Bad Boys for Life
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
Got more questions about news letters?
Already have an account? Log in here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We encourage our community to report abusive content and/ or spam. Our team will review flagged items and determine whether or not they meet our community guidelines.
Please choose best explanation for why you are flagging this review.
Thank you for your submission. This post has been submitted for our review.
Sincerely, The Rotten Tomatoes Team
Seriously lacking Sands, and it has some horrible score with lazy/shoddy direction, but surprisingly it's not quite as bad as I was suspecting. It lacks really scares, but it's got a decent story.
A dull, tedious bore!
Not as good as the previous two, this sequel doesn't retain the same sense of style and humor. A new lead actor plus being filmed several years later make this feel more like a "re-boot." A college girl inherits an old house, and her friends join her in checking out the place. A warlock, who has been trapped in the house for 350 years doesn't take kindly to their presence. Not a bad film, I just wish it wasn't billed as another Warlock.
The Warlock is back again but this time its not the devilishly handsome Julian Sands but the also quite devilishly handsome Bruce Payne. Both are British, both have blonde receding hair, both are well spoken with an aristocratic sense about them and Payne is certainly not one to turn down a cheap B-movie.
This time its actually a different Warlock though, not the same soul as the previous two films, but these Warlocks do seem similar don't they, Satan must have a thing for blonde British men.
Plot wise its a change of pace, gone is the exciting 'Terminator' chase style of the previous two. Now we have a much duller psychological thriller type approach set inside a really dreary looking house. Unfortunately the writers have opted for the predictable and over used 'good looking young people in a house getting killed one by one' theme. The other thing is I think its suppose to be kinda scary but really it isn't.
Payne's Warlock makes friends with them one by one, getting to know them a little, then kills them in odd ways. One is a complete 'T2' rip, another is a complete 'Hellraiser' type rip, so not much originality going on in this house. What's funny is Payne merely walks around sounding Über freaky and erratic yet no one really notices, nor does anyone really catch on that it might be him doing the killing...the guy in all black with an evil grin on his face maybe?.
Very cheap looking production values, hardly any decent sets (the house is virtually bare), bad acting by sexy young folk, poor effects and very few of them with a very drab finale. Payne is semi good fun here simply because he does the bad guy thing so well but really this is a bit naff . Nice little sequences of BDSM though hehe.
This 1999 movie is trash! Bruce Payne did a horrible job playing a warlock! Director Eric Freiser did a terrible job directing this movie. The plot and the storyline was garbage!
What kind of witchcraft is this? Julian Sands is sorely missed.
YOU DON'T HAVE THE POWER
I have to be honest I could not focus on watching this from beginning to end. I kept getting up and doing random things around the house, it just wasn't grasping my attention. If you are like me and thinking I loved the first Warlock movie, and the second wasn't that bad, so how bad could the the third one be. Believe me you won't like this one, it doesn't hold a candle to either of the previous ones. The first one was still the best in my book. I give it a star just because the filming wasn't horrible and the actors weren't terrible, but that's about it.
The characters are cliched and the film is really silly/cheesy, but I was surprisingly entertained with it. Bruce Payne is a lot of fun to watch here.
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.
If you liked this review (or even if you didn't) check out oneguyrambling.com for over 500 reviews and plenty more good stuff...