Witchcraft II: The Temptress (1989) User Reviews

Witchcraft II The Temptress: 2/16 down

[Platypuschow · 2/10 · 8 February 2018]

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 film

The Bad:

Awful effects

Dreadful plot

Incredibly boring

Things 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"

Just as Bad as Original

[ryan-10075 · 4/10 · 21 October 2019]

The second entry in the WITCHCRAFT series has quite different flavour and style than the original. There is more sexuality and there is a certain goofiness (which if you look at my rating doesn't always work) in the first sequel. The baby William from the original is now all grown up (interestingly just one year later) played by Charles Solomon Jr. He is starting to learn about his past and what he is supposed to be. He just happens to live next door to a sexy witch named Dolores (Delia Sheppard) who always wears black. She is trying to bring him and show him the delights of evil.

I did find this movie slightly more entertaining than the original, but in the end it is just as bad. There are a few moments in the film where there are long takes, which I can truly enjoy, but it just injects boredom into the film as there is nothing interesting appearing on the screen. Not to mention at about the hour mark the film slides into some brutal camp, which I think is all unintentional. From that point on the movie just tends to get even worse.

Straight to video for a reason

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 29 October 2016]

THE TEMPTRESS is the second in the series of enduring WITCHCRAFT films which began in the late '80s and are still being made today. There are about fifteen so far, making this a more prolific series than the likes of Friday the 13th or Halloween. Sadly most of these are junk and straight-to-video for a reason; they're simple 'erotic' horrors emphasising sexuality and nudity and not much else.

A lot of them have the same boring guy in them, good warlock Charles Solomon Jr., and THE TEMPTRESS is no exception. He plays a guy trying to live an ordinary life with his girlfriend who gets into hot water when the titular character turns up on the scene. She's played by Danish model Delia Sheppard, a statuesque Brigitte Nielsen lookalike who is more than happy to flaunt her body when the situation arises.

Sadly the ensuing film is trashy and uninteresting. The horror aspects are so tame and cheesy as to barely register. As for the sexual content, it's not as memorable as in those Shannon Tweed-style erotic thrillers so popular during the 1990s. THE TEMPTRESS straddles a line between boring and ridiculous, and sadly neither is a recommendation.

this is meant to be serious?

[dostoynihil · 24 May 2006]

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

Makes Plan 9 From Outer Space look like Citizen Kane!!!!!

[bigpappa1--2 · 1/10 · 31 May 2000]

I feel very strongly about the above line. This is just plain out butt awful. First the main charcters are supposed to be teenagers, but they look to be in their 30's. The Temptress character looks much younger than everybody else in the film. Then there is the wooden acting. The direction is even worse. And oh my God!!!! That d**m awful script. It looks like some person just had only a crayon and wrote some notes on a piece of tiolet paper and the rest of the crew just worked off that and improvised everything!!!

Please. I beg you if you have not seen any of the films in this series, DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. They are all awful. Each one just manages to get worse than the other. As though that was possible. Followed by way too many sequels. I stopped watching after part 7, but I think they have reached a part 10 or 11. The first one was awful, so how the H**l did it get followed by so many more sequels? Rating: 1 out of 10.

somewhat better than the first one, and begins the series' trend towards more nudity

[FieCrier · 5/10 · 26 September 2005]

This entry in the series takes place about eighteen years after the first one. William Churchill, the infant in that one, is now a young man by the name of William Adams preparing to go to college.

In the first one, the baby was born to John and Grace Churchill, who after William was born lived with John's mother Elizabeth. John and Elizabeth turned out to be witches, who believed that William was the reincarnation (or something) of the unborn child who died when a John and Elizabeth Stocton were burned at the stake for witchcraft some 300 years ago. Whether the Churchills were the descendants of, or reincarnations of the Stoctons, or whether they somehow were the Stoctons, I'm not sure.

Witchcraft II does include some footage from the first film in a number of scenes, and could probably stand on its own, but it's probably better to start with the first one. The other titles in the series have less continuity, though Will returns in all except parts 8 and 10.

This one does skip over some of the things that happened in between the movies. What happened to Grace Churchill isn't clear. Presumably the Adams family lived in Texas for a time, because Charles Solomon as Will has a definite accent, even more pronounced in the next two films he appeared in. Most of the actors who portray Will in the later films lack that accent, though.

Elizabeth Churchill (I think it was her, anyway) changes herself into Dolores Jones (Danish Penthouse Pet Delia Sheppard), a neighbor of the Adams. She wears black, a pentagram ring and necklace, and a silver snake belt and bracelet. Somehow, other witches don't realize she's a witch in spite of this. She makes some seductive moves towards Will, which if she is his mother/grandmother is disturbing, but she is a servant of Satan after all.

