HIGHLANDER II: THE QUICKENING (1991) - Review

Highlander II: The Quickening

Action/Fantasy/Sci-Fi
1 hour and 31 minutes
Rated R

Written by: Peter Bellwood
Directed by: Russell Mulcahy
Produced by: Peter S. Davis and William Panzer

Cast:
Christopher Lambert
Sean Connery
Virginia Madsen
Michael Ironside

It's a kind of magic.

"There can be only one." Someone should have told Russell Mulcahy that this famous line of dialogue was referring to the fact that there can be only one film within the Highlander franchise. Have you ever seen advertisements for Highlander conventions? No? Highlander II: The Quickening is the reason why.

Highlander may have been the most unlikely genre film to be worthy of a sequel since The Exorcist. Its story was muddled and confusing, and it failed to make much of a profit in the ever-so important US market. That being said, it wasn't an unimpressive film and it did manage to turn a major profit outside the United States.  Mulcahy apparently had the sequel green lit and financed as far back as 1987. With $14 million dollars (it would rise during the course of production to around $30 million), Mulcahy set about making one of the worst films I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through.

If you thought Highlander was confusing, Higlander II: The Quickening is impossible. It's filled with enough retcons and continuity errors to write a 30-page thesis paper on. One would think its saving grace would be its large budget, and impressive cast, but ultimately, neither was able to save the film from being an atrocious monstrosity.

The sets are dull, and lack any kind of wow-factor. In fact, the whole thing appears cheap, and if you watch carefully you can point out some sets being used multiple times with certain pieces rearranged in order to "fool" the audience. The special effects aren't up to par. Yes, the effects in Highlander are dated and unimpressive, but it was the 1980s. You would think with a huge budget and several years of technological advancement, the effects would have been considerably better than the predecessor's. One has to wonder, where the hell did the $30 million dollars go!?

I will not fault the story entirely. At its core, the film could've worked. Had it embraced its futuristic setting with its sci-fi themes, it probably would have been more impressive than it was. Highlander II: The Quickening suffered from the classic blockbuster disease known as "producer-take-over." Due to its going over budget, creative control is handed to the producers and well ... you get it. It's all down hill from there.

As for the cast, no one is capable of delivering a worthy performance - despite the A-lister status. Christopher Lambert (who without Highlander would undoubtedly be working at a McDonald's somewhere) is just as stone-faced and boring as he was in the first film. To his credit, he handles his own in the action and sword-fighting sequences (and trust me when I say this, if Mulcahy is the director, there's going to be A LOT of sword fights).Virginia Madsen has little more to do than run around and look pretty, and have random sex with our protagonist in the middle of the street. Sean Connery (who received $3 million dollars to work for 9 days), seems just as confused as the film's viewers. Honestly, if a character dies in the first film - don't bring him or her back in the second. I don't care how science-fiction-y it is, it's just confusing. Regardless, Connery manages not to embarrass himself, and it's obvious that he's way above this material. Michael Ironside honestly is supposed to be the "stand-out" character, but the psychotic, sword-wielding, tall man, antagonist was done in the first Highlander. By this point, its recycling is just lazy.

Also recycled are several scenes from the first Highlander film. For example, in Highlander the antagonist confronts the protagonist in a Church while the protagonist is praying for his dead wife. The exact same thing occurs about halfway through Highlander II: The Quickening.

Despite having turned a reasonable profit upon release (including in the US market), Highlander II: The Quickening is the only motion-picture where the director's cut couldn't even save the disastrous product. It's a classic example of a big-budget motion-picture gone wrong. There's a reason why Highlander fans refer to Highlander III: The Sorcerer as "Highlander III: The Apology."

0.5/10

THE AMITYVILLE HORROR (1979) - Review

The Amityville Horror

Horror

1 hour and 57 minutes

Rated R

Written by: Sandor Stern

Directed by: Stuart Rosenberg

Produced by: Samuel Z. Arkoff, Elliot Geisinger, and Ronald Saland

Cast:

James Brolin

Margot Kidder

Rod Steiger

Don Stroud

Murray Hamilton

Houses Don't Have Memories.

One of the most discussed and studied motion-pictures within the horror genre, The Amityville Horror has obtained notoriety for being "based on" a shocking and terrifying story. Regardless of what you choose to believe, the film itself has deserved all of the buzz surrounding it.

Are its scares gimmicky? Absolutely. But one has to understand, other than perhaps The Haunting, The Amityville Horror was one of the very first successful haunted-house-based horror films. Its story is simple, its scares are simple, but goddamn it - they work. Viewers need to grasp that this is the film that has gone on to spark a legacy of other motion-pictures based within the subgenre.

The film itself is a quintessential 1970s-horror film. In fact, I would go as far as to argue that it follows more of the template for European horror films of the 1970s. By this I mean, the plot isn't the most important factor. Let the atmosphere, the characters, the special effects, and the setting drive the storyline - and if they don't, well that's okay because the story wasn't the most important thing to take away from the movie. Amityville is no exception to this. Although the story is tangible, it kind of gets lost in its many layered subplots, and by the time the surrealistically colorful finale, that even the likes of Argento and Coscarelli can be proud of, rolls around one is so distracted by the visuals that the story is the furthest thing from their minds.

The majority of the performances within the film are handled well enough, and are believable, no doubt about it. But it is the performances of two actors that really stand out within the film. First, and most obviously, is that of James Brolin. The makeup for Brolin was done terrifically, but it could only drive his character so far. Brolin's performance as a man driven to the brink of insanity due to the spirits within the house is so convincing, one has to wonder why this isn't ever discussed as being a stand-out performance within his career. (Perhaps its the social taboo that surrounds horror films). Along with Brolin, Rod Steiger delivers an incredibly powerful performance as a Catholic priest who is simultaneously being tormented by the spirits within the house. Steiger steals the best scene within the film, where his character attempts to convince several other priests that Brolin's family is in serious need of help from the church. His pleas fall upon deaf ears, and his frustration is so tangible that it remains the one scene within the film that really stays with you.

Amityville is not without its flaws, however. I don't know if people are afraid to, or if they just don't notice it, but there are some pretty blatant similarities between this film and Stephen King's novel The Shining. One being, the storyline itself. A man, his wife, and their children move into a haunted location and the man is tormented to the brink of insanity and eventually attempts to kill his family. The kids talk to imaginary friends, and the father even tries to axe down a door of a bathroom that the children are hiding in. Good thing the wives are able to stop their demented husbands in both stories. I'm not positive when this script was written, but I think it's safe to say that Sandor Stern was a fan of Stephen King's novel. (I'm not sure what happens in the book version The Amityville Horror, but if these Stephen King similarities are there too ... something is fishy).

The atmosphere of the film is what drives it the most. The score as well as the cinematography are one hundred percent reminiscent of Polanski's film Rosemary's Baby. I'm not saying they stole from that film, more or less used it as inspiration. Like most 1970s horror films, one comes away feeling unsettled after viewing Amityville but can't really put their finger on why. The short answer to this feeling is the film's atmosphere. A slow build with creepy intervals added in until the big, trippy, and frightening finish comes along.

The Amityville Horror, while suffering from a few creativity issues, is an outstanding motion-picture that has earned its right as being called one of the better horror films of not just the 1970s, but of all time.

7.5/10