Warlock III: The End of Innocence (1999 Video) User Reviews

Pathetic compared to the previous Warlock films

[marimbadaddy · 3/10 · 20 July 2007]

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.

Doesn't feel like a Warlock film

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 6 June 2018]

THE END OF INNOCENCE is the third and final WARLOCK movie, but even Julian Sands wouldn't come back for it, which says something. As such, he's replaced by generic bad guy Bruce Payne, who after playing a fun role in PASSENGER 57 seems to have been stuck in the B-movie doldrums ever since. I enjoyed ARMAGEDDON, the outrageously gruesome second film in the series, but the third time's a real dud. This feels more like a torture-based HELLRAISER sequel and the presence of HELLRAISER actress Ashley Laurence in the lead role only enhances the similarities. A bunch of characters hang around in an old house, there's a lot of sex and nudity, and the occasional gore sequence. The whole thing is quite the bore, and best forgotten.

a blasphemic act

[Jigo · 4/10 · 26 October 2000]

the third part of the series is simply blasphemic. Trying to make a 90s teenieshlasher version out of the great warlock sujet.

Where Part 1 & 2 had atmosphere, fun and style (no big surprise looking, who directed them) Part 3 is only boring,plotless and stupid. Not to forget acted real badly. Only Payne as Warlock is acceptable.

No no no no

[Keydjes · 1/10 · 11 April 2001]

This is not a Warlock-movie.....where did this come from??? This is a cheap horror movie that can't even scare a child. There was no plot, no story and absolutely not one good actor. I am a fan of Bruce Payne but this was crap, he is not a Warlock. Even if Julian Sands is not the best actor of all, he is the Warlock and I am so glad he didn't do this one because this is terrible. I don't have the words to say how bad it was so instead of just repeating myself I end it here. Another film that should never had been done.

Good Deal!

[joehed · 5 March 2000]

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.

In a word? Lame.

[FiendishDramaturgy · 1/10 · 17 September 2003]

As far as sequels go, this one rates right down there with Pet Semetary 2 and Exorcist 2. Lame, Lame Lame!!!

This movie had absolutely NOTHING to do with the first two movies. And, unfortunately for Julian Sands fans, he wanted too much money to do this third installment, and so the studio hired some lame a** to play his character. Never a good move in a sequel, and that little studio stunt drags this already wavering "B" flick down into the trenches of the "D" category. Dirt. Disgusting.

Deplorable. Detritus. Dire.

I hate this movie. It represents everything that has ruined the industry. Shoddy acting, horrible casting, non-existent directing...the cast of characters wanders aimlessly through this horrid piece of garbage seemingly with no direction whatsoever.

This is not even a movie. It's a flick, and nothing more. Don't waste your time, or resources on this one.

It rates NOTHING -0/10- from...

the Fiend :.

Ugh

[dgs · 2/10 · 11 October 1999]

This dreadful third installment is more like the TV series Friends than the previous entries and has replaced the wonderful Julian Sands with a horribly miscast Bruce Payne in this pointless bore. A group of 30-year-old actors posing as college kids stay at a mansion once owned by the evil warlock. OOOOHHHH I'm so scared already. This direct-to-video joke has very few moments that we'll enjoy and 99 percents just stinks. Ditch this clunker and re-watch the first two (preferably #1) or wait till they get it right next time.

a pimple on the but of the warlock series

[n00msy · 1/10 · 24 February 2002]

Just bad, had nothing to do with the other movies the original warlock wasnt even the same dude and didnt follow the series at all. It almost took away from the Warlock movies, almost stopped watching it. guess I should have read the box before I watched it.

Total disapointment.