Dolores interrupts Will when he's making out with his girlfriend Michelle Cross, a preacher's daughter. He finds a mysterious package containing what seems to be a silver ashtray with Latin inscriptions on it. His parents know what it is and means, but don't tell him. They expect two more packages to arrive.

Will begins to learn more about where he came from, and people in his life start dying.

There's an odd The Entity-style rape in one scene (though with underwear on). It was unclear to me who was responsible. There's a few rapes in the series (e.g. pimps raping hookers), but not another one like this until Witchcraft XI: Sisters in Blood (2000), which is also an odd one tied to witchcraft.

The first part, unless it exists in more than one version, featured no nudity or sex scenes. This one features some, from both Michelle and Dolores, but no more than the amount of gratuitous nudity one might expect in a horror movie. Later titles in the series gravitated towards erotic horror, with some scenes feeling like softcore, even featuring some full frontal nudity.

This isn't a great movie, but it is fairly entertaining, and it's not as slow as the first one.

WitchCrap part 2

[Stevieboy666 · 2/10 · 31 December 2023]

Part two follows on from the original 1988 movie, that was pretty bad but things only get worse with this, the first of many sequels. William the baby from Witchcraft is all grown up, he aged 18 years in the one year space between movies! He is played by one Charles Solomon Jr, who looks closer to thirty and delivers his lines in the following manner - "Is there", pause, "something", pause, "that I can do for you?" His acting is atrocious and being the lead character completely destroys what could possibly have been a not so bad film. The movie was obviously marketed as an erotic supernatural horror, the Temptress is a blonde sexy witch called Deloris. She is played by Delia Sheppard, who was one of the few convincing actors in the entire cast. Apart from some teasing and baring her breasts near the end we sadly don't get to see enough of her. There is one other scene in which a couple are seen having sex plus a girl appears to get raped by an unseen force (an Incubus?) but she manages to keep her underwear on. Don't be fooled by the cover, there is not much eroticism on show here. There's not a great deal of horror either, most of the good stuff happens in the final few minutes. Unless you like bad movies or like me you are totally addicted to horror then my advice is don't be tempted, this is 88 minutes of garbage.

Part II of the Witchcraft challenge.

[BA_Harrison · 3/10 · 13 October 2017]

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.

Oh what is wrong with you people

[jacobjohntaylor1 · 9/10 · 18 July 2018]

Does any one other then me know a good horror movie when they see. This is a great movie. The first Witchcraft movie is better. But still this is a very scary movie. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It is so underrated. It is one of the scariest movies from 1989.

This is almost the worst horror film I've suffered through

[Bezenby · 12 August 2011]

Seriously - I've watched a lot of horror since the age of 11 (and I'm 35 now), and there's only a few films that hurt so much that I'm actually angry after watching them. The Stink of Flesh was one such film...Zombie Nightmare was another. This film, Witchcrap 2, really got under my skin in terms of pure annoyance.

I've never even seen the first film. This one has a guy (William Chugnut), and his missus (Something Bladbladia) 'making out' as they say over there, but then this Bridgit Neilson type turns up and it's all about a box and the parents know something and *eyes close* and *eyes open* there's a geek chick who finds something out and gets killed and *eyes close* and *eyes open* there's a jelly water mango on display and *eyes close* and *eyes open* - My LAST THOUGHT while viewing this film was 'please change the camera shot soon as I am going to fall asleep". This was during the scene where William's dad was describing something or other. The camera doesn't cut away to reaction shots - it's just the same shot, for about six minutes, with nothing interesting happening. Truly awful.

Some hanging globes of joy on display, but that's it. This film is terrible in every respect. I really hated it.

If it's so bad, then why do you watch it?

[rienkweitenberg · 25 August 2002]

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??????

* out of 4.

[brandonsites1981 · 29 May 2002]

Evil witch tries to lure the surviving baby from part I, now a teenager into the forces of darkness. Not quite as bad as the original, but still awful by any means. Frequent nudity and some violence & sex doesn't help, but actually make things worse. Rated R; Nudity, Violence, Profanity, and Sexual Situations.

