Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

TJMBuddlake In my own words, I can say that this was a big improvement over Highlander 2. Its not as good as the first but a good solid entry into the Highlander saga. The story was OK, the cast was good, the special effects were still amazing and pretty much every way better than the previous crap movie. Christopher Lambert is back and he still has that glow for this character of Duncan Macleod. Now for the villain, Kane (not to be confused with the WWE superstar) he was a good villain but not as bad ass as Kurgan. Mario Van Peebles did a good job playing this relentless, cold-blooded, masochistic villain. Now for the female role, whoa! Deborah Unger! What can I say about her? Bold, Blonde, Beautiful and Banging! Now that's a major improvement over the other 2 female leads. (Not that it matters) Anyway, I do praise this movie for being a big improvement over the second film but its not as good as the original and others may not agree with me on this, but it is worth the time watching. This one was for the real highlander fans. Overall, 7 out of 10.

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.

Sandcooler After all the hate for the second one, I suppose they just didn't want to take risks anymore. This sequel just screams mediocre. There's some cool stuff happening here and there, but all of it has been done already in the original. They even duplicated whole scenes just to be on the safe side. I really do wonder why "Highlander" ever bothered to have sequels in the first place, I know producers enjoy money but this story has been over for some time. So Highlander is at it again, fighting evil and killing immortals by cutting of their heads. If you can kill them, why the hell do they call them immortals? Either way, the action is quite nicely done, the fights have a nice choreography to them, the acting is just the right kind of bad. It stops there, because these good points don't really make for an entertaining movie. You'd think so but no. It's actually quite boring because this story is uninteresting as hell. So predictable, it's insane. Only real good part is the introduction, it pretty much sinks like a brick from there.

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.