Warlock: The Armageddon (1993) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
52 Reviews
Sort by:
The Armageddon on a limited budget.
Scott LeBrun7 January 2018
Handsome, charismatic Julian Sands reprises his role as the title character in this sequel that's pretty much just adequate all the way down the line. It has very little to do with the first movie, but has a basically similar plot, as The Warlock is reborn, and sets about uniting five precious gems in order to help his father Satan regain access to the world above. He is opposed by an order of druids; one of them is Will Travis (Steve Kahan), whose son Kenny (Chris Young) is destined to be one of two druid warriors that must battle the evildoer.

"Warlock: The Armageddon" has enough entertaining moments to make it passable, whether they're a great visual gag or otherwise amusing bit of business. We get an elevator FULL of blood, a human turned into a twisted Picasso-like statue, and the requisite rebirth of our antagonist. There is some juicy gore, but a lot of the visual effects only succeed in being ropey enough to induce laughter. There's nothing to make the movie particularly memorable, as the music, production design, cinematography, and the like are all competent without possessing any real pizzazz.

Young ("The Great Outdoors") and the lovely Paula Marshall ("Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth") are a likeable hero and heroine, if not all that interesting. Certainly the interest lies with other cast members: Sands ("Arachnophobia") is a standout as the sardonic Warlock, and Kahan (Captain Murphy in the "Lethal Weapon" feature films), Charles Hallahan (John Carpenters' "The Thing"), R.G. Armstrong ("Children of the Corn" '84), Bruce Glover ("Diamonds Are Forever"), and Ferdy Mayne ("The Horror Star") comprise an excellent bunch of character actors. Gorgeous Joanna Pacula ("Gorky Park") is rather wasted as a fashion designer in possession of one of the stones. George "Buck" Flower ("They Live") is seen fleetingly in a crowd. And Zach Galligan, who'd worked with director Anthony Hickox on his earlier film "Waxwork", has a funny cameo.

This shows the viewer a decent time, but is a little over extended at just over 98 minutes.

Six out of 10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Weak Sequel
Michael_Elliott29 July 2017
Warlock: The Armageddon (1993)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

The evil Warlock (Julian Sands) finds himself back on Earth as he looks for some gemstones that could help him destroy mankind. At the same time, some Druids are training their children how to fight the warlock and it all comes to an end when the three meet up.

This here is a rushed sequel to the surprise hit WARLOCK. That film was a rather clever and unique horror movie that mixed adventure and comedy. The film worked on many levels but as is the case with so many horror films, when something makes money we get a dumbed down sequel. That's pretty much what WARLOCK: THE Armageddon is as there's really nothing overly special here and everything that made the original work is pretty much missing here.

This sequel doesn't work on many levels but we can put the majority of the blame on the screenplay. I must admit that I didn't care about either subplot that was going on here. The entire Romeo and Juliet thing going on with the teenagers really didn't work and their various conversations were just boring. The entire gem collecting of the warlock wasn't all that interesting either, although it did make for some rather bloody and graphic death scenes, which were among the highlights. The opening birth scene is without question the best thing about the picture.

The one thing that did work in the movie was the cast. Sands is good here but there's no question that he isn't given much to work with so his performance couldn't reach the same greatness as the original. Both Chris Young and Paula Marshall are good in the roles of the teenagers. The real fun comes from the veteran actors including Bruce Glover, Steve Kahan and R.G. Armstrong. Again, the script doesn't do anything of them any favors but they're at least able to mildly hold your attention.

WARLOCK: THE Armageddon is a pretty big bore from start to finish. There's a little bit of life sprinkled throughout the picture but on the whole it's a boring film.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Horror sequel is a pure SFX vehicle
Leofwine_draca30 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This dated film is merely an exercise in special effects, both with prosthetics and the then new computer graphics. While the prosthetics are pretty darned good, the computer effects in this case have dated particularly badly, looking straight out of the '80s and no match for the CGI we see in the cinemas today. Therefore this film has some kind of historical appeal for the viewer to see how far effects have come in such a short space of time; witness the 'floating dagger' scene and see how bad it really is in today's light (then again, with the atrocious effects of THE SECOND ARRIVAL, maybe we haven't come far at all).

