Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Platypuschow 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 filmThe Bad:Awful effectsDreadful plotIncredibly boringThings 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"

dostoynihil 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

rienkweitenberg 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??????

brandonsites1981 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.