Alicia I love this movie so much

Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Hottoceame The Age of Commercialism

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Paul Magne Haakonsen You have to understand that it is not sound to have a "Warlock" movie without the man himself. And I am of course talking about Julian Sands. And you know that there is something amiss by the movie cover already. But in Bruce Payne's defense then he did fight valiantly at an uphill battle.While this third movie obviously has better effects than the previous two movies, given the latter year in which it was made, it just suffered from a lack of an elaborate storyline. It was just too simplistic. And it just didn't have that characteristic "Warlock" quality to it.The story was just too forced, especially since the warlock character just shows up at the house without any background story of where he came from or why he was there in the first place.The cast did good jobs with their given roles, even Bruce Payne. But he just wasn't "Warlock" material. Yes, he does have some similarities to Julian Sands, but he just didn't cut it. It was the devilish charm and characteristic imp-like look that were missing."Warlock III: The End of Innocence" comes off as a mediocre movie that tried to milk the rest out of a franchise that ended with the second movie "Warlock: The Armageddon".Having seen it, it can be checked off the list, but it just lacked that particularly devilish magical ingredient to qualify as a proper "Warlock" movie.

t_atzmueller When it was released, I had been rooting for a third „Warlock"-film; true the second part hadn't been a work of glory and couldn't live up to the classic first. True also, there was no Julian Sands, but it featured Bruce Payne. "Passenger 54", "Full Eclipse" and even "The Howling VI: Freaks" were all enriched by Payne's cold stare.However, the problem with Payne is, he's essentially a limited actor, compensating any lack of skill with his (usually rather threatening and malevolent) presence. Actors like that usually need a very skilled director to point them to the right direction and obviously this director wasn't on the set of "Warlock III".Payne's screen-time is largely wasted; this could have worked, had "Warlock III" been a sequel that has anything to do with the original. It doesn't. "Warlock III" is called Warlock only because it features a warlock. A wizard, magician, call it what you want. Nothing to do with the 'Super-Warlock' we came to love in "Warlock". There's no boiling of human fat for potion, no flying, no punching nails into the Warlocks footprints, etc; just a haunted house, a couple of cheap, computer-animated effects and Payne lingering around in a couple of scenes.As to the rest of the cast: hopeful, young actors, each more unmemorable as the next; each having spent more time on bodybuilding and make-up than on acting, all trying to push their pretty faces against the camera in the (vein) hope of "making it big". You could have cast Sean Connery or Javier Bardem instead of Payne; it still wouldn't have saved the film from being a complete train wreck. (This trend would continue to this very day, with films (generally remakes) like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "Final Destination". It may sound like stickling here, but did films like "Friday the 13th" or "A Nightmare on Elmstreet" produce future stars like Johnny Depp and Kevin Bacon, or did they not?) What gives the film its deathblow is the camera-work, which reeks of cheapest video, just short of calling it "Blair Witch Project". Despite having a limited budget, the original "Warlock" looked grander than it was. "Warlock III", in comparison, looks like what it is: a cheap, shoddily put together flick, hoping to ride on the title of a classic.A director like Steve Miner could have saved that mess, even despite the incredibly lame script. But as it is, the "Warlock III" virtually is beyond the hope for redemption. Two points from ten is all I'm willing to give: one for Bruce Payne and the other … well, I can't really remember what for.

brainspoon It's hard to keep a movie interesting for 90 minutes, especially when you fill it with stock characters and an episodic plot that goes nowhere but in circles.I was really hyped for this movie when it began. The cinematography, acting and editing was above the standard direct to video tripe that's out there. I thought that someone actually cared enough to try and make Warlock 3 a good movie, and I felt relieved in knowing that the next hour and a half would be an entertaining one. And it is for the first 35 minutes, as we see our heroine arrive at a spooky old house that she has inherited. That night, weird voices drift through the hallways, freaking her out until she tries to flee the house.Her friends all show up and convince her to stay, and after this point the movie becomes just another ten little Indians. Kill and repeat. The maniac this time is a Warlock that kills people with magic. The victims are the slut, the basket case, the goth dude, the pothead, and the bland boyfriend guy. We learn nothing about them, they're tissue thin, and as they are killed off, the plot just runs around in circles until the inevitable conflict between heroine and Warlock. Yawn.There is a nice psychological aspect involving the friends having to give the Warlock permission to kill the lead, I liked that. But still I became restless after the stylish and atmospheric opening.It is of note that Ashley Lawrence plays the lead. The Hellraiser girl has grown into a fine naturalistic actress and is too good for this movie. Bruce Payne is back, and I normally dislike him, but this time he had a sinister charisma that worked well for the character.I must say that I did enjoy this one more then part two, but only marginally so. While part two was a total goof, this one tried to build suspense, and did until dissolving into slasher formula, and ended in an insulting manor, complete with magic daggers and a porcelain doll that scares our Warlock out of his wits. What kind of evil being is afraid of a doll, even if it's a magic doll, it doesn't play well in a movie. The ending lacks all the style and craftsmanship of the first half of the movie.I commend the Warlock series for always having flashier visuals then your typical horror flick, but with exception of the original which was fast, funny, and intelligent, the sequels have all been handicapped with screenplays that wallow in beaten to death clichés and hollow characterizations.

capkronos Ashley Laurence (from the HELLRAISER movies) is Kris Miller, a young college art student who inherits the belongings in a run down house. She travels there with five of her friends (including a blonde girl who knows all about witchcraft) to rummage through vintage family belongings. A historian and Phillip Covington, a British architect, show up to explain the origins of the house. Covington (Bruce Martyn Payne, doing a decent job replacing Julian Sands) turns out to be centuries old warlock who used to sacrifice children in catacombs beneath the house. He's back to get his hands of Kris because she has special blood and he wants to prepare her to be the bride of Satan. In the meantime he tortures her friends with supernatural powers until they turn against her. FX scenes include hooks through skin, a ripped out throat and a girl turned to glass, but despite the good make-up (plus a cool set, good score by David Reynolds and fine production values), there are no scares and the story is thin and uninvolving. Really the best thing here is Laurence, a good and attractive lead actress on her way to becoming the next Jamie Lee Curtis. Playboy bunny fans might be interested to see Playmate Angel Boris (who provides nude scenes) and hey, and isn't that pumped-up BRAIN DAMAGE star Rich Herbst/Hearst playing her boyfriend? It was filmed in Ireland.Score: 3 out of 10