[zombiesnake17 · 4/10 · 22 June 2001]

I'll be honest with you I like Playboy playmates, and I especially like Angel Boris (playmate of the month July 1996)who has a small part in this movie. In fact she is the whole reason I rented this video at all. Since this is the third movie in a seris I decided it would be a good idea to see parts one and two before I got to this one. I thought part one entitled "Warlock" was pretty boring but had good characters and a good try at a plot so I did'nt hate it. Part two entitled "Warlock:The Armeggedon" was excellent in my opinion. It had cool special effects, good plot, was'nt boring and the Warlock Julian Sands was still in it who I liked from part one. By this point I was glad I saw them both because they were fun and now I was ready to see the one I wanted to see in the first place. Boy was I disapointed. The movie was very boring, had no plot, wasn't scary (even though you could tell they were trying to make this one scary unlike the other ones), and Angel Boris was barley in it and when she was she would just say stupid lines that they wrote for her just so they could have a hot chick type person in it at all. The main character was a whiney plain lookin girl who should be in some sappy show like 7th Heaven instead of a horror movie. These aren't the only characters who are lame in this movie because your glad when all the guy characters die and could care less anyway. Now that I told what I thought was bad here is what I thought was good: Angel Boris' breast's exposed twice, Angel Boris in a thong, and the new Warlock Bruce Payne was'nt that bad even though I still missed Julian Sands who I'm kind of glad was'nt in this one because it was so lame. If you did like this movie then I would like to recommend another seris of movies which is similiar to this one but a thousand times better. This seris being the "Night of the Demons" movies. Because They are scarier,have better special effects,have a ton more female nudity, and are also funny which this movie was'nt trying to be, but comedy is of course an important part of the horror movie experience.

How can a horror flick be dreary? This is how.

[zimbo_the_donkey_boy · 3/10 · 10 January 2004]

I just saw this on tv so don't know how it was promoted when it first came out. Was it advertized on daytime soap operas? It looks like a "horror" movie for people who don't like horror movies. And it's made in the popular style of movies churned out by directors who don't know how to make movies but wish to put across the impression to children that they DO know all the "tricks" of making dramatic flicks. As others here have said, there are lots of tv shows a lot scarier than this mediocre slop.

Talk about a real come down.

[lost-in-limbo · 3/10 · 28 April 2020]

After enjoying the first two films, the second straight-to-video sequel was at times a slog to sit through. It was a colourlessly dry outing without the underlining humour and spirit that engulfed the previous chapters. Taking a different approach, very po-faced, the premise plays out like a haunted house meets "And then there were none" formula with the warlock smack in the middle, being instrumental to everything going on. Some creepy vibes mainly drawn up from the locations, and a creative supernatural death here and there, but the narrative including the back-story of the protagonist's family connection to the warlock's plans was a laborious affair. Nothing particularly outrageous, or even interesting despite actress Ashley Laurence's best efforts to hold it together. Julian Sands wouldn't return, and while I liked him in the previous two and my preference would've been to have him on again. Still Bruce Payne in the title role probably was more menacing, if less smarmy and playful in the role. Whenever on screen his performance was fine, so I can't point my finger at him. It's just the material and direction around him was not as involving- simply it was flat-out dull.

A Tale of Witchcraft And Warlocks.

[Shaithis · 8/10 · 11 January 2000]

One movie I was not too fond of was Warlock featuring an actor I really couldn't stand...Warlock featuring Julian Sands. It was quite a predictable, if not quite boring film.

One day, I'm not sure if I saw it on a pay-tv channel or what, but I watched Warlock: Armageddon. I really thought it was neat, original, and especially smart. So when I saw yet another sequel, I was hesitant, but picked it up anyways.

What I received was not as original as Armageddon, but it did have its entertainment value. I remember long ago when Witchboard had the same effect, but it did not hold up over time, and I can't say I think this one will either.

The creators of this film have done a wonderful job on what looks like a not too huge direct-to-video budget. A major selling point was the presence of 'Hellraiser's' Ashley Laurence (I'm a sucker for a cute tough girl that can defeat demons) as I have not seen her in anything since 'The Lurking Fear'. Once again, in typical Ashley Laurence fashion she's the main chased after girl who must defeat the demon (or shall we say warlock).

Bruce Payne grew on me through the film. At first I must admit I even thought Julian Sands would be better. But his calm demeanour really intensified the scenes and gave some nice atmosphere.

The film, yes is quite a stereotypical one. But it did have interesting elements placed in it. I really liked the druid aspect that Armageddon brought, and while it isn't really showcased in this film, there is a good witch, and a nice young aspiring good witch that try to battle the Warlock. Unfortunately it is in a minimal amount of the film.

