Sorry, this movie sucks

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Inexplicably producing an endless number of uncountable sequels, this is a cheaply-made and totally dull affair with direction and acting so amateurish in nature that it's extremely hard to sit through. It also happens to be a very slow-moving film, in which there are only a couple of death scenes up until the finale, which moves into Shakespearian tragedy with just about the entire cast being slaughtered in a sudden massacre.The plot, concerning a couple who move into a new home and are terrorised by witches who want to use their newborn baby in a ritual, seems to be content ripping off ROSEMARY'S BABY, but it couldn't be more different in feel to Polanski's film - mainly as it's totally lacking in atmosphere and suspense! The only supernatural special effects used are ones where our heroine sees some spooky visions in a mirror. We see transparent heads flying towards the camera, effects which look like they didn't cost anything to make. All this is accompanied by some silly over the top music which makes it very funny in an unintentional way.Along the way, lots of unexplained things happen, like our heroine seeing a vision of a woman eating a dead dog and her wrists suddenly being slashed for no apparent reason. A priest also pops up (in a role obviously modelled on Rod Steiger in THE AMITYVILLE HORROR), is subjected to facial burns, before climbing up a tree outside our heroine's house and committing suicide by jumping into a noose - it's as hilarious as it sounds. In terms of gore, the only minor instance is when a family friend is decapitated and we see her head bouncing along the floor in a cheesy way. The acting is abominable and extremely wooden, particularly in the case of Gary Sloan, who plays the stupid husband. Yet it's difficult to criticise a particular performance when all are poor. Aside from the somewhat amusing ending, this is a totally dry and pointless film, for those looking for a cure for insomnia only!

Kind of hard to see at first how this low budget rehash of ROSEMARY'S BABY spawned a thirteen chapter series of sexy horror skin flicks, but there you go. The WITCHCRAFT series direct-to-video films have always intrigued me because of their honest approach at giving its viewers what they wanted: Sex and horror elements combined into cheap, disposable entertainment aimed squarely at the video rental crowd.To a degree they and the Seduction Cinema type productions mixing over eroticism with community theater caliber horror movie trappings can be seen as an offspring of the erotic horror genre films that came out of Europe especially during the 1970s. Which were also low budget independently distributed alternative forms of entertainment to mainstream cinemas. If they'd had access to video distribution they would have utilized that too. The only difference between the bulk of the series and something like a Paul Naschy Waldemar Daninsky potboiler are the addition of more frequent sex scenes, less emphasis on gory shock sequences, and a lot less pubic hair.The WITCHCRAFT films were also more aimed at couples, as far as I can tell, with a sexy story of intrigue and gorgeous actresses & actors to keep the ladies interested with a few horror scenes now and then to reassure the guys they weren't suckered into watching a chick flick. There's nudity, sex, and objectification galore to be sure, but its not just limited to the female characters. Everybody is objectified by the WITCHCRAFT films, with careful attention to casting for both genders to make sure that fans of the human form of any persuasion will find them entertaining. The stories may be stupid and the execution hokey, but they deliver the goods and their effectiveness is reflected by the twelve sequels that followed this one.Which is what makes this installment stand out from the rest of the series, in that its a genuine attempt to make a supernatural shocker whose erotic content is limited to a couple of underwear scenes. Its actually a pretty earnest if somewhat unimaginative take on its source material, appropriately updated for late 80s yuppie types but relying on the good old archetypes: The menacing housekeeper, the frenetic dream hallucinations, an eerie mystery room holding answers to the secrets, a great decapitation scene, and a decently concocted story about damnation passed down for generations & revenge from beyond the grave.All standard issue stuff and handled professionally. If nothing else WITCHCRAFT is probably the most technically adept installment from the series, but ultimately lacks the payoff in fleshy goods that the reputation of the series suggests. Which by the way isn't the film's fault, it was the starting point, and its success allowed the producers to come back for another go, where they pushed their idea into what would turn out to be a very marketable form. Respect them in the morning or not the WITCHCRAFT films generated a solid cult following and remain in demand, which isn't surprising considering how direct they were in fulfilling the need for sexy erotic horror movies that you could watch with your squeeze. This one too, though they kept it pretty much a straightforward spooker, and the result paid off. Its not a particularly bad film for that matter, though I feel that gals will respond to it better than the guys, who can keep quiet & wait politely until part two to get their jollies off. And if you like this movie plus haven't already, please watch ROSEMARY'S BABY sometime. I think you'd like it too.4/10

The opening of the movie intercuts a man and a woman being burned at the stake for witchcraft during colonial American times with a woman giving birth. That burning scene is repeated in a number of the sequels (more about them later).Grace Churchill is the mother, a woman who emigrated from Poland with her parents, who died in a murder/suicide. She's a former junkie (if I heard correctly), but cleaned up and was surprised to find John Churchill one of the state's wealthiest men was interested in marrying her.After the birth, they live with his mother in her huge house. Parts of the house are dusty, with things covered with sheets, and she's not supposed to go into that part. The family butler shows up to block it off when she tries to show it to her friend Linda. He becomes a little friendlier when given a fresh flower from the garden, and then isn't always there to guard the off-limits room.That room has a mirror in it, in which she can briefly see colonial people, and also has visions of the future, though she's not sure she really saw them. She also has a dream, or maybe it isn't, in which she wanders outside at night and finds two people engaged in a ritual, and her mother-in-law Elizabeth is one of them. Blood drips out of Elizabeth's mouth.The family also has a bunch of strange friends, older people who don't talk much. Grace's priest comes to the house to baptize William and he has a vision of flames, and becomes ill.To some extent, as some have said, this borrows from Rosemary's Baby, which is certainly the better movie. There's even a steal of a famous shot of that movie, where the camera points through a doorway, partly showing a woman on a phone. However, the camera here actually does peer around, whereas in Polanski's film, the shot makes the viewer want to try to peer around.Rosemary's Baby was followed by a little-seen and reportedly poor TV movie, Look What's Happened to Rosemary's Baby. Witchcraft is followed by a surprising twelve sequels so far (most of them relatively poor), though the last of them has not been released yet. Possibly the only horror series to have out-sequeled this one is the Asian anthology series Troublesome Night.Witchcraft II picks up about eighteen years after this one, and does feature a number of flashbacks to this. Most of the sequels can stand on their own, but due to the number of flashbacks in II, it might be best to start here.Witchcraft II also features some nudity, while there was none in this one, unless there is more than one version of the film. Some of the later Witchcraft sequels stray into erotic horror, and some feature scenes that could be considered softcore I suppose.The main recurring character in all but two of the sequels (8 and 10) is Will Spanner, who is baby William Churchill in this one, and William Adams in the second - there's never any doubt in the movie that the baby will make it through, just what he'll be like when he gets older. Though none of them are brilliant, I don't think they're quite as bad as many others do. When in the mood for a cheap horror movie with lots of nudity, they're OK.

I'm surprised at all the bad reviews that i've read, cause frankly, I like this film. I know the actors aren't Oscar worthy and the plot is derivative of some films, but I find this film entertaining and the best of the series.!!!SPOILERS!!! A Woman gives birth to a boy and is taken to live with her Mother In-Law. She soon discovers that her Husband and his Mother are the ghosts of witches who want to make her baby Satan. Some suspense, o.k. story, and a decent music score. *** out of *****.