t_atzmueller 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.

capkronos 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

Big Movie Fan Warlock III was a very good horror movie and it stands out in the crowd very well.Bruce Payne is very good as Warlock. He's good because he plays one of those sinister types who comes over as all benevolent and harmless when in fact he is an evil warlock.The film is one of those good movies which doesn't shock us right from the beginning but chooses to be subtle and gradually scare us. The finale itself is very good and quite scary and unlike some horror films it doesn't feature the bad guy keep getting up from blow after blow.Well done to the people behind Warlock III.

zombiesnake17 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.