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.

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.

Matthew_Diamond ...but it is so bad, it is fun to watch in a way. It is so terrible that I have a hard time mentioning it. Perhaps it was the grainy film that made the 1985 original with Clancy Brown (The Kergan) so much better. Some movies require a sequel, or maybe two, while others like "Highlander" require--and demand--none at all. "Highlander III" however is not nearly as bad as "Highlander II-The Quickening", which I feel like a goofball for having watched in the theater on its opening Friday night, in which "We're gonna be okay" uttered by MacCleod garnered instant and thunderous Boos from the college crowd. By the time we had managed to get to the end of this mishmashed misdirected glob of a movie, totally a discredit to the original "Highlander" the screen was totally bombarded by soda cups, popcorn and half-eaten candy bars.Actually, "Highlander III" like the second sequel serves as excellent training for film students on the why's and how's a sequel should not be made. Shortly after MacCleod's 'reawakening' and within moments after arriving in New York, he is greeted by a carful of thugs which conveniently show up and shoot him--a wonderful advertisement for why we should not want to visit New York--if all tourists and guests to this fine city would be greeted in the same horrific manner.Directors and producers: let sleeping dogs lay. Don't awaken a sleeping giant that is much more of a "Godzilla" than a "Lord of the Rings." Stop trying so hard to get the Oscar, and just stick to the basics of good film making. "Highlander III" illustrates once again why some movies should never have existed. What a waste of money and talent!

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)