Panzer & Davis killed Connor? Its Terrible!

Maybe Chirstopher Lambert didn't want to play the part anymore.

In any case, it would have been necessary to kill off or write out Connor at some point, because of how much the actors will age. Even in Endgame, Lambert looked a little more frazzled than usual (though that was bad make up artistry, from what I've seen elsewhere). It was only a matter of time before Lambert would look way too old for the character.

The same will probably have to be done for Duncan in a few years, too.

I doubt that Lambert is tired of the roll. In every other movie he makes, he plays the same blasted character, even in BEOWULF!!!!

That would be called typecasting, monsieur.

Also on the DVD commentary the producers point out that Connor only died in the presant day, meaning that the character can still return in flashbacks. Heck Sean Connery was dead the first time we met Connor in part 1 but he still had a part in the first 2 movies.

There you go. I just hope the make up guys don't add some wrinkles, the next time.

Just saw it and wanted to say it's an excellent movie. I'm sorry to see Connor go, but it would have been worse had it been Duncan....

Forget the continuity problems, contradictions, and conundrums. It'll just give you a headache. Take each film as a separate ride through the same amusement park.

Here's the biggest nit of this film- what's up with the "unbeatable" sword combat move? Lock your opponent's blade behind your own neck, smile at him, and spin into a throat slash?? And Connor forces Duncan to use the 1 and only counter, which is the fatal beheading swing???

Here's a clue for you, Duncan- when Connor makes his move, DUCK! Tuck and roll, step back, kick him in the *ss, whatever- put distance between you before he strikes.

A better idea would have been for Connor and Duncan to fight Kell together, and get themselves roughed up. Duncan would run to the side of a gravely injured Connor, who would tell Duncan he's at the end, can't go on, and that he has to trust Duncan to finish it. Connor could impale Duncan, incapacitate him, then fall on Duncan's sword. Duncan could be quickened, not have any guilt about killing Connor, and seek vengeance on Kell for forcing Connor into this desparate act.

While Connor's death in the actual film has its share of tragedy (especially in the better acted rough cut), I'll admit that I would have liked that idea better, and so would have a lot of my friends.

Saw Endgame on Sci Fi yesterday night and thought there were some interesting twists in it:

*Duncan's marriage certainly seemed to have come out of left field.

*The way that Connor forces Duncan to fight and kill him was interesting.What made it especially harder on Duncan was the fact that not only was
Connor his friend and mentor but also his clansman.So it was like literally killing his own brother.

*The revelation that Kate wasn't killed by Kell.

*That it was Duncan that made Kate immortal,still foggy on how all that worked though.

As someone coming at it from the perspective of the tv series instead of the first three movies I thought it was the best of the lot.

Obviously some people will complain that it was only a two hour tv episode,but I think it was made more for the fans of the tv series than for the fans of the movie series.

*That it was Duncan that made Kate immortal,still foggy on how all that worked though.

How so?

good 1215399806550