The plot is virtually missing; the film consists of two sub plots and constantly flips back and forth between each one. We have Sands killing people as he gathers the gemstones, and the two young warlocks preparing themselves for his arrival. That's it. That's the plot. I mean everybody knows that Sands will die and the young boy and girl survive at the end, so it's all a bit pointless really, a foregone conclusion.

The music is totally unmemorable, as is the acting on the main part. The two young leads are typically bad, the older actors, while familiar, are neither memorable enough nor given any interesting lines. Joanna Pacula turns up but is dispatched in an instant, so it's left really to Julian Sands and his considerable charisma to carry the film. Sands is perfect in this role as the cold, calm killer, not flinching as gore rains down around him, and he is well cast and believable too, even though he doesn't change his expression once. We're rooting for him as the film goes on.

While watching you will probably notice a lot of scenes being ripped off other films. I did and I lost count. The boy training with his mental powers? STAR WARS, anyone? This was virtually a step-by-step takeoff of a scene in that film where Skywalker learns to use a lightsaber and chases that hovering ball thing. There are also bits from HELLRAISER, THE TERMINATOR, a final shock scene directly lifted from CARRIE, and many more horror film clichés which are wince-inducing, like the tired "is the baddie really dead?" routine.

So it's basically the special effects which are the reason to keep watching. Aside from the poor computer graphics, the gore is plentiful and quite good, in scenes where the Warlock tricks people, which seem to have inspired WISHMASTER in a way. The special effects at the end of the film are very good, where the Warlock melts into a skeleton and into the ground, and there are some stabbings, impalings, scalpings, splatterings, breakings and interesting morph work too. These bits keep the time moving by quite quickly and are fun, if a bit cheesy. WARLOCK: THE Armageddon is a typically empty film of the '90s, with no new ideas, but the SFX will keep you watching.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
"Give me the stone!"
Warning: Spoilers
I always loved this movie, there's lots of action, numerous colourful and inventive grisly deaths, the script is blackly funny and very mean-spirited, it's a romp! I tend to feel a bit nostalgic whenever I watch it, it's very 90s and to me is just a very easy and fun horror movie to follow and get into. The only other picture I've seen that was closest to it in tone was Wishmaster, which this had to have inspired in some significant ways, although this is the more scary and better made movie out of the two. So anyway this is a lot more unintentionally comic than I remembered..but I still love it. I'm really not buying or into the part of the story with the old men training the goofy kid to be a druid warrior and everything, just Sands being a devilish badass is enough to satisfy me thank you very much! Not one bit of this movie would've worked were it not for his outstandingly wicked performance. Unlike the first movie which I didn't like half as much as this, it's definitely lacking in the protagonist department. I love the beautiful raven-haired Paula Marshall, and the weird-looking dorky Chris Young is likable if not completely useless in a battle - but they're both kinda weak characters, everyone except for Sands is, this is completely his show and he shines in his rather terrifying role as he positively glides through the proceedings. This is one of those movies where one actor is absolutely responsible for why a flick works, and he really does carry the whole thing and steals every scene that he's in and his presence elevates it above average horror fare to me. Watching it now I'm still blown away by how fantastic and just how scary as f**k he is. He's so charming and perhaps even angelic looking, but at the same time he conveys such an enormous malevolence and a sense of barely restrained vicious malice. He's such a ruthless bastard as he unleashes terror and death on anyone who gets in his way, and makes one-sided bargains with the unfortunate holders of the stones that he locates with a flesh-map taken from the corpse of his 'mother' to aid him in his relentless quest to bring about the apocalypse. There's a lot of ghastly fun to be had in those suspenseful scenes just waiting to see what the gruesome punchline will be, particularly the excellently tense elevator scene and when he warps the art collector into a cute little work of living art! The real standout to me though is the carnival hall of mirrors where the poor dumb carny is duped into being trapped in the dark side of reality forever. It's shot so well and feels so nightmarish, with the scene just before where the helpless screaming midget is shoved into the iron maiden after trying to warn the carny being downright disturbing. The whole sequence should be better recognised as a great scene in horror cinema as far as I'm concerned. I dig the grim humour put into it as well, like when the Warlock runs out of gas and is wrecked by the spell, unbeknownst to them, and when he runs over the bunny, shuts up the annoying secretary, and horrifically gives the hooker a closer look at her hair! Also that is a rather pitiful bit part for Zach Galligan but hey, you can't say he isn't integral to the plot, he gives the Warlock his trademark black garb! I don't adore every last thing about it, the CGI on the baseball looks total caca. And then there's the two cheeseball cringeworthy lines that Chris Young delivers: "Welcome to the majors" and "Welcome to the 20th century, asshole!" I mean my god, shudder! Also it really takes the punch right out of the climax when the ascension of Satan, the fallen one, the red hot demon himself, is halted by a pair of common truck headlights! Seeing the Warlock get his spectacularly gross comeuppance makes up for it though. Whatever other people may think of it, this will always be a dear favourite of mine, I still find it a horrific blast after all these years. Definitely Picasso where I'm looking from!
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Warlock returns in style
Open Space17 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Although cheaply made, and most people don't like it, if you watched 1st movie, you surely won't be too much disappointed with this one.

