New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

The film is loaded with plot, and actually very light on exposition, so that any “nagging questions” such as: “Are all immortals highlanders?” “Why is there no eruption of blood when a head gets lopped off?” and “Why bother focusing on a police investigation of the ‘epidemic of beheadings'?" are quickly steamrolled over. I realize some of these questions may be answered in other films, in novelizations, on TV, or in video games, but for the purpose of the singular, contained original film, it’s quite breathtaking how the origin story actually seems to be either: a) the Cliff Notes of the origin story or b) the lead-up to the origin story. As many aspects of the narrative as there are that raise questions a sequel might conceivably answer, the end of Highlander more or less lays such a notion to rest. Whence forth Highlander II?

As revealed in the 2004 documentary “Seduced by Argentina” (available as an extra on the DVD), there was not much thought initially given to there being a sequel. But then the fans began to ask those nagging questions and the money people began to wonder “what if." And, well, it HAD been a “hit” overseas, although it barely made its $16 million budget back with worldwide grosses when all was said and done. It died a quick theatrical death after being abandoned by distributor 20th Century Fox in the States, but went on to become a high seller and rental on video.

Screenwriter Peter Bellwood was tasked with writing his way out of the corner the first Highlander had stranded itself in. The result, at least in the United States in November 1991, was Highlander 2: The Quickening. For all the dreadful reviews it received, it remains the highest grossing of the four theatrical films (to date) with $15 million in domestic dollars. It grossed more than twice what the first one had, but its budget was also slightly more than doubled.

But I was not able to view that version and instead of experiencing a film so awesomely bad, Roger Ebert expected it would be held up for ridicule for decades to come, I saw the version that its co-producer Peter Davis touts as the best possible version that he and fans could ask for. “Seduced by Argentina” makes it clear that a host of factors - from shooting in a country unknown to the cast and crew, to the cost of building most sets from scratch, to a currency that went through such constant fluctuations it made it impossible to know from one day to the next how much money there actually was - kept tensions fraught from the start and ultimately resulted in the bond company seizing the film back, with the goal of releasing any version of the film that might recoup their investment. Mulcahy and the producers were effectively banned from their own production

A “Renegade Version” running about 18 minutes longer, made with Mulcahy’s cooperation and featuring an entire new scene shot nearly four years later, came out in the late 1990s. The Special Edition that I viewed is essentially that, but with all the special and visual effects tweaked, or improved using the new technology that became available in the interim.

Continued:       1       2       3       4