Witchcraft II: The Temptress

Not that I really liked this movie, in fact, I watched only part 1 and 2. The first was OK, but the second was so much worse that I never watched a Witchcraft movie again. It seems to me that you are all with me, but what I can't understand is why the h**l you watch FIVE other sequels too if you thought this one was so awful??????

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 *****.

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.

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

This entry in the series takes place about eighteen years after the first one. William Churchill, the infant in that one, is now a young man by the name of William Adams preparing to go to college.

In the first one, the baby was born to John and Grace Churchill, who after William was born lived with John's mother Elizabeth. John and Elizabeth turned out to be witches, who believed that William was the reincarnation (or something) of the unborn child who died when a John and Elizabeth Stocton were burned at the stake for witchcraft some 300 years ago. Whether the Churchills were the descendants of, or reincarnations of the Stoctons, or whether they somehow were the Stoctons, I'm not sure.

Witchcraft II does include some footage from the first film in a number of scenes, and could probably stand on its own, but it's probably better to start with the first one. The other titles in the series have less continuity, though Will returns in all except parts 8 and 10.

This one does skip over some of the things that happened in between the movies. What happened to Grace Churchill isn't clear. Presumably the Adams family lived in Texas for a time, because Charles Solomon as Will has a definite accent, even more pronounced in the next two films he appeared in. Most of the actors who portray Will in the later films lack that accent, though.

Elizabeth Churchill (I think it was her, anyway) changes herself into Dolores Jones (Danish Penthouse Pet Delia Sheppard), a neighbor of the Adams. She wears black, a pentagram ring and necklace, and a silver snake belt and bracelet. Somehow, other witches don't realize she's a witch in spite of this. She makes some seductive moves towards Will, which if she is his mother/grandmother is disturbing, but she is a servant of Satan after all.

Dolores interrupts Will when he's making out with his girlfriend Michelle Cross, a preacher's daughter. He finds a mysterious package containing what seems to be a silver ashtray with Latin inscriptions on it. His parents know what it is and means, but don't tell him. They expect two more packages to arrive.

Will begins to learn more about where he came from, and people in his life start dying.

There's an odd The Entity-style rape in one scene (though with underwear on). It was unclear to me who was responsible. There's a few rapes in the series (e.g. pimps raping hookers), but not another one like this until Witchcraft XI: Sisters in Blood (2000), which is also an odd one tied to witchcraft.

The first part, unless it exists in more than one version, featured no nudity or sex scenes. This one features some, from both Michelle and Dolores, but no more than the amount of gratuitous nudity one might expect in a horror movie. Later titles in the series gravitated towards erotic horror, with some scenes feeling like softcore, even featuring some full frontal nudity.

This isn't a great movie, but it is fairly entertaining, and it's not as slow as the first one.