While not a sequel at all to a 1st movie, while it can be debated, since same actor plays Warlock, and story can be merged, since in 1st movie Warlock failed to "uncreate" the life as he was killed in his human form, but promised by Satan that he will become "son of Satan" if he manages to "bring together" the lost pages of Grand Grimoire, which he did. So basically Warlock (human) didn't fail in his quest, to which comes debate if this movie is a sequel as Warlock is now more of Demon and not human at all...

But intro story is now different, and again debatable, why would Satan stop at only one plan to destroy humanity... Thus we are greeted with Druids, their sacred stones and rituals to stop the evil. And again Warlock comes to play to take something and bring back to Earth the very evil that was stopped in 1st movie...

Unfortunately as story is not that bad at all but actors and visual effects are, with Blu-ray version out you can clearly see many defects of visuals, mostly when Warlock is steeping down the invisible stairs, when he is burning with badly rendered pixel fire and when Kenny (the 1st warrior) is thrown onto some sort of pipe that magically isn't static in the concrete but moves while he's breathing.

But overall if you like sadistic movies where bad guy tortures his victims with supernatural powers and cannot be stopped easily, you will enjoy this B class Horror flick.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A much more livelier and bloody warlock, makes for a great night's viewing
videorama-759-85939117 April 2014
I must confess, I only saw half of the first Warlock, and found it quite boring. This I didn't. It's a much more energized and exciting sequel, that I love to videe, now and again. I can't believe people enjoyed the first one more, like my brother, for starters, which has left me quite quizzed. W2 is much more gorier if going by the first half of the original, with some real over the top blood spilliages, like Ms Pacula's demise. This time our evil warlock, the great Mr Sands, who I must say was born to play this role, is here for much more evil purposes, like bringing the world to an end, where the only hope to end him, is a young lad Kenny (an older and much taller looking Chris Young, from The Great Outdoors) who possesses a telekinetic, talent, but is a bit rusty. He's infatuated with a girl, Sam (Paula Marshall) acting in a Romeo and Juliet play, who also possesses the same talent. What I liked too about this one, was the humour, caused mostly by Sands, delivering some killer lines, while also looking cool spewing black blood. Him breaking out of his mother's vagina, near the start (very icky) has him saying, the most memorable line, where you have to hear it for yourself. Director, Hickox, still fresh off the heals of Hellraiser 3, which also starred Marshall, makes a name for himself with these super entertaining flicks (the sexual psychological C Thomas Howell thriller, Payback came next) with some nice ECU shots, like one involving a smiling, and very much in love Marshall. The battle to the death between good and evil is very suspenseful, and I guess was a but overlong, but I couldn't go back to ever watching the original, as this is super entertaining, with a lot of yucky blood, and great effects, and that great warlock humour.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Simultaneously More Fun and Less Satisfying then the First
Bonehead-XL3 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
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.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
an okay movie very short birth scene
bobharling10025 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I think that the movie was great and all however I only find the belly expansion and birth much better that the whole movie since they worked that part much better however if it was a belly expansion it should have more belly expansion time that just seeing her face. Also on the DVD it cut the slime running down the woman's legs just before the warlock comes out of her. If there was something to improve on I would let the woman live instead of killing her off like that or the warlock could impregnate her and force her to give birth to his demon army so that he can find the rune stones not alone . After the birth the movie became sloppy and dull and that was the sad thing about the movie. Also the effects except on the birth scene, were not as good as I thought they would when I fist saw it
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mr Anthony Hickox misses badly but...
Andrei Pavlov25 September 2013
Mr Anthony Hickox misses badly, though delivering a bunch of very imaginative scenes. It is sad. If only the following scenes had been squeezed into the original "Warlock" movie... or just into any other classic horror flick...

