Every six hundred years, a great evil has the opportunity to escape and unleash Armageddon. A group of five stones has the power to either free the evil, or banish it for another six hundred years. An order of Druids battles with a Warlock determined to unleash his father upon the world.
Similar titles
You May Also Like
Reviews
You won't be disappointed!
Powerful
Good start, but then it gets ruined
It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.
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.
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.
I thought the sequel to Warlock was okay. The first relied heavily on the story, which was a about a unfortunate 90's working girl who is tormented by the son of the devil when a witchhunter chases him through time to the present day. It sounds far fetched, but it is surprisingly well-written. This one is about the return of the Warlock, this time he's trying to collect 7 coveted runestones that, once collected, will spell out the true name of his demon father and ultimately destroy the world (hence the title, "The Armageddon"). This one is much campier and much, much gorier than the first. I love Anthony Hickox though, I just can't help it. He's like Brian Yuzna, crazy, far-fetched stories, campy dialogue, tongue-in-cheek humor (check out Waxwork 2) and lots of over-the-top (but tasteful enough to usually avoid being unrated) gore. A boy learns that he is a descendant of a long line of "druids", a group who has been covertly fighting the evil and superhuman for centuries. Instead of brawn, he must strengthen his mental power in order to face a final showdown of good and evil. Julian Sands once again hams it up and makes you hate him, while unleashing his unholy rage in some of the most creative kill scenes ever. I won't give much away, but he is reborn through a beautiful woman in a very painful manner, and the folks possessing the runestones get put through hell, let me tell you. The deaths are very gory, SFX-filled and creative, just watch what happens to the art collector. He becomes part of his own collection, so to speak.If you liked Children of the Corn 3, Hellraiser 3, the Waxwork series and can take campy dialogue with a grain of tolerant salt, then rent this movie for solid entertainment (for 85 minutes or so.)
Warlock: The Armageddon (1993) would be a total waste of space if it wasn't for Julian Sands as the Warlock, his scenes are great fun to watch, all the other characters in this film are awful and boring.Julian Sands is the Warlock who is on a mission to get hold of 6 magical runestones that will enable Satan to raise hell on earth, Only 2 people have the power to stop him, 2 teenagers who have inherited druid warrior power!!! The boy who plays the main "hero" is such a geeky wimp, it's an insult that this dweeb would have this power to stop the mighty Warlock!!! Like i said before, this film is a one man show, the scenes with Julian Sands are funny, entertaining and the way he kills off various people with lots of clever special effects makes it great fun to watch.But overall i give this movie 5/10, coz all the other scenes were so dull.