A group of friends, all of different stereotypes (one is a musician, another an artist, a witch, a kinky sex kitten, and a kinky muscled possible ahem jockish-type character?) head to an old house which is scheduled to be demolished. Ashley Laurence, whom in this film is an orphan, never knew her birth parents. It is their old house. What follows is your basic what has happened in the past will now repeat in the future. It is only up to this small group of friends to stop it (and whatever clues and artefacts are found around the house).

I recommend this film to anyone who likes mild witchcrafty-type horror films for a light viewing. It's not like the other Warlock films have been Shakespeare, and this one is the same.

hmmm.

[Blaidd_Drwg · 6/10 · 11 March 2006]

I'll be honest. It really was an okay movie. While no one can replace Julian Sands, Bruce Payne did a pretty good job as The Warlock. He played the facade of good well (as Phillip Covington) and he played his true evil self (The Warlock) even better. It was a treat to watch him act in this movie. Ashley Laurence did a good job of playing Kris as well, her performance wasn't too over the top, and she still managed to play the part fairly accurately. I went into this movie expecting something more akin to the original movies, and I was absolutely devastated that Julian Sands wasn't playing The Warlock. I was skeptical about it, but in the end, I was rather pleased with how it turned out.

Warlock III: The End of Innocence review

[JoeytheBrit · 5/10 · 3 July 2020]

By-the-numbers horror sequel in which a college student who, with the usual assortmentof disposable friends, visits a creepy old house she has unexoectedly inherited and finds herself stalked by the title character, a centuries-old demon in human form. Not exactly intolerable, but bad enough to bring the franchise to an end.

Single word summary...... "Huh?"

[toxiemite · 6 November 2003]

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)

Hopefully the end of this particular franchise.

[capkronos · 3/10 · 30 December 2003]

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

Third times a charm, but not really...

[paul_haakonsen · 5/10 · 29 December 2015]

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.

What a load of warlocks!

[BA_Harrison · 3/10 · 16 September 2019]

Of all the guests I have met at various conventions over the years, Ashley Laurence is probably the loveliest - not just beautiful but really nice to talk to as well. So it pains me to say that The End of Innocence, in which Ashley takes the lead, is easily the weakest Warlock of the three; not that I blame Ms. Laurence - she is easily the best thing about the whole sorry mess.

Ashley plays art student Kris Miller, who investigates an old ancestral house in the hope of learning more about the history of her family. After some spooky goings on, Kris is relieved when she is joined by her boyfriend Michael (Paul Francis) and a group of their college pals for some partying, but their fun comes to an end when suave architect Phillip Covington (Bruce Payne) -- in reality an evil warlock -- works his wicked magic.

Part III couldn't be less like the first two films: instead of a mix of humour and horror, director Eric Freiser plays it straight, but he fails to generate much in the way of genuine scares, his film an embarrassment of fumbled frights, weak performances (Bruce Payne, a poor man's Julian Sands, is terrible), tacky stylisms, and cheap and unconvincing visual effects (the shattering of witch Robin and the burning of Michael are unintentionally funny).

Freiser tries to compensate with some nudity courtesy of Playboy playmate Angel Boris Reed, who plays sexy dominatrix Lisa, and a little gore (bloodiest moment: a man having his throat torn out), and even tries to emulate Argento for a scene where Kris makes a bid for freedom (complete with operatic style music). It's all for naught though: some boobs and a little blood isn't enough to disguise that fact that Warlock III is predictable third-rate pap.

3.5 out of 10, rounded down to 3 for that awful goat demon at the end, and for the overuse of an irritating 'eagle screech' sound effect.

A reboot or a continuation? It doesn't matter, the movie is weak and uninteresting.

[filipemanuelneto · 1/10 · 20 October 2021]

This film is the second in the "Warlock" franchise, started in 1989 and in which the main character is an evil sorcerer determined to spread evil around the world. Unfortunately, this film only takes advantage of the title, having no clear connection with the films that preceded it. For me, it worked more like a failed attempt to reboot, forgetting everything behind in order to create a completely new story.

In this film, we follow Kris, a young woman who has been adopted and doesn't know any blood relatives. She is contacted by a historian in order to visit an old family home that is to be demolished. Seeing an opportunity to learn more about her origins, she accepts. However, the house hides a secret: inside, imprisoned for centuries and awaiting his release, is an evil sorcerer who is eager to take revenge on her family.