OK, here we go in no particular order. You can insert the definite article in each scene's callout.

Air walking. Cool and memorable – looks fantastic even now, in 2013 AD.

Finger gunning. Funny but somehow not childish.

Pikasso death. Outstanding and artistic.

Stage glassy falling. Bloody and tongue-in-cheek.

Gas station black blood death. Very tongue-in-cheek.

Elevator blood bath. Suspense at its best.

Scalping on the go. Outrageous and wickedly ridiculous.

But everything impressive and stylish stops here. No, the birth scene is not on the list because it's a weak and awkward rip-off of the famous scene by Mr Davenport, whose crew was stoned (please, Mr Harry Davenport, correct me if it's not true and accept my apologies) and still pulled off a genuinely horrific extravaganza back in the 1980s.

If you want to appreciate the visuals, just have a look at the scenes mentioned above (the Pikasso death scene is simply the best). Everything else is a stinking bomb: the over-melodramatic "Romeo-Juliet" love story, the phony characters who are supposed to be tough (or is it just bad acting?), the ridiculous "jedi", oh, sorry, "druid" training, etc. Such flicks are a disgrace if you are into thought-provoking kick-ass horror films (the original "Warlock" and "Wishmaster" are good examples). But if you don't have anything against kidstuff, incomprehensive plot twists, and pathos spiced up with distorted cry-baby faces of the leading "heroes" on screen, give it a go...

Not more than a brainless teen movie. Alas. More tweaking and effort would have made a reliable horror classic out of this mess.

Just a 3 out of 10. Thanks for attention.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
What does the Warlock and the biblical Samson have in common?
t_atzmueller27 March 2012
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 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I don't know what it is....
Mark Christopher21 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
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.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
End of the world theme
mollidew16 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
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.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Decidedly more low rent than the low rent original.
oneguyrambling24 September 2011
Warlock 2 on the other hand eschews any semblance of care and attention in favour of ramping up the gore quotient and introducing a little nudity to the mix, and while neither of those things are bad in isolation the fact is that this is considerably more low rent that its predecessor.

Julie Sands returns as the Warlock in spectacular fashion. How about this: when a woman dons the wrong necklace during an eclipse the usual process of impregnation, gestation and delivery are amalgamated and fast tracked to a 40 second process – I wouldn't be surprised if the Japanese were involved, they make everything run more smoothly – imagine her surprise (if all that wasn't shock enough!) that her new child is immediately adult sized and can speak.

In a further miraculous turn she instantly regains her pre-baby body (Hollywood stars = JEALOUS!!), only to have the unfortunate news that she is about to die and have her own skin turned into a map.

The upshot of W2 is that once again the Warlock is trying to bring about naughty things, this time the birth of Satan's son. He has but 6 days after his 'rebirth' to collect 6 precious stones in between eclipses while God ain't looking.

