Connect with us

Editorials

‘Warlock III: The End of Innocence’ – Revisiting the Final Film in the ‘Warlock’ Trilogy

Published

on

Younger readers may not be aware of this, but there was a time before the streaming wars when a movie could still be profitable without having a successful run at the box office. In fact, the direct-to-video market used to be so huge that it was worth producing smaller projects specifically for video and DVD, especially when a wide theatrical release might result in them losing money. Unfortunately, the reduced budgets often resulted in cheap cash-grabs when it came to franchises, with most movie sequels decreasing in quality the further they strayed from their cinema screen origins.

However, there were exceptions to this trend, as the lowered expectations also meant that creative risks could sometimes be taken with existing properties – with filmmakers being allowed to innovate instead of simply rehashing what came before. One example of these creative outliers is the Warlock series, as the third movie is actually a marked improvement over the second entry despite its direct-to-video origins. With that in mind, I invite you to join us for the final installment in our three-part Warlock retrospective as we dive into what exactly makes Warlock III: The End of Innocence tick.

The original film had been a surprise hit for Trimark Pictures, as they had acquired the finished project for much less than its production budget, but Warlock: The Armageddon wasn’t the huge success that the distributor had been hoping for despite a greatly reduced budget. That’s why it makes sense that the next installment would cost even less than its already-discounted predecessor, with Warlock III being produced for a mere $2 million.

Naturally, Julian Sands jumped ship when he realized the limitations of the ensuing sequel, and even Anthony Hickox couldn’t be convinced to return to the director’s chair. Ironically, I believe that this is the source of the film’s unique charms, as a completely new (albeit budget-friendly) cast and crew ended up making The End of Innocence a completely different kind of movie, with the filmmakers under no pressure to tie things in with the stories that came before.

Hellraiser II levels of trippy.

Helmed by Eric Freiser (who sadly only directed this film and one other TV movie) and starring Hellraiser’s Ashley Laurence as our leading lady, this sequel is more of a traditional scary movie than a fantasy/horror hybrid. Not only does the film introduce a surprisingly menacing reinvention of the titular Warlock courtesy of Bruce Payne, but it was also shot in Roger Corman’s Concorde Anois studios (infamous for its controversial genre productions) due to the new haunted house setting.

In the finished film, we follow the artist Kris Miller (Laurence) as she and her friends travel to her estranged family’s ancestral home in an attempt to find out more about her past before the place is demolished. Unfortunately, one of her companions accidentally unleashes a terrifying Warlock (Payne) who was trapped beneath the house, with the psychotic magician planning on using Kris as part of a demonic ritual in a mind-bending supernatural thriller.

We may have seen variations of this familiar premise before, but The End of Innocence is surprisingly well executed in spite of its inadequate budget and somewhat meandering narrative. To be honest, this might very well be the most consistent entry in the entire franchise, telling a self-contained story about family and ancestral curses that feels firmly rooted in a single genre and tone.

The side-characters are nothing to write home about – with the film featuring your standard early-2000s collection of disposable college students present in any number of horror flicks from that period – but the whole experience is grounded by two exceedingly charismatic leads. I mean, it’s impossible not to root for Laurence’s sensitive artist even if her friends leave a lot to be desired, and it’s pretty cool to see her face off against another disturbing supernatural force.

While there’s no getting over the absence of Julian Sands, I’ve got to hand it to Payne for making the role his own and completely recharacterizing the Warlock as a more manipulative and believably sinister figure. Gone is most of the over-the-top glee present in the previous films, with this newly resurrected Satanist (who might be a completely different Warlock) being a lot more direct with his evil schemes. Even critics of the time praised Payne’s performance as the highlight of the picture despite feeling that this was the weakest entry in the trilogy, claiming that his more calculating demeanor made him even more menacing.

Disposable Teens, anyone?

Even so, Warlock fans are here for the supernatural shenanigans, and Freiser’s film manages to deliver some solid old-fashioned frights that feel directly lifted from the golden age of Vincent Price vehicles. They may not all work, with some mirror scares and silly dialogue feeling more cheesy than eerie, but the flick’s more subdued approach to spell-work (like turning a victim into glass or cursing a musician with deafness) is a lot scarier than the hilarious effects of the previous films.

Alas, The End of Innocence suffers from some major pacing issues, with a huge portion of the runtime dedicated to watching edgy college students wander around an old house and talk about their upcoming exams. I usually wouldn’t mind a bit of character development sprinkled throughout a creepy adventure, but the weak script makes these talkative segments dreadfully uninteresting in ways that often overpower the creative bits – though I admit that some clever direction and the early 2000s soundtrack help to make things more palatable.

