It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Warlock is a rare gem, a greatly yet humbly filmed movie. It has all the aura of the 80's and also promotes a great take on witch hunting techniques that until I had seen the film never thought might have even existed, the acting is good if not great the plot is brilliant and although special effects were not so contemporary as they are now tries with a full heart to make something magical. Richard E Grant excels himself as does Julian Sands and Lorie singer makes the movie fun with Richard E Grants humorous yet slightly serious methods, Julian Sands brings a cruel crisp darkness to the mix and all falls perfectly in place with the plot, it's really in my personal view a little masterpiece of the time and really tries to keep you in suspense at every new scene. There are but a few movies I see fit for the royal remake treatment and sincerely believe this movie could definitely benefit from a remake, maybe casting Jude Law as the Warlock and may sound funny but possibly Hugh Lorrie as the witch hunter provided he takes a more darker humor style on-board for the role might be a another gem. Sounds funny for me to say Hugh Lorrie but take a pinch of the negative House Md mixed with a witch hunter that is darkly eccentric and may be a match made in heaven Jude Law has a way with the English accent that may just be in alignment with a Julian Sands replacement as the Warlock?

WARLOCK is a cheesy and derivative horror movie from director Steve Miner, the man who brought us the similar-in-style HOUSE. The story is of a 17th century warlock who is captured by irate locals but manages to escape to the then-present day, pursued by a vengeful witch hunter. The warlock's plan is to gather together three parts of an ancient grimoire which will allow him to destroy the world.The first thought upon watching this movie? Derivative. There are bits of THE TERMINATOR, HIGHLANDER, and THE ICEMAN COMETH in this one, and it's not as good as any of those movies. In fact, it's completely cheesy, with Julian Sands going into complete ham mode as the baddie of the piece and Richard E. Grant struggling throughout with his Scottish accent. The film's budgetary constraints are also more than apparent as this looks and feels more like a B-movie than an A-list picture.My biggest complaint, however, is with the casting of non-actress Lori Singer, whose attempts at humour fall flat time and time again. She's awful, it has to be said, and really drags the film down so much that I was laughing at it rather than with it. That's a pity, because WARLOCK remains an oddly enjoyable outing. It's not as gory as you'd expect but there are some imaginative death scenes. The special effects have dated badly but are pretty fun to watch, particularly the ones involving the warlock flying around. I liked the mythology in the film including the witch-finding apparatus and the seeing eyes. Cult actress Mary Woronov has a good cameo. WARLOCK remains predictable from beginning to end, but as a bit of cult fun it remains enjoyable.

A warlock (Julian Sands) flees from the 17th to the 20th century, with a witch-hunter (Richard E. Grant) in hot pursuit.From director Steve Miner (a Friday the 13th alumnus) and producer Brian Yuzna (although I believe he jumped on the project later), comes a great little tale about witches and warlocks, even if the historical accuracy may be a little bit skewed.I love the Mennonite scene. I think it is amusing not only that a man knows when he is in the presence of a witch, but finds it perfectly normal for a man in animal furs to bust into his house unannounced to rid them of the evil.(I also love the mention of the "twelve apostrophes"... oh, boy, this country sure has lost its Christian way...)

In a brief intro set in 1691 Boston we are introduced to two of the three main protagonists in the film, the Warlock himself (Julian Sands) and his captor (at the time) Redferne (Richard E Grant).This brief scene establishes that yep these two guys will be talking funny for the rest of the film – get used to it. (A couple examples "I'll search hither, you thither" and "Let's tarry not!") It also tries in vain to give credibility to the film, justifying some of the more silly stuff to come.With the costume budget already blown the Warlock escapes to 1988 via some magical portal or something, somehow dragging Redferne along with him to Los Angeles. Why not Boston? Why LA? Well that's where they make movies silly! The Warlock has been charged with the task of finding the three missing parts of the Devil's Bible which are conveniently all located in America. By Devil's Bible contains various nasty spells and secrets, and by re-combining the three parts the Warlock can learn the true name of God and as a result can un-make existence.This is bad for us, but apparently good for the Devil and the Warlock, who gets a promotion if he is successful, and will be recognised as the Devil's son.The first stop on the Warlock's round trip of evil finds him visiting "Kassandra with a K" (Lori Singer) and her gay flatmate.Kassandra is one of those cinematic reminders that hearkens to a time when every actress didn't actually have a tit job or major plastic surgery (sorry Lori, just the facts). After the Warlocks visits pausing only to suck the tongue out of the gay roommate and to put a spell on Kassandra that ages her 20 years every 24 hours off he goes. Of course Redferne shows up shortly afterwards – still rocking the 1600s togs – and using a witch-locating sat-nav device he sets off on the trail of the Warlock with Kassandra in tow desperate to get her 20 years back. (She wasn't that hot to begin with, it wasn't the 20 years that was holding her back.) The ensuing chase is pretty straightforward; a visit to Amish country alerts the Warlock to the pursuit, and then it's on to Boston for the finale which takes place in a graveyard.Richard E Grant does his best with a role that requires him to spout ludicrous dialogue in an earnest fashion, Kassandra is essentially supposed 'comic relief' and a counterpoint to the serious business (in theory anyway) going on around her.Julian Sands fares a little better, he is creepy at the best of times. He also doesn't have as many inane lines and gets to do hammy Warlock stuff that basically consists of pointing at things, squinting and pursing his lips while he waits for the shonky (even for the 80s!) special effects to kick in. And where else do you get to have a convo with a young boy before cutting away to reveal that you have not only killed the boy but plan to drink his boiled body fat to give you the gift of flight! It turns out that in this case it isn't just Red Bull that gives Warlock's wings! Warlock is actually worth a look if only for the fact that they never take it all too seriously – whether they thought that at the time I am not sure – it is basically a chase movie used as an excuse to show some Warlock-ey stuff, with a couple of British guys speaking British-ly as they chase each other all over the America countryside. If nothing else it's better than 10,000 Twilights.But so are a lot of things.Final Rating – 6.5 / 10. They don't hand out Oscars for this stuff, but you could do a lot worse on a lazy Saturday afternoon.