Damien the Antichrist, now age 13, finally learns of his destiny under the guidance of an unholy disciple of Satan. Meanwhile dark mystical forces begin to eliminate all those who suspect the child's true identity.
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. Written by
Murray Chapman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
What does the Warlock and the biblical Samson have in common?
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.
0 of 0 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?