If the first film in the franchise was satisfying and the second was a pale image of the first, this one is largely hampered by being so different from the previous two films. To make it all the more exasperating, it doesn't have a script capable of justifying the feature film, dragging itself tediously over a long period of time. Throughout the film, we also watch several scenes of sex and sadomasochism that only serve to allow us to see the breasts of some actresses, not adding anything of value or importance to the plot. Sex sells and appeals, especially in a movie where the characters spend so much time doing nothing!

The cast is composed, for the most part, of unknown names, taken from the back of the drama classrooms, I believe. None of them stand out, so they don't deserve an individual mention, but only a collective reference to the suffering work performed by them. However, I have no doubt that the terrible material given to them by the screenwriter did not give them scope for something better either. Two honorable mentions are highlighted here: the first and most relevant goes to the protagonist, Bruce Payne, who succeeded Julian Sands in the role. He was minimally capable and manages to avoid appearing vain or contrived. Less interesting, but favored by his role in the plot, Ashley Laurence has not let us down.

Technically, the film is quite weak and permanently denounces the poor budget and a certain latent amateurism. Starting with the tiring and boring cinematography, the film has terrible sets and bland costumes. The house, in particular, seems to be so strange and far-fetched that it's impossible to give it credibility. It looks like what it is: a filming set. The visual and special effects are another problem: as there's no budget for something better, they're particularly bad and unpleasant. As an example, I would highlight the scene where one of the characters is turned into a glass statue and broken into pieces... it's all as fake as it could be.

Better watch any Buffy episode

[jean-no · 3/10 · 11 August 2003]

I didn't pay a lot for that movie, and that is better : it is a standard fantastic/horror movie full of silly things, where all what is going to happen is clear from the very first seconds... The acting doesn't save the special effects that doesn't save the set that doesn't save the script that doesn't save the directing... Nothing saves nothing. The french baseline is "the redemption"... Well there is no redemption, this is a bad picture that contains no fun, no real fear, no great idea. Avoid it !

I Scratch My Head Wondering Why Warlock Needed Sequels

[BenTramerLives78 · 1/10 · 14 March 2021]

Sequels were all the rage in the horror world for years, and I do enjoy most, but I cannot understand why we needed two horrible sequels to a decent film like Warlock. This third outing doesn't even have the same warlock from the first two films. When I saw Ashley Laurence's name I felt like maybe this would be better than the second film, oh boy was I wrong. This is a waste of time.

Ashley laurence vs Bruce Payne it's like a dream come true.

[Scorpion Man · 8/10 · 29 January 2002]

Here's how it goes, 300 years ago an all powerful controller of satanic forces (Bruce Payne) tried to bring about the end of civilisation... of course it didn't work, but now the time has come for another attempt. Searching for clues to her family history the young decendant of the Warlock's arch enemy visits her newly inherited house where the Warlock lies in wait. To raise from hell the poison bride who will plunge the world into unimaginable evil, the Warlock must sacrifice the descendant of a witch born on a blue moon to the devil. Rather luckily for him, the girl is such a decendant born on a blue moon, not so luckily for him she is played by Ashley 'The demon basher' Laurence; the one person the armies of darkness could never hope to defeat. To make things a bit more interesting he can't simply kidnap her and do the ritual like other Warlocks, instead he must be given something by each of her closest friends who must then give her up to him. The acting is perfect (as Bruce Payne & Ashley Laurence always are) and although the scenery is designed to look a bit daft the special effects and cool music more than make up for it. Horror at it's best.

Better than #2

[Mike-842 · 7/10 · 20 July 1999]

This was better than Warlock #2: The Armageddon and is equivalent to Warlock #1. This one featured average horror movie characters, except The Warlock, played by Bruce Payne better than anybody else played him. It involves a couple of kids (teens) who go to a house that belonged to a maniac. It turnes of that the maniac was a Warlock and now he's after them. Some good special effects.

Rated R for some extreme horror gore, violence, brief nudiy and some brief, but strong profanity, as well as some adult situations.

Not even Bruce Payne's presence could save this mess.

[t_atzmueller · 2/10 · 27 March 2012]

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.