Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueWitch from the first Witchcraft movie stalks the now teenage child. She attempts to kill his friends in order to slowly corrupt him to Satan. However the boy is able to defeat the evil Satan... Tout lireWitch from the first Witchcraft movie stalks the now teenage child. She attempts to kill his friends in order to slowly corrupt him to Satan. However the boy is able to defeat the evil Satanic witch, and not enter into Evil with her.Witch from the first Witchcraft movie stalks the now teenage child. She attempts to kill his friends in order to slowly corrupt him to Satan. However the boy is able to defeat the evil Satanic witch, and not enter into Evil with her.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Charles Solomon Jr.
- William Adams
- (as Charles Solomon)
David Homb
- Boomer
- (as David L. Homb)
Mia M. Ruiz
- Michelle
- (as Mia Ruiz)
John Henry Richardson
- Mr. Adams
- (as Jay Richardson)
Mary Shelley
- Elizabeth Stocton
- (as Mary Shelly)
Anat Topol
- Grace Churchill
- (as Anat Topol-Barzilai)
Avis à la une
I feel very strongly about the above line. This is just plain out butt awful. First the main charcters are supposed to be teenagers, but they look to be in their 30's. The Temptress character looks much younger than everybody else in the film. Then there is the wooden acting. The direction is even worse. And oh my God!!!! That d**m awful script. It looks like some person just had only a crayon and wrote some notes on a piece of tiolet paper and the rest of the crew just worked off that and improvised everything!!!
Please. I beg you if you have not seen any of the films in this series, DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. They are all awful. Each one just manages to get worse than the other. As though that was possible. Followed by way too many sequels. I stopped watching after part 7, but I think they have reached a part 10 or 11. The first one was awful, so how the H**l did it get followed by so many more sequels? Rating: 1 out of 10.
Please. I beg you if you have not seen any of the films in this series, DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. They are all awful. Each one just manages to get worse than the other. As though that was possible. Followed by way too many sequels. I stopped watching after part 7, but I think they have reached a part 10 or 11. The first one was awful, so how the H**l did it get followed by so many more sequels? Rating: 1 out of 10.
WITCHCRAFT II, the first sequel to it's decent predecessor is without a doubt the worst horror film in history(So far anyway.) This time the baby from the original is grown up and living with foster parents. Suddenly an evil witch who looks like a Madonna wannabe stalks him to teach him his birthright...BIG deal! Extremely boring, terrible story, acting(Except for Charles Solomon as the teenager.), and laughable effects. Other films in the series to avoid: IV, VII, and VIII(I haven't seen X and XI(!)yet.) * out of *****.
Seriously - I've watched a lot of horror since the age of 11 (and I'm 35 now), and there's only a few films that hurt so much that I'm actually angry after watching them. The Stink of Flesh was one such film...Zombie Nightmare was another. This film, Witchcrap 2, really got under my skin in terms of pure annoyance.
I've never even seen the first film. This one has a guy (William Chugnut), and his missus (Something Bladbladia) 'making out' as they say over there, but then this Bridgit Neilson type turns up and it's all about a box and the parents know something and *eyes close* and *eyes open* there's a geek chick who finds something out and gets killed and *eyes close* and *eyes open* there's a jelly water mango on display and *eyes close* and *eyes open* - My LAST THOUGHT while viewing this film was 'please change the camera shot soon as I am going to fall asleep". This was during the scene where William's dad was describing something or other. The camera doesn't cut away to reaction shots - it's just the same shot, for about six minutes, with nothing interesting happening. Truly awful.
Some hanging globes of joy on display, but that's it. This film is terrible in every respect. I really hated it.
I've never even seen the first film. This one has a guy (William Chugnut), and his missus (Something Bladbladia) 'making out' as they say over there, but then this Bridgit Neilson type turns up and it's all about a box and the parents know something and *eyes close* and *eyes open* there's a geek chick who finds something out and gets killed and *eyes close* and *eyes open* there's a jelly water mango on display and *eyes close* and *eyes open* - My LAST THOUGHT while viewing this film was 'please change the camera shot soon as I am going to fall asleep". This was during the scene where William's dad was describing something or other. The camera doesn't cut away to reaction shots - it's just the same shot, for about six minutes, with nothing interesting happening. Truly awful.
Some hanging globes of joy on display, but that's it. This film is terrible in every respect. I really hated it.
The first film had a full budget and a professional production. These people clearly had neither. This is a semi professional work with actors they mostly found in some amateur dramatics production. The film survived oblivion by its tie in to the previous film and the voluptuous form of Delia Shephard. I became aware of this film by various horror and vampire websites including by the actor and parapsychologist Stephen Armourae who was ranting ( as usual) about this film and how it should be seen to be believed. He had posted a couple of sketches of Delia Shephard from the film as he had studied art and drawing nudes. And that's the most interesting part of the film. You're probably better off tracking down Armourae's pictures from it instead of sitting through a couple hours of this amateurs.
The acting more wooden than the Amazon jungle. A highlight you can enjoy having first ingested alcohol is Charles Soloman's facial expressions. The camera repeatedly comes in close and takes an 'artistic angle' as he recoils. Especially in the climax where Delia Shephard demands a tryst so she can mother a devil messiah. His other skill is to mention Ozzy Osbourne so its not all bad. Like Ed Wood and his films what makes this awful is that they the producers and director have no idea they're heading for disaster. They approach this with full solemnity and providing you are not bored to death by it you will enjoy the amateurishness of the acting, directing, the lighting: always to dark inside. If they need someone to father the destroyer of the world they could have found someone more convincing than Soloman. It is laughable that someone of Delia's looks and desperately pouting is begging to embrace Soloman. And her breathy diction is over the top too
The acting more wooden than the Amazon jungle. A highlight you can enjoy having first ingested alcohol is Charles Soloman's facial expressions. The camera repeatedly comes in close and takes an 'artistic angle' as he recoils. Especially in the climax where Delia Shephard demands a tryst so she can mother a devil messiah. His other skill is to mention Ozzy Osbourne so its not all bad. Like Ed Wood and his films what makes this awful is that they the producers and director have no idea they're heading for disaster. They approach this with full solemnity and providing you are not bored to death by it you will enjoy the amateurishness of the acting, directing, the lighting: always to dark inside. If they need someone to father the destroyer of the world they could have found someone more convincing than Soloman. It is laughable that someone of Delia's looks and desperately pouting is begging to embrace Soloman. And her breathy diction is over the top too
Evil witch tries to lure the surviving baby from part I, now a teenager into the forces of darkness. Not quite as bad as the original, but still awful by any means. Frequent nudity and some violence & sex doesn't help, but actually make things worse. Rated R; Nudity, Violence, Profanity, and Sexual Situations.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesShot in thirteen days.
- Crédits fousPrior to the opening credits there is a disclaimer, the unusual portion of which reads: "This movie is for entertainment purposes. Academy Entertainment, Inc. does not advocate or endorse any of the activities or the ideas contained herein. This movie is not intended as an accurate portrayal of true witches."
- ConnexionsFeatured in 31 Horror Movies in 31 Days: Witchcraft 2 (1989) (2009)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Witchcraft II: The Temptress?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 80 000 $US (estimé)
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Witchcraft II: The Temptress (1989) officially released in Canada in English?
Répondre