Of course he can't have it all his way, two "I know that guy from somewhere" character actors and an old guy turn out to be modern day druids hellbent on stopping the Warlock from succeeding, only they can't do it alone so they conscript two young teens named Kenny and Samantha to be Druid-Warriors (what a combo that must be in Dungeons and Dragons) to do most of the leg work for them.

So again we have a situation where the Warlock fangs around collecting things while the good guys prep his downfall from a remote location. This is because realistically there is no way known that two kids could take on a Warlock, so they must keep the two sides apart until the finale, by which time the audience no longer cares and will believe anything if it helps end the movie.

Training for the young witch-fighting duo consists of learning to deal with dodgy CGI – seriously this was made in the 90s and Star Wars puts it in the shade as far as FX go – and tension is created by them repeatedly being told the same facts about the Warlock… he's dangerous, he'll kill you, blah-blah-blah.

The amusement on the other hand is created unintentionally by a Reverend and father of Samantha, through his overacting and hamming up every scene that he appears in. I know this was never going to be a serious drama but surely someone better than him was around? Final Rating – 4.5 / 10. All that aside if there is one thing to take from this review it is don't watch Warlock 2: The Armageddon. It is less than not very good.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Lots of blood, little story.
leathaface31 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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.)
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An equally good sequel
Paul Magne Haakonsen16 February 2010
First off, let me say that you can watch "Warlock: The Armageddon" without having seen the first "Warlock" movie. Of course you will have more depth to the warlock character, if you have seen it, but you will not miss out on anything if you haven't.

This sequel is as good as the first movie in the series.

Again, the role of the sinister warlock is portrayed by the charismatic Julian Sands. And in this movie the character is much more dark and evil, far more twisted than the warlock portrayed in the first movie. Julian Sands is so perfect for the role of the warlock.

The cast is good, and the roles of the druids are good, both for the young druids and the elderly druids.

The movie has a bunch of cool effects and wicked magics, something that have to be seen. However, it is not all good though, the scene with the knife went horribly wrong. That knife is perhaps the worst CGI effect I have seen to date.

For fans of adventure genres or for people who like to play D&D games, this movie provides good entertainment. And like the first "Warlock" movie, this also have enough entertainment for more than one watching. I never grow tired of it, at least!
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A nice fantasy movie!!!
denys-fire6 January 2010
This is one of my favourite movie. Actually, it's not a horror movie because there's not much gory thing inside. But it's a nice fantasy movie with battle against God and Satan. I'm not a believer of any religion and this is why I enjoy movie like God VS Satan.

This movie have good visual effect (for that time) and like almost people here said, Julian Sand play well the son of Satan. The way that Satan's son die (truck lights) can be arguable but in general the way that this movie goes is very nice. For me, the only sad thing, finally, what is the old name of God????!!?!?

So, if you like fantasy movie with a bit of horror, witchcraft and God vs Satan, I highly recommend this one. The first Warlock was very nice too but this one appear to me a little bit more serious. If you read other reviews, you'll see only bad comments about this movie but no one have suggestions for another movie in that kind.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A worthy sequel to the excellent original
Woodyanders16 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
A supremely wicked and powerful warlock (Julian Sands in peak sinister and sardonic form) gets reborn and plans on unleashing Satan's wrath upon the world. Two virtuous teenagers blessed with supernatural abilities have to stop the warlock before it's too late. Director Anthony Hickox, working from a grim and harsh script by Kevin Rock and Sam Bernard, handles the extremely macabre subject matter with real flair and style: Hickox relates the twisted story at a constant brisk pace, sustains a properly dark and ominous mood throughout, and tackles the grisly gore set pieces with lip-smacking nasty brio (gruesome highlights include the warlock's truly vile and revolting rebirth and the warlock ripping a woman's scalp off). Chris Young as the nice, reluctant Kenny Travis and the lovely Paula Marshall as the sweet Samantha Ellison make for engaging protagonists. The veteran cast of seasoned professional thespians helps a lot: R.G. Armstrong as the crusty Franks, Steve Kahan as Kenny's amiable dad Will, Bruce Glover as sensible priest Ted Ellison, Charles Hallahan as the foolhardy Ethan Larson, Joanna Pacula as snobby fashion designer Paula Dare, and David Gaines as obnoxious businessman Nathan Sinclair. Ferdy Mayne, Zach Gilligan, and George "Buck" Flower pop up in cool bit parts. The special effects are pretty gnarly, with the best moment occurring when the warlock turns Sinclair into a living piece of modern art. Another great scene happens when the warlock shoots two men with his fingers. The climactic battle between the forces of good and evil is lively and exciting. Mark McKenzie's spirited shuddery score hits the bull's eye. Ditto Gerry Lively's polished cinematography. An immensely enjoyable horror movie.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Okay follow-up
C G20 July 2007
Not as good as the first installment. It lacks the chase element, which bogs down the plot. The magical Druid theme is also a bit too cheesy. This film probably had a slightly bigger budget than the first, so the special effects are a bit better. Also, the magical scenarios are really interesting and fun. The acting is acceptable, and the script is alright.

