Warlock - La rédemption

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.

the third part of the series is simply blasphemic. Trying to make a 90s teenieshlasher version out of the great warlock sujet.

Where Part 1 & 2 had atmosphere, fun and style (no big surprise looking, who directed them) Part 3 is only boring,plotless and stupid. Not to forget acted real badly. Only Payne as Warlock is acceptable.

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.

I can see other reviewers here have given this a low score because apparently it's nothing like the previous 2 films. Well, I haven't seen the previous 2 yet. This just started playing after another film I had on, and I don't think it was all that bad.

It had a much better first half, where a college student finds out she's been left a house in her family and if she wants anything in it, go get it before the place is demolished.

She ventures to and into the house where strange things begin to happen. Then her friends show up and the Warlock, posing as a architect, and it evolves into are her friends truly her friends, or would they allow her to be sacrificed for the Warlocks plans?

Overall, the filming, lighting, audio etc is all good. The acting if fine. The sounds fine. The only thing that bothered me was a few glitch like moments, but I think that might have been Tubi, not the film itself.

I was entertained from start to finish, no moments of boredom and no previous films knowledge to be distracted by. So overall, this films ok for one viewing. Seems a bit harsh to rate it lower from others. Perhaps this a Halloween Season of the Witch moment? It just needs to be watched for what it is, and not what it's supposed to be following?

Decent for one viewing, I don't think it has any replay value tho.

I praise the first Warlock film...... who wouldnt? I even defended the second one because too many sad people winged about it. Geeze, it wasn't that bad!....... was it?

So should I defend this third installment?.... Hell No!!! .... I just cannot seem to peice together any possitive words in my head to maybe lift this review up a notch.... in fact maybe it's better that I dont even talk about this tele-movie-esque film at all.

Instead may I suggest that someone put pen to paper and create a fourth Warlock film that blends the first two formulas into one. Being that Redfern seeks assistence from the Druids to battle against the Warlock.... none other than Julien Sands.... none of this Bruce Payne nonsense.

(No offence Bruce. You were great in Passenger 57... but you just aint no Warlock)

So to sum up Warlock III: End of Innocence...... Miserable waste of time. Part 4 would be a classic.... if it existed! 2 out of 10

(it gets a 2 because it had at least some balls to even be made at all)