If you thought I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER was bad, then check out WITCHCRAFT II for more lameness

[aaronzombie · 17 May 2000]

WITCHCRAFT II, the first sequel to it's decent predecessor is without a doubt the worst horror film in history(So far anyway.) This time the baby from the original is grown up and living with foster parents. Suddenly an evil witch who looks like a Madonna wannabe stalks him to teach him his birthright...BIG deal! Extremely boring, terrible story, acting(Except for Charles Solomon as the teenager.), and laughable effects. Other films in the series to avoid: IV, VII, and VIII(I haven't seen X and XI(!)yet.) * out of *****.

Introducing Delia

[lor_ · 24 May 2023]

My review was written in June 1990 after watching the movie on Academy video cassette.

This sequel to the 1988 video picture is an effective showcase for the charms of newcomer Delia Sheppard. This is another direct-to-video release, but Sheppard will be featured on the big-screen in "Rocky V".

She plays a temptress, out to charm young hero Charles Solomon who's been groomed (unknown to him) as the supreme warlock to take over the world. As detailed in the first film (flashbacks of which are presented here), Solomon's parents and foster parents all practiced witchcraft.

Opposing Sheppard are the local reverend (Frank Woods), whose daughter Mia Ruiz is Solomon's girlfriend. One cute gag has Woods complaining about exorcism that "Catholics are so much better than Methodists at this".

Direction by Mark Woods is okay, though the climax is directed too much like a heavy metal music video. Center of attention is Sheppard, previously seen in the barely released "Sexbomb". She's severely styled as a dominating blonde hellcat in trashy, revealing costumes. Her campy performance tags Sheppard as the '90s answer to Mamie Van Doren.

Tech credits, especially the optical effects, are chintzy.

"Come back! You Can't Run From Your Destiny!"...

[azathothpwiggins · 2 June 2021]

The opening scene of WITCHCRAFT II: THE TEMPTRESS features a witch either casting a spell, or making the world's ugliest tuna casserole. Thus, the character of the title is created.

Enter Will Adams and his girlfriend, Michelle (Chris Solomon and Mia Ruiz), who have no idea that the demonic seductress lives right next door to Will! Her name is Dolores (the divine Delia Sheppard), and she hasn't been herself lately. Will finds her enchanting, even... tempting. Dolores starts popping in and out of the Will's life like a sensual jack-in-the-box, to hilarious effect. Even the cleaning of her gutters becomes a rib-tickling event!

Can Will and his relationship with what's-her-name, somehow endure Dolores' powers?

This movie is far more absurd than the original. While that movie was typical, straight-to-video, 1980's cheeeze-corn, this one bears no resemblance to that story, choosing instead to veer off into soft core land.

EXTRA POINTS FOR: #1- The role of Boomer (David Homb), who's in the running for the most perfectly annoying character ever! He's more irritating than a bout of personal itch! #2- The insane final conflict that plays like a mumbo jumbo-filled music video!...

not THAT bad

[chaosnbeer · 22 December 2002]

not really horrible...more like horribly entertaining..but I watch some pretty awful movies and get kicks out of them so this is probably no exception. I didn't see the original so as far as storyline goes I have no idea whats going on..but hey all I need is a sex blonde with big hooters and a man in his mid 30's passing off as a highschooler and some moronic dialogue i'm happy. It could have used alot more gore..there is barely none..and some more nudity through the whole thing (isnt that what these movies became later known for) oh and check out Charles Soloman's facial expressions...very funny

Tempted By Sex

[Michael_Elliott · 7 October 2012]

Witchcraft II (1990)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

William, the infant child from the first film, is now an adult (Charles Solomon) living with foster parents and trying to decide what to do with his life when a sexy witch (Delia Sheppard) shows up on the scene to try and seduce him to join them. Thankfully William's girlfriend just happens to have a dorky father who is a preacher. The first film in the series was pretty much a straight horror film that didn't have too much going on in it. This sequel shows that the series was starting to go down a different path as softcore sex started to enter the picture, although there's nothing too graphic or even over-the-top on display here. It's strange that Sheppard became a vamp around the time this was released and while she's on full display here, those wanting to see her naked are going to have to stick around till the very end of the picture. Many people call this worst than the original but I'm not sure I'd got that far. As bad as this movie is, it at least features some pretty silly moments that actually made me laugh and kept me more entertained than anything in the first one. I really thought it was funny how this "horny" William was constantly being told by his good girlfriend to "stop" yet wait till you see how he handles the seducer. William's reactions to not only the sex but the witchcraft going on was all rather funny. The performances are pretty much what you'd expect from a film like this but I doubt anyone was renting this baby expecting Brando. The gore level is rather small, the sex scenes are also low and even the nudity isn't that much. WITCHCRAFT II is clearly just for nuts like myself willing to go through a thirteen film series.