It's kind of funny how the premise of this movie has the Warlock moving from east to the west coast, opposite of the first film. But there was no interaction between the lead heroes and the warlock until the vary end. That is where this film falls short. The audience gets no sense of desperation, no tension between the heroes and the villain.

An acceptable follow up to the first, but somewhat disappointing. Still worth watching after the first one though.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not quite the original, but almost as good.
ozthegreatat423303 March 2007
Julian Sands again stands out as the evil oozing, soft spoken disciple/ son of Satan in this slightly less well done sequel to "Warlock." The problem is mostly one of a script that could have been a little more exciting and with a few more thrills. The level of gore just was not as necessary to the story line. Given all that it was still a very watchable film. I have noted one error in the listed credits. Charles Hallahan is listed as Ted Ellinson, the father of the female lead in the story. Actually that part was played by Bruce Glover(best known from "Diamonds are Forever.") Hallahan actually played Ethan Larson. The opening scene was somewhat confusing. SInce the Druids were supposed to stop the birth of the Warlock, why were they the ones at the birth, and who were the others that slaughtered most of them?
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Warlocking all way through the USA
Coventry12 January 2007
How the hell do they come up with this stuff? Dig this: Once every 600 years, for five days following the solar eclipse, God is actually powerless. During this short period of time, the Devil has the chance to take over the earth if – and only IF – his son, the Warlock, manages to bring together five magical stones and involve them in some sort of satanic ritual. The only individuals that are able to prevent the Warlock from raising the Armageddon are carefully selected druids; people that have to die in their human form and get reborn as Godly warriors. What the hell?!? The biggest advantage of low-brained cheese horror is that you never require seeing the original in order to enjoy the sequels. I recall seeing "Warlock" long time ago, but I don't remember much, except that the basic plot outline was entirely different than the events featuring in "Warlock: The Armageddon". Julian Sands (still a regretfully underrated actor) once again stars as the Warlock, and he emerges – fully-grown – from the womb of poor woman just because she disposes of the first stone. His journey starts in New York, and our anti-hero has to travel all across the USA for gathering all the stones before he's expected in sunny California for the actual showdown. "Warlock: Armageddon" is a surprisingly entertaining B-movie, mainly because it's fast-paced and featuring quite a large amount of gory killing sequences. Julian Sands' performance also contributes a lot to the fun-factor of this movie, as he portrays his Warlock character as a truly obnoxious bastard who walks up the catwalk in the middle of fashion shows and deliberately runs his fast car over cute innocent bunnies. Naturally the script contains a lot of stupid dialogs and absurdly grotesque situations, but still one particular sequence is effectively eerie and disturbing, namely when the Warlock enters the traveling freak show to collect his third stone. In the "House of Wonders" he encounters a creepy midget and some genuine medieval torture devices. The 'heroic' characters are pretty lame and their extended druid-trainings (reminiscent to the Jedi-Knight training) are the least interesting moments of the entire film. Okay entertainment for undemanding horror fