Rish Outfield's reviews
From the get-go, we could tell this was going to be an inferior film to its predecessor. The lighting, make-up, and dialogue, were all second-rate. But as the film progressed, I started to forget how great the first one looked, and began to appreciate little things in this one. Like the original Wishmaster, some of the wish-granting was forced and contrived (the "Freeze!" was downright insulting), but on the other hand, many of the evil-ways-of-granting-a-wish were better than in the original. They changed the rules of the first movie slightly so that this story would work (and it always bothers me when that happens), but the main character, played again by Andrew Divoff, was pretty much the same . . . even though his makeup was much cheaper here and he spent most of the money-saving film in his human form. The Djinn was still a great idea for a character, and his scenes in the prison were truly enjoyable. People started believing he was the devil, and he was happy to go along with it.
Something that tyranist and I constantly clash on is who we're supposed to root for. Yes, the obvious high school English class answer is The Protagonist. But Horror often plays by different rules, giving us the Anti-hero, or going as far as to romanticize the Antagonist. So again, in Wishmaster 2, is there a Villain Is More Sympathetic Than Heroes (which, by the way, has become my second least-favourite category)? Tyranist and I about came to blows over this one. But the way I saw it, much more in this film than in the first, Andrew Divoff's title character was the star here. He got the good lines, the most extensive scenes, and the best-written sequences. The film revolved around him, and it was fascinating to see what he was up to, what clever new ways he could mis-grant wishes, and how he took to our world and time. Like Freddy Krueger by Elm Streets 3 or 4, the Djinn was the crux of the film, the anti-hero everyone came to see. And the female lead bothered the heck out of me. I simply didn't think she deserved to win. Her boyfriend dies, she seeks comfort with a priest, seduces the priest, then uses her 'purity' to defeat the evil one.
We'll leave it up to you, but as the basis for good arguments, I really felt I was right on this one. It is a fine movie, and ask yourself the question as you watch it. Who knows, you may be rooting for the Russian guy (who was cool).
Note: Lastly, this is worth seeing because it is, to my knowledge, the only movie where a man ever has sex with himself. He seemed to enjoy it, too.

The tyranist's thoughts
If you can get past the first half hour of this movie you will probably enjoy the rest. It starts out bad, but gets much better as things go on. I really liked the religious twisting that went on, but I get into that.
This movie is the source of the second biggest dispute Rish and I have had. Both times we have argued about whether or not the villain was more sympathetic than the heroes. The Stepfather was the first. Rish feels that this movie exemplifies that particular category and I don't. We compromised by giving it the Skull, but I want to register a statement that says, "Judge for yourself." This is probably what you do anyway. I am sure that there are lots of times that you have looked at our Skulls and wondered if we saw the same movie as you. I assure you that we did, we just have strong opinions.
Posted: June 26, 2002