Warlock (1991)

Warlock (1989) *** (out of 4)An evil warlock (Julian Sands) from the 17th Century is about to be put to death when a Satanic storm saves him and sends him to the 20th Century. Also dragged along is a hunter (Richard E. Grant) who with the help of a young woman (Lori Singer) tries to track down and destroy the warlock before all of human kind is destroyed.I still remember when WARLOCK came out and even though I was a big fan of horror movies, for some reason I just never got around to watching it until now and I must admit that I'm really kicking myself for that. I really wasn't expecting too much from this film but it turned out to be quite good on many levels and it really did have a nice little story as well as some fun performances. Yes, the story itself is basically THE TERMINATOR but with a warlock but it was still a lot of fun.There are a lot of good things going on here but the majority of the success of the picture has to go to the performances. The three leads are a lot of fun together and there's no question that they help keep the viewer entertained in what's going on. Sands is simply marvelous as the warlock and that laid back, calm and collective approach just makes you feel as if you're really watching some sadistic warlock. Yes, I've never really met a warlock to know what one is like but Sands just makes you feel as if you're watching something real. The adventure of the story is brought to life thanks to the chemistry between Grant and Singer. The two of them work very well off one another and the three actors together really make the film work.Director Steve Miner also deserves a lot of credit because he keeps the film moving at a very nice pace. There's a lot of horror elements here but there's also some comedy as well as an adventure story and I thought the director handled it all quite well. The cinematography was very good as were the special effects. There are some horror special effects that work extremely well but there are also some great things done with the one female character growing in age over a short period of time.WARLOCK could have ran about ten-minutes shorter but at the same time there's very little to be said in a negative way. I was really shocked at how entertaining the film was and it's certainly a lot different than the slasher films that were all the craze during this era.

Oh man, this movie was fun!-5 for bad camera/quality +/- 0 for special effects, they were not good but somehow they weren't that bad and looked rather realistic for a 1988 B-Movie. -2 for the bad acting +3 for quite kool characters. That good guy totally reminded me of a less capable version of one the Castlevania protagonists. The Warlock was absolutely evil, he was much of a villain somehow you gotta love that guy he is absolutely one of the most villains I ever saw in a movie! +2 Good story somehow, it was fun and really a lot happened. It had it's own type of humor I really enjoyed +1 A lot of different places they went to, a lot sceneries -1 some situations were ridiculous.Even if you can't look at VHS quality, it's rate funny

"Warlock" is not a genuine horror masterpiece. It's not even a minor classic and it's not likely to appear in too many all-time favorite listings. This is, however, one of the most entertaining and pleasant horror movies of the late 80's with a familiar albeit reliable theme, a well-written script and – most of all – the exact right casting choices. Director Steve Miner ("Friday The 13th" II and III) and writer David Twohy ("Pitch Black") take a subject that was particularly popular in the late 60's and early 70's, namely witch-hunting, and provide it with a typical 80's pop culture twist. The film begins in the year 1691 in Massachusetts, though for once not in Salem, where the fierce and purely evil Warlock is chained in a tower and waiting for the next day to be hung and burned over a basket of live cats. What the hell is that about, by the way? What the added value of kittens when you're already death and burning? Either way, Warlock isn't too happy with this prospect and, with the help of his malignant Lord and Master Satan, escapes towards present day California. His evil assignment is to bring together the three separated parts of the "Grand Grimoire" – the Devil's Bible – and to dramatically reverse God's creation. Luckily enough, for mankind's sake, the tough and handsome witch hunter Giles Redferne also got catapulted forward in time and intends to stop the Warlock. Redferne teams up with local girl Kassandra (with a K) who was put under a curse by the Warlock. She ages twenty years per day! "Warlock" is a pretty cool horror and fantasy effort, but strangely enough it also qualifies as an offbeat road-movie. Redferne & Kassandra chase the male witch across the country, from California over Colorado to Massachusetts. Particularly the sequences in Colorado, set inside a typically Amish farm, are atmospheric and suspenseful. The absolute best aspects about the film are the precise and imaginative character drawings and the exact right castings. Julian Sands is sublime as the out-and-out evil Warlock. He might looks like a geek, but at the same time he has this inexplicably malevolent aura surrounding him. When the Warlock is interested in a ring, he unhesitatingly cuts off the righteous owner's finger, and he doesn't feel any moral restraints to mix a 12-year-old child into a cocktail potion so that he can obtain flying powers. Richard E. Grant, on the other hand, is the typical medieval macho warrior who unwillingly arrives in modern times and has problems adjusting. Lori Singer, in a totally different type of "Footloose", is surprisingly enchanting as the strong female type. There's quite a number of cool make-up effects and eerie scenery, but "Warlock" definitely isn't a gruesome or exploitative film. On the contrary, actually, I personally appreciate how director Steve Miner insinuates a lot of shocks, but simultaneously he leaves the horror up to our imagination.

From mediocre writer David Twohy and mediocre director Steve Miner, comes Warlock, a very mediocre movie. There are way way worse films of this sort, but this is pretty cheap. This is the kind of story that Sam Raimi could do justice to. Neither Twohy nor Miner are able to make anything clever out of this. The finished product is disappointing, It begins in 17th century Massachussets (the third British colony in America, famous for its witch hunts) A hieratic is about to meet the noose for worshipping Satan. On the day he receives his sentence, the clouds come and take him away, off to 20th century California. A witch hunter seeking revenge for the murder of his wife follows the warlock (somehow) into the future, and using a witch compass proceeds to track him down. He also has the help of Kassandra, a young lady seeking to reverse a spell that was put on her, when the Warlock entered her house.Warlock doesn't really work as a horror, a fantasy or a comedy. Despite its campy absurdity, it's hard to laugh at, unless looked at as an unintentional comedy, which would relieve you of having to question things like, how does a man dressed in sheep's wool get passed airport security carrying a four foot piece of copper used as a spear?So what is Warlock? it is nothing more or less than a cheaply made, product of the B-movie industry, with bad special effects, sub-par picture quality, and the occasional moments that provoke giggles don't cut it.