SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Bereamic Awesome Movie

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

oneguyrambling It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to find this was a script for a totally different film that with a few clips and revisions was turned into a 'Warlock' pic. In fact for much of the running time I was reminded frequently of The Prophecy films, even the music was pretty much a rip of the early Prophecy stuff.The short version has a young woman with no immediate family inheriting a large run down home in the middle of nowhere. Initially she goes alone to sift through the home hoping for clues regarding her family heritage, but her boyfriend and boneheaded friends – among whom is a part-time witch and an S&M fetishist couple – show up unannounced to join in the fun.Imagine our surprise when around half way through the film a pasty guy in a big black coat shows up to talk just like Julian Sands (but is really some guy named Bruce Payne, even Sands didn't need the cash this bad) and to look at people through his eyebrows in menacing fashion for a while. That surprise is short lived of course, and once the paint by numbers plot is mechanically laid out and we realise what the Warlock is intent on doing the film becomes nothing more than a serial killer flick where vacuous teens are outmatched by a calm killing machine with supernatural powers.Why the Warlock is really there is irrelevant – it's about Chris's bloodline and a certain amount of human sacrifice is involved – in reality it is an excuse to throw every el-cheapo horror film cliché against the wall and see what sticks.Not much this time.We have mirrors that provide a distinctly more eerie reflection, banging shutters and whispered voices, visions and dreams with Hollywood production values (!) and of course the turn, turn, turn, there he is 2 inches away from you scare.It's all very perfunctory and altogether unnecessary. I must admit thought that even though this was san-Sands I kinda enjoyed this more than the lazier W2, perhaps it was the Prophecy allusions? Warlock 3 is a better effort than Warlock 2, which was in itself a pale imitation of the only so-so original. When considered by themselves they are little more than dodgy B movies and a dated reminder of what direct to VHS horror once represented: a couple scares, some nudity and gore (come to think of it things ain't that different). But when considered as an overall work they are a prime example of how one mediocre movie can be converted into three – with the sequels both lousy – and yet still be extracting money and over 4 hours from this bozo almost two full decades on.I am sad.Final Rating – 4.5 / 10. Another lousy sequel, though this is slightly less lousy than the last.

C G The first Warlock film with Julian Sands and Richard E. Grant was great - original, fun, a bit gory, and suspenseful. It had pretty well defined characters, and a plot that moved. (I bet the movie would have been terrific if it's budget had been about 3 times bigger for special FX.) I Feel the second installment Warlock: The Armagedon, was okay, but a bit cheesy with the magic druid theme going. Though the plot was a bit dodgy because they weren't chasing after the warlock, the improved FX and magical scenarios made the movie palatable.This third installment though is pathetic. The editing is horrible, the film drags on and on for the first 40 minutes or so. The lead character is very flat, and the Warlock is also quite flat. Although that is kind of how the warlock character has always been portrayed, calm, cold, and collected, which worked when the other leads where quite animated, but is terrible here with the boring lead. At least there are the side kicks in W3 to spice things up, as the two leads are excruciatingly lame characters.As the film is slow at the beginning, one doesn't know if it is going to be about the house, or about the Warlock. And I think that where they missed it. If they had focused less on the "haunted house" aspect early on, and more or flashbacks with the warlock, it may have turned out better.If you are a fan of the previous two Warlock films its worth renting, but prepare yourself for boredom and disappointment.If you've never seen the previous Warlock films, skip this one, rent Warlock (1989) and enjoy.

radioguyreturns You really have to give credit where credit is due. I couldn't imagine anyone doing better playing Julian's Warlock than Bruce Payne. Then again, David Twohy isn't credited on this, so perhaps this isn't the Warlock we know and love to hate.I did assume that without Julian, they were just starting anew with a new Warlock character played by Payne, and I guess that may be the case. However, Bruce's outfit and hair color certainly imply it's old blondy again.Now, I thought a new character would really irk me, but while not simply emulating Sands' characterization, Payne adds to it. I don't think he quite makes it his own, but he certainly raises the bar for Sands, should he even consider returning to the role. Some think this may have been too wordy compared to the previous action-driven installments, but it worked for me. Certainly enough to overlook the other mediocre people in this film. That's not to say their acting sucked, though. They were believable as their characters. It's just that their characters were boring.I think I would quite enjoy Bruce returning as blondy again, but if Julian were to return, I think he'd have to rise to the new bar set by Payne, even if it isn't quite the same character. Bruce gave his Covington more depth in some areas, while Julian seems to bring more murderous intent to his Warlock.Sadly, it's been 8 years. While I consider one of the previous reviews "Hopefully the end of this particular franchise" to be sheer nonsense, it's clear that the rights holders have no faith in another film despite the quality of the premise the franchise is based on.This is a shame. The original film's story and characters were fantastic (well, Lori Singer's wasn't crucial), and surprisingly not realised on film in the decades before. It seems to be one of, if not the, definitive witchcraft horror films. True, the second paled in comparison, with only Sands worth watching, but this, the third installment, seemed to recapture the depth and motivation of the, or a, Warlock character.I would hope that those who own the rights consider seeking out a quality screenwriter who could tempt Sands, Payne or even Richard E. Grant back to their roles. (I always imagined blondy would finally meet his end at the hand of Redfern after being sent back in time again)Here's hoping for Warlock 4...

unpop 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.