Your mileage may vary depending on how willing you are to deal with boring exposition in order to get the death and witchcraft of it all, but I’d argue that there are enough good ideas in Warlock III to make it worth a watch. From clever homages to Mario Bava to a genuinely fun third act, I think this film deserves a better reputation even if it can’t quite reach the same heights as its more expensive brethren.

I’ve always been a sucker for moody early-2000s horror flicks ala Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2, and that’s probably why I ended up enjoying The End of Innocence a lot more than I expected. It’s certainly no masterpiece, with only The Armageddon featuring a worse victim pool, but this direct-to-video gem is still a worthy entry in one of the strangest horror franchises of all time.

Other than the absence of Sands, my only real gripe with the film is the fact that it’s the last one in the series, as I’d love to see our favorite time-travelling Satanist make a proper 21st century debut…

Born Brazilian, raised Canadian, Luiz is a writer and Film student that spends most of his time watching movies and subsequently complaining about them.

Editorials

What’s Wrong with My Baby!? Larry Cohen’s ‘It’s Alive’ at 50

Published

on

Netflix It's Alive

Soon after the New Hollywood generation took over the entertainment industry, they started having children. And more than any filmmakers that came before—they were terrified. Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976), Eraserhead (1977), The Brood (1979), The Shining (1980), Possession (1981), and many others all deal, at least in part, with the fears of becoming or being a parent. What if my child turns out to be a monster? is corrupted by some evil force? or turns out to be the fucking Antichrist? What if I screw them up somehow, or can’t help them, or even go insane and try to kill them? Horror has always been at its best when exploring relatable fears through extreme circumstances. A prime example of this is Larry Cohen’s 1974 monster-baby movie It’s Alive, which explores the not only the rollercoaster of emotions that any parent experiences when confronted with the difficulties of raising a child, but long-standing questions of who or what is at fault when something goes horribly wrong.

Cohen begins making his underlying points early in the film as Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) discusses the state of the world with a group of expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room. They discuss the “overabundance of lead” in foods and the environment, smog, and pesticides that only serve to produce roaches that are “bigger, stronger, and harder to kill.” Frank comments that this is “quite a world to bring a kid into.” This has long been a discussion point among people when trying to decide whether to have kids or not. I’ve had many conversations with friends who have said they feel it’s irresponsible to bring children into such a violent, broken, and dangerous world, and I certainly don’t begrudge them this. My wife and I did decide to have children but that doesn’t mean that it’s been easy.

Immediately following this scene comes It’s Alive’s most famous sequence in which Frank’s wife Lenore (Sharon Farrell) is the only person left alive in her delivery room, the doctors clawed and bitten to death by her mutant baby, which has escaped. “What does my baby look like!? What’s wrong with my baby!?” she screams as nurses wheel her frantically into a recovery room. The evening that had begun with such joy and excitement at the birth of their second child turned into a nightmare. This is tough for me to write, but on some level, I can relate to this whiplash of emotion. When my second child was born, they came about five weeks early. I’ll use the pronouns “they/them” for privacy reasons when referring to my kids. Our oldest was still very young and went to stay with my parents and we sped off to the hospital where my wife was taken into an operating room for an emergency c-section. I was able to carry our newborn into the NICU (natal intensive care unit) where I was assured that this was routine for all premature births. The nurses assured me there was nothing to worry about and the baby looked big and healthy. I headed to where my wife was taken to recover to grab a few winks assuming that everything was fine. Well, when I awoke, I headed back over to the NICU to find that my child was not where I left them. The nurse found me and told me that the baby’s lungs were underdeveloped, and they had to put them in a special room connected to oxygen tubes and wires to monitor their vitals.

It’s difficult to express the fear that overwhelmed me in those moments. Everything turned out okay, but it took a while and I’m convinced to this day that their anxiety struggles spring from these first weeks of life. As our children grew, we learned that two of the three were on the spectrum and that anxiety, depression, ADHD, and OCD were also playing a part in their lives. Parents, at least speaking for myself, can’t help but blame themselves for the struggles their children face. The “if only” questions creep in and easily overcome the voices that assure us that it really has nothing to do with us. In the film, Lenore says, “maybe it’s all the pills I’ve been taking that brought this on.” Frank muses aloud about how he used to think that Frankenstein was the monster, but when he got older realized he was the one that made the monster. The aptly named Frank is wondering if his baby’s mutation is his fault, if he created the monster that is terrorizing Los Angeles. I have made plenty of “if only” statements about myself over the years. “If only I hadn’t had to work so much, if only I had been around more when they were little.” Mothers may ask themselves, “did I have a drink, too much coffee, or a cigarette before I knew I was pregnant? Was I too stressed out during the pregnancy?” In other words, most parents can’t help but wonder if it’s all their fault.

At one point in the film, Frank goes to the elementary school where his baby has been sighted and is escorted through the halls by police. He overhears someone comment about “screwed up genes,” which brings about age-old questions of nature vs. nurture. Despite the voices around him from doctors and detectives that say, “we know this isn’t your fault,” Frank can’t help but think it is, and that the people who try to tell him it isn’t really think it’s his fault too. There is no doubt that there is a hereditary element to the kinds of mental illness struggles that my children and I deal with. But, and it’s a bit but, good parenting goes a long way in helping children deal with these struggles. Kids need to know they’re not alone, a good parent can provide that, perhaps especially parents that can relate to the same kinds of struggles. The question of nature vs. nurture will likely never be entirely answered but I think there’s more than a good chance that “both/and” is the case. Around the midpoint of the film, Frank agrees to disown the child and sign it over for medical experimentation if caught or killed. Lenore and the older son Chris (Daniel Holzman) seek to nurture and teach the baby, feeling that it is not a monster, but a member of the family.

It’s Alive takes these ideas to an even greater degree in the fact that the Davis Baby really is a monster, a mutant with claws and fangs that murders and eats people. The late ’60s and early ’70s also saw the rise in mass murderers and serial killers which heightened the nature vs. nurture debate. Obviously, these people were not literal monsters but human beings that came from human parents, but something had gone horribly wrong. Often the upbringing of these killers clearly led in part to their antisocial behavior, but this isn’t always the case. It’s Alive asks “what if a ‘monster’ comes from a good home?” In this case is it society, environmental factors, or is it the lead, smog, and pesticides? It is almost impossible to know, but the ending of the film underscores an uncomfortable truth—even monsters have parents.

As the film enters its third act, Frank joins the hunt for his child through the Los Angeles sewers and into the L.A. River. He is armed with a rifle and ready to kill on sight, having divorced himself from any relationship to the child. Then Frank finds his baby crying in the sewers and his fatherly instincts take over. With tears in his eyes, he speaks words of comfort and wraps his son in his coat. He holds him close, pats and rocks him, and whispers that everything is going to be okay. People often wonder how the parents of those who perform heinous acts can sit in court, shed tears, and defend them. I think it’s a complex issue. I’m sure that these parents know that their child has done something evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still their baby. Your child is a piece of yourself formed into a whole new human being. Disowning them would be like cutting off a limb, no matter what they may have done. It doesn’t erase an evil act, far from it, but I can understand the pain of a parent in that situation. I think It’s Alive does an exceptional job placing its audience in that situation.

Despite the serious issues and ideas being examined in the film, It’s Alive is far from a dour affair. At heart, it is still a monster movie and filled with a sense of fun and a great deal of pitch-black humor. In one of its more memorable moments, a milkman is sucked into the rear compartment of his truck as red blood mingles with the white milk from smashed bottles leaking out the back of the truck and streaming down the street. Just after Frank agrees to join the hunt for his baby, the film cuts to the back of an ice cream truck with the words “STOP CHILDREN” emblazoned on it. It’s a movie filled with great kills, a mutant baby—created by make-up effects master Rick Baker early in his career, and plenty of action—and all in a PG rated movie! I’m telling you, the ’70s were wild. It just also happens to have some thoughtful ideas behind it as well.

Which was Larry Cohen’s specialty. Cohen made all kinds of movies, but his most enduring have been his horror films and all of them tackle the social issues and fears of the time they were made. God Told Me To (1976), Q: The Winged Serpent (1982), and The Stuff (1985) are all great examples of his socially aware, low-budget, exploitation filmmaking with a brain and It’s Alive certainly fits right in with that group. Cohen would go on to write and direct two sequels, It Lives Again (aka It’s Alive 2) in 1978 and It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive in 1987 and is credited as a co-writer on the 2008 remake. All these films explore the ideas of parental responsibility in light of the various concerns of the times they were made including abortion rights and AIDS.

Fifty years after It’s Alive was initially released, it has only become more relevant in the ensuing years. Fears surrounding parenthood have been with us since the beginning of time but as the years pass the reasons for these fears only seem to become more and more profound. In today’s world the conversation of the fathers in the waiting room could be expanded to hormones and genetic modifications in food, terrorism, climate change, school and other mass shootings, and other threats that were unknown or at least less of a concern fifty years ago. Perhaps the fearmongering conspiracy theories about chemtrails and vaccines would be mentioned as well, though in a more satirical fashion, as fears some expectant parents encounter while endlessly doomscrolling Facebook or Twitter. Speaking for myself, despite the struggles, the fears, and the sadness that sometimes comes with having children, it’s been worth it. The joys ultimately outweigh all of that, but I understand the terror too. Becoming a parent is no easy choice, nor should it be. But as I look back, I can say that I’m glad we made the choice we did.

I wonder if Frank and Lenore can say the same thing.

Continue Reading