Warlock: The Armageddon (1993)

Back in the late eighties/early nineties, when the horror genre was being fed consistent revenue from a still-growing home video market, just about any scare film could spawn a franchise. The original "Warlock" was only a modest success but that was still enough to justify a sequel two years later. "Warlock: The Armageddon" has a more ambitious story then the original, a more comedic tone, and is simultaneously more fun and less satisfying then the first.Only loosely connected to the first film, "Warlock II" builds a wildly different mythology around the titular villain. There's some typical nonsense about lunar and solar eclipse and how the wall between Earth and Hell is thin during this time. This is a opportune moment for the Warlock, upgraded from merely a powerful witch to the literal son of Satan, to reemerge. A sect of druids protect the five rune stones the villain needs to bring about Hell on Earth. A prophecy marks two of their children as the true warriors that will prevent the end of days. The film follows the druids training their youngest members for battle while the Warlock travels across the country, collecting the remaining stones and committing magically-assisted murders."Warlock: The Armageddon" is essentially two movies stapled together. One is campy but incredibly entertaining while the other is campy and boring. The Warlock's killing spree provides the trashy thrills horror-fans are likely looking for. The film beings with the evil witch being reborn, in a sick and twisted moment, and continues in similarly outrageous fashion. The Warlock comes across each owner of the stones, offing them in ways related to their personality. The death scenes are high-pitched and ridiculous. A gas station attendant has his eye torn out, a snooty art collector is bent into a piece of modern art, a hooker gets scalped, not to mention a lengthy stop at a carnival sideshow. Julian Sands is having a ball. He hams it up, digging into each cheesy one liner the script gives. Sands never winks, maintaining the seriousness of the Warlock character, while letting the audience know what a good time he's having. Gory, silly quasi-slasher thrills like this are probably what you'd expect from an underachieving sequel to a sorta-popular eighties horror movie.The other movie "Warlock 2" also is doesn't entertain in the same way. The tale of the druids raising two new warriors is snore-inducing. The audience certainly doesn't care about Chris Young's protagonist, a gee-shucks young kid named Kenny. His romance with Samantha, played by a wooden Paula Marshall, is of no interest at all. The storyline, involving rune stones and ancient prophecies, is horribly clichéd. It's the kind of mythological story we've heard hundreds of times before in horror and fantasy films. Any time the movie focuses on this plot line, the audience really wishes it would be back to the Warlock killing people.Director Anthony Hickox had previously directed the "Waxwork" films, "Sundown: The Vampires in Retreat," and, most pressingly, "Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth." Like "Hellraiser III," Hickox has made a movie about a formally serious villain suddenly performing over-the-top kills and cracking wise about it. Luckily for us, the Warlock is a far better fit for this style then Pinhead. Hickox's direction is energetic, with multiple tracking shots of bodies flying through the air. His creativity, which has always been fun but undisciplined, is best displayed during the final fight. The Warlock explodes a building, walking back to Earth on an invisible staircase. He dismembers enemies with his hands and shoots them down with his finger. However, the climax proves a bit underwhelming. Not only is the bland hero pitted against the far more charismatic Sands, the way the villain is defeated comes out of nowhere.I've never gotten around to seeing "Warlock III" but the lack of Julian Sands doesn't make me quick to check it out. "Warlock: The Armageddon" probably wouldn't be half as much as it is without Sands' camping it up. It's a fairly undemanding flick for horror geeks and certainly would have prospered from a more balanced and creative script. But, then again, what can you expect from an in-name-only sequel to a sort-of obscure movie.

The original „Warlock"-movie had much going for it: it had a compelling storyline that seemed to have jumped straight out of a comic book. Director and crew were obviously enthusiastic, producing a film that had all the best traits of cheap, yet dedicated horror-flick. And last but not least, it had an excellent cast, the chemistry being near perfect. Especially Julian Sands as evil incarnated had a charm and presence that one couldn't help but to root for him, despite all his mischief.Indeed, "Warlock" has the stuff that made it a cult-movie. Sadly, same cannot be said about its sequel. First, apart from Julian Sands, none of the original cast has returned. The well-worn though charming time-travel aspects (works almost every time, doesn't it?) are not present, the warlock has even lost his ponytail! It's almost like we're watching a similar, though not the same character as the super-smooth male-witch of the first part. It's not that the rest of the cast is bad either – having veterans like R.G Armstrong, Joanna Pacula and Zach Galligan – but Lori Singer and Richard E. Grant are missed greatly.Same goes for the special effects: true, "Warlock II" is slightly gorier than its predecessor and, true, the effects where still pre-CGI and hence had a more natural feel than 99 percent of the SFX today, but none of the scenes could match the magic that the original "Warlock" had.Speaking of Zach Galligan, compare "Gremlins" to "Gremlins 2": yes, the sequel was disappointing because it couldn't live up to the first part, but in the end, alright, it wasn't a bad movie. In the end, what saved the movie is the direction of Anthony Hickox who is in the same league with Miner; a veteran of cheap, straight-to-video horror flicks with a heart (minor trash-gems like "Waxworks", "Full Eclipse" and "Spaceshift" are testament to that).In retrospect, it's not even a bad movie if it had stood on its own. Especially if compared to the horrid "Warlock III" which, if you're a "Warlock"-fan and haven't seen it yet, I can only recommend: avoid it like… well, like a warlock avoids salt! I'll join the general consensus (of the time of writing – things may look different if you happen to read this in a hundred years or so), and give the film five points from five – and if I'll watch a few more contemporary horror flicks, infested with CGI and lifeless actors, I may even give it six or seven.

But I absolutely loved this movie. I mean loved it. I don't know why but I did. Starts out so cheesy with the Druids doing their thing and then we go whisking off to the our time whenever he is given birth. With the training of the 'Warriors' and him traveling across country to find the rest of the stones. So stupid, but I catch myself watching it on airplanes, and whenever I am traveling. Then Netflix got it, oh man, stop now.The special effects are horrible to todays standards, and then the acting is great, but I think its one of the most entertaining B horror films ever made. I would highly recommend it to anyone. Trust me, you will be entertained.

I was going to give this movie less but considering it is horror/fantasy I put five instead. I recognize most of the older character actors but other than Julian Sands that was it. I thought they all did a great job considering the story line. I like to play with twisting myth myself in my own stories but they could have at least called him a Sorcerer or Necromancer, evil magician and not a Warlock which is a totally wrong word to use starting with the first movie and instead of making these people Druids, make them some secret society that fights evil.The word warlock does NOT mean a male witch. It means an oath breaker, liar, someone who cannot be trusted and can apply to either a male or female. Considering the subject matter it would have more appropriately been a female but if using the other terms a male was fine. The Druids as someone else stated had no beliefs even remotely akin to Christianity at all. Neither did those who practiced witchcraft at any time. Therefore I consider the movie a campy one and without much merit. That isn't the fault of the actors but of the writers that wrote such hokey material. BUT taken on it's own and liberally with the storyline it's not too bad. I wouldn't recommend it unless you are a fan of the first movie which is pretty bad as well.