Warlock III: The End of Innocence

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.

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.

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)

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.

This movie is pretty damn good. Way better than #2, and just a nose away from the first. This film focuses around the miller house and goes back to reveal a bit more about the Warlock and his presence in colonial times. It is really quite well done and the acting put forth by Bruce Payne supersedes Julian Sands'. It is also quite creatively done, especially what the Warlock does. Excellent, probably the best in the series.