Fatma Suarez
The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful
Zandra
The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.
Josephina
Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.
Platypuschow
I'm binging the Witchcraft franchise, all 16 of them and was regretting making this decision after the mess that was the first film.Outstandingly Witchcraft 2 actually manages to be worse and that was a feat I wasn't expecting.It follows on from the first film with the baby now a teenager (Played by a guy who looks about 30). Now an evil temptress is after him, can he resist her or is he doomed to fall into satans plan?Honestly, I didn't care. From the baffling daft story to the awful performances to the hokey effects this was an utter mess.I do hope they get better, for the sake of my health!The Good:Follows on from the first filmThe Bad:Awful effectsDreadful plotIncredibly boringThings I Learnt From This Movie:Some movies should come with warning labels such as "May be hazardous to mental wellbeing" or "May bring you out in a rash, watch in moderation"
BA_Harrison
I had intended to watch all sixteen of the Witchcraft films as part of a 31 Days of Horror October challenge, but only two films into the series and I'm already faltering. The first was a cheap and uninspired Rosemary's Baby rip off with just a touch of barely passable gore in the closing moments; this sequel is just as cheap and dull, but replaces the graphic violence with just a smidge of gratuitous nudity, something that I understand subsequent sequels exploit further, becoming little more than supernatural flavoured soft-core sex movies.The Temptress takes place eighteen years after the first film, William now a frustrated teenager (played by Charles Solomon Jr.) desperately trying to have his way with chaste girlfriend Michelle (Mia M. Ruiz). Causing further trouble for their relationship is blonde witch Dolores, who tries to lure William to the dark side by offering her body to him, which he somehow resists. Meanwhile, William receives three strange gifts that assemble to form a chalice, his adoptive parents reveal themselves to be part of a coven, and Michelle is stripped to her underwear and molested by an unseen force. None of this makes much sense or is particularly entertaining, with terrible performances from the cast of unknowns and pedestrian direction from Mark Woods (this being his one and only movie).If the next few entries in the Witchcraft series show no sign of improvement, there's a good chance that I won't get through them all until the same time next year.
dostoynihil
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
rienkweitenberg
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??????
