Sorceress 2 (3 Stars)

This is a film that makes me sad. It's supposedly a sequel to "Sorceress", made two years earlier in 1995. I say supposedly because it's a completely different story with new characters. The only connection is that Julie Strain appears in both films. That isn't bad in itself, but what disappoints me most is that "Sorceress 2" uses footage copied from the first film. Why? For me that's the ultimate in bad filmmaking. When I first saw "Sorceress 2" I thought the opening scenes were a flashback to the first film. I could have accepted that. Then I realised that it was a new story using old footage, and I clenched my fists in rage. "So maybe Julie Strain wasn't available for this film", I assumed. That was another error. As the film progressed I saw Julie in newly filmed scenes, so why didn't she film a new scene for the beginning of the film? It's inconceivable.

The film has a plot typical for supernatural erotic thrillers. A witches' coven is ruled by three sisters who have lived for centuries by absorbing the life essence of men that they seduce. Now they want global domination by marketing cosmetics which will turn other women into witches. That's a ridiculous plot, but I could have swallowed it. What I don't like is that there's a man, Deacon John, who is controlling the witches. He seems irrelevant to the story. Couldn't the sisters just absorb him and carry on without him?

The film also stars Julie K. Smith as one of the three sisters. Usually, seeing the two Julies together in a film would be a guarantee for quality, but not this time. At the end a third film is announced, "Sorceress 3: The Sweet Spell of Success". It was never made. I'm glad.

I bought this film on DVD in 2005. It's now out of print. "Sorceress" has been remastered for Blu-ray. Don't expect to see a new release of "Sorceress 2" any time soon.