Warlock III: The End of Innocence

This film starts in New England in 1673 with a young mother known simply as "Mrs. Miller" (Catherine Siggins) walking with her daughter in the woods. Temporarily distracted, she takes her eyes off of her young daughter--only to find her missing when she turns back around just moments later. After searching frantically, she discovers that an evil warlock has kidnapped her daughter and plans to sacrifice her that very night. Fortunately, being a powerful witch in her own right, she manages to cast a spell that, not only prevents him from carrying out his plans, but also traps him inside the basement of the house he chose to use. The scene then shifts to several centuries later with a young college student named "Kris Miller" (Ashley Laurence) being informed that she has just inherited an old house in a small New England town many miles away. Naturally, being somewhat reluctant to travel to an unknown destination all by herself, she asks her boyfriend "Michael" (Paul Francis) to come with her. Unfortunately, he declines due to some exams he needs to prepare for over the weekend. That being said, she then drives to the isolated house and spends the night there all by herself. It's during this time that she thinks she hears a young girl's voice and begins having visions of a doll that seems eerily familiar. Even so, she manages to get to sleep, but the next morning, she begins hearing the young girl's voice again. To her surprise, when she follows the sound to the front door, she discovers that Michael and several of her other friends have arrived to keep her company after all. Needless to say, their presence does much to calm her anxieties. That changes, however, when an architect by the name of "Philip Covington" (Bruce Payne) stops by to visit and, unbeknownst to her, he looks exactly like the warlock who kidnapped the young girl several centuries earlier. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that this 3rd film in the Warlock trilogy wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it might be. For starters, even though Bruce Payne did a credible job as this particular film, I thought Julian Sands was slightly better in the previous two movies. Conversely, I thought this film had better special graphics. Likewise, this film seemed more focused on the primary plot than the second movie to a certain degree as well. In any case, while I don't believe this film was necessarily superior to the other two, I honestly don't consider it to be inferior either, and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Average.

By-the-numbers horror sequel in which a college student who, with the usual assortmentof disposable friends, visits a creepy old house she has unexoectedly inherited and finds herself stalked by the title character, a centuries-old demon in human form. Not exactly intolerable, but bad enough to bring the franchise to an end.

I'll be honest with you I like Playboy playmates, and I especially like Angel Boris (playmate of the month July 1996)who has a small part in this movie. In fact she is the whole reason I rented this video at all. Since this is the third movie in a seris I decided it would be a good idea to see parts one and two before I got to this one. I thought part one entitled "Warlock" was pretty boring but had good characters and a good try at a plot so I did'nt hate it. Part two entitled "Warlock:The Armeggedon" was excellent in my opinion. It had cool special effects, good plot, was'nt boring and the Warlock Julian Sands was still in it who I liked from part one. By this point I was glad I saw them both because they were fun and now I was ready to see the one I wanted to see in the first place. Boy was I disapointed. The movie was very boring, had no plot, wasn't scary (even though you could tell they were trying to make this one scary unlike the other ones), and Angel Boris was barley in it and when she was she would just say stupid lines that they wrote for her just so they could have a hot chick type person in it at all. The main character was a whiney plain lookin girl who should be in some sappy show like 7th Heaven instead of a horror movie. These aren't the only characters who are lame in this movie because your glad when all the guy characters die and could care less anyway. Now that I told what I thought was bad here is what I thought was good: Angel Boris' breast's exposed twice, Angel Boris in a thong, and the new Warlock Bruce Payne was'nt that bad even though I still missed Julian Sands who I'm kind of glad was'nt in this one because it was so lame. If you did like this movie then I would like to recommend another seris of movies which is similiar to this one but a thousand times better. This seris being the "Night of the Demons" movies. Because They are scarier,have better special effects,have a ton more female nudity, and are also funny which this movie was'nt trying to be, but comedy is of course an important part of the horror movie experience.

Have a look - one person from HELLRAISER, one from BRAIN DAMAGE, a poor womyn's Sarah Michelle Gellar & the third in an also-ran series of "speculative" films. Another Point: children spoil "horror" movies - in fact, they spoil ANY type of movie - thankfully, the little "sweetheart" is used sparingly. Taken on it's own merits, a none too bad addition to the Haunted House craze & (probably) the only American (or is it Irish??) attempt to ape (elements of) THE BEYOND. It's difficult, but brave the self-conscious "alternative" vibe (including such unpop as Thick Liquid, Haze & Hot Water Music) & there IS a lot to enjoy. Surprise: some truly nasty moments - a male equivalent of the breast torture from MAKE THEM DIE SLOWLY and a slap of Female Domination, that, if the roles were reversed, would have seen this effort banned in Australia. Black Metal fans watch out for the villian's unveiling; something straight off a Venom sleeve. An unapologetic Junk-Food Late-Night scare flick.

I just saw this on tv so don't know how it was promoted when it first came out. Was it advertized on daytime soap operas? It looks like a "horror" movie for people who don't like horror movies. And it's made in the popular style of movies churned out by directors who don't know how to make movies but wish to put across the impression to children that they DO know all the "tricks" of making dramatic flicks. As others here have said, there are lots of tv shows a lot scarier than this mediocre slop.