MovieChat Forums > Warlock III: The End of Innocence (1999) Discussion > Warlock III on Wikipedia

Warlock III on Wikipedia

posted 18 years ago by brucesangels
8 replies | jump to latest

We have created a new page on Wikipedia for Warlock III: The End of Innocence. Here's one comment on Bruce Payne's performance in the film:

"Bruce brought to the film his own brand of evil intensity and the suave charisma that was required for the Warlock," says Freiser. "In the first two movies, Julian was very smooth as the character, but Bruce makes for a scarier villain. You feel he is capable of more evil than Julian." - Eric Freiser, director of Warlock III.

We couldn't agree more. Check out more critics praise of Mr. Payne's performance on the Wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlock_III

More of Mr. Payne as the Warlock from the film at http://www.brucesangels.com/warlock.htm

[–] radioguyreturns 18 years ago

I was quite surprised at the fact there was no Warlock II page, so I knocked up one for that too, but it's almost a stub. Feel free to add to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlock:_The_Armageddon

http://www.xm202.info

[–] toxiemite 17 years ago

Bruce Payne's performance in Warlock III was atrocious and brought shame upon the franchise... in fact this whole film brought shame upon it.

[–] brucesangels 17 years ago

Your opinion is not shared by a number of the film critics.

John Fallon of Arrow in the Head said "Bruce Payne gives a charismatic, subdued scary performance. I couldn't take my eyes off him. Bruce Payne is all charm."

Richard Scheib of Science Fiction Horror and Fantasy Film Review Database said "As the Warlock,Bruce Payne, an actor who has magnificently theatrical charisma and presence, is actually better in the part than the perpetually overwroguth Julian Sands."

[–] toxiemite 16 years ago

Bruce Payne was right for the role in Warlock III but his performance was miguided. "Scary" is not what the warlock should be... but rather he should be charismatic and deceptful.

But the failure of Warlock III cannot be hung on Payne... the entire film was a disgrace. It failed to honor the first two films and chose to turn it into your average run-of-the-mill satanic film. Crapolla!!!

[–] brucesangels 16 years ago

Not only us but other reviewers, as cited above, think that Bruce Payne was in fact charming as the warlock. So why do you say "rather he should be..."? And he was certainly deceitful and deceptive. The group of young people did not know what he was at first and he fooled them for quite a while. Whatever the lack of merit of this film, Bruce's portrayal of the warlock was not one of the demerits. And ultimately any warlock is going to be scary if he exercises his power. So your remarks about Bruce's portrayal make no sense.

[–] toxiemite 16 years ago

And your devotion to Bruce Payne makes even littler sense.

The simple fact of the matter is that an attempt to continute the Warlock legacy without Julian Sands is ludicrous. Sands owns that character and even though Payne's warlock is a different one, it matters not.

You know what? I was defending Pruce Payne in my comment. I was blaming the over all film for being an attrocity and for your own sake I was cutting Payne some slack. But that fact that you're so obsessed with him makes me laugh really hard. Its really sad that you would jump onto anyone who so much as mentions his name, let alone criticizes him. You're certainly not doing him any favours!!!

So i will retract my previous comment. Bruce Payne was terrible. Utterly utterly terrible!!!!

[–] BAHicks 15 years ago

lol. Littler.

Recent Theatre Viewings:
Inglourious Basterds: 9/10
Zombieland: 6/10
Paranormal Activity: 4/10

[–] CannibalCraig 13 years ago

I saw Warlock 1 and 2 but have yet to see this one. The second one was one of my favorite horror films of the 90's. Partly in fact that Hickox directed. Not a great director but his early films were immensely entertaining (Waxwork, Sundown, Hellraiser 3, etc). I didn't particularly like Sands in the first one but that second movie rocked. Particularly his "birth" scene.

The reason I haven't seen the third film wasn't because of Bruce Payne (according to wikipedia, he and Sands were often confused for each other in there early acting careers) but was because the storyline didn't sound on par with the other films. Also, the initial negative reviews kind of turned me away. Nevertheless, the film seems to have turned into somewhat of a cult film at this point with some very dedicated fans. So I suppose it's worth seeing after all these years?

I'm just a guy that likes horror flicks.