Witchcraft X: Mistress of the Craft (1999)

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Witchcraft X: Mistress of the Craft (1998) * 1/2 (out of 4)Detective Lutz (Stephanie Beaton; second straight film) goes to England after a bisexual vampire frees a Satan worshiper from California. Pretty soon dead bodies are coming up everywhere and it's up to everyone's favorite detective to stop it. Yes they're still going and yes they took a minor character from the previous entries and gave her her own film. WITCHCRAFT X is a bad movie, there's no doubt about it but I will give director-writer Elisar Cabrera credit for knowing this. It really does seem like he watched the previous few entries and realized he had nothing to lose so he decided to change things around a bit. The biggest change is that there are more horror elements going on here with the vampires. Not only do we get some neck biting but we also have the highest body count from any of the films in the series up to this point. Sure, the effects suck (no pun) but at least they're something different. The sex/nudity level hasn't really been cut down. At first I thought it had but the director quickly makes up for the lack of skin early on by giving us a three-way (not that kind) dealing with two sex scenes going on at once and another beauty taking a bath. The sex scene between the bisexual vampire and the Satan worshiper was fairly funny and especially the hot wax. The performances are pretty much what you'd expect from a film like this (meaning people are hired for their breast size) but I did find Beaton to be fun to watch (and look at). The biggest problem with the film is that it simply goes on way too long and whatever decent ideas are in the screenplay just get watered down by the extremely long running time. There's also way too much dialogue but this here has happened in all ten films to date.

The haters really should pipe down cuz Witchcraft X does indeed have some redeeming qualities. First let me say that I believe that I may be the ONLY true fan of this series (hate on me if you must) and not just for the skin I might say. Let's face it, producing the longest running horror/ erotic horror/ soft porn... whatever it's called... series of all time should render the makers of these films some earned notoriety. Regarding Witchcraft X; Admittedly when I first bought this film (yes, bought- not rented) I was shocked and appalled that it was seemingly shot-on-video, not on film. I thought to myself there's no way, but alas there it was, and I was watching it. Yes it is true, that this is by all accounts a horrible example of film-making and in ways makes other entries in the series look like Oscar contenders. I firmly believe, for example, that Witchcraft V, VI and yes, even VII were notably slick, cool and thoroughly entertaining (again, feel free to hate on me). IX ranks right up there too I might add, and those original VHS box covers are f*****g beautiful! That being said, 'Mistress of the Craft' begins with the absolute coolest and darkest opening credits sequence of all the films with some awesome music ta boot (I think the artist was Monkey, or Red Monkey... something like this). And, you've gotta give em' credit for construing an interesting (though silly) storyline... more interesting than perhaps I'm used to with this series. Yes the Vampire crap is just that, but what the f**k? Who doesn't like Vampires?? The scene in the stairwell of the night club won my heart, as did Raven and satanic dude's sex scene later on in the film. Can't remember satanic dude's name, but he uttered some hilariously amazing lines throughout! Stephanie Beaton rocked in every way too! Bottom line: although I myself do look upon these films with some seriousness, the best advice for anyone who says that they've had the 'mis-fortune' of sitting through one and then feels compelled to tear it apart, is this - DON'T TAKE IT SERIOUSLY, IDIOTS!!! You'll enjoy it a hell of a lot more and you won't have to listen to people like me defending it. Peace!

I bought a set of 4 DVDs for 10 bucks at my local Suncoast, which contained this movie and three other trashy horror flicks (including its sequel "Witchcraft XI"). So basically I paid the rock bottom price of $2.50 for this movie, if you do the math. I can't exactly say I was ripped off. I have a thing for trashy horror movies, but this is the kind of trash that gives trash a bad name. The budget couldn't be over $1,000 (though it appears as if they spent a total of $1.50). I know it's a low-budget film, but that's no excuse for totally uninspired camerawork. The film "Blood Cult," though not very good, was made for an extremely low budget and still had fairly good camerawork and acting. The acting in this movie is the definition of "effortless," especially from that muscular guy with the Texas accent. Everyone is pretty much reading their lines off the page. You can take that figuratively or literally. I wouldn't be surprised if the script was off-camera as they were performing. I said before that I've never seen a bad English actor. This movie has quite a few bad ones. And though English movies aren't always good, they always seem to have at least a level of sophistication, which is why I don't see why any Englishman, or Englishwoman, would volunteer to do a home-video-style schlock flick like this. Did Merchant Ivory put a hold on their casting calls? Usually, I think people are too hard on directors and actors. Even some of the worst movies in Hollywood have some level of professionalism in the directing, acting and cinematography departments. Even when you watch a movie like "Glitter" you can't honestly say it looks like a third-grader shot those scenes (though a third-grader could've written the script). I've seen home movies that are shot better than "Witchcraft X," and that's no exaggeration whatsoever. Even the gore is minimal since the filmmakers only had money to buy some fake blood on sale at Party City. Not a single effort was put into making this movie--let's just sum it up like that. You get the picture. There's a good deal of nudity, though that doesn't save it. However, I must say that girl with the red-orange hair, who's either naked or wearing a cleavage-popping outfit throughout the film, is really hot! My score: 1 (out of 10)

This ultra low budget continuation of the "Witchcraft" series deals pretty much with 'babe-ish' lesbian vampires and a silly super woman from another dimension/time who battles them in modern day London. One thing: don't blame the actors too much. The script was the most wretched amateurish thing ever put to paper.Caution: Possible SPOILERS! ahead ....Despite it's incredibly low budget and really bad production values there are items which are so bad, they are good!(1) The police detective who is so fat, his tie only goes halfway down his chest. (2) The 1 second delay in Synchronization for the sound effects during the fight scenes. (3) the British "Police station" that looks suspiciously like someone's apartment building. (4) the supposed police (curiously lacking uniforms) who scream in terror when hot looking chicks approach them (the vampire attack comes seconds later, but still, what guy gets terrified by hot babes wanting to feel them up?). (5) the classic line "They won't do anything ... we got guns" when two stupid cops try to cuff the female vampires, who are then immediately killed by the female vampires. The list goes on and on.If MST3K showed soft-core Vampire flicks, this would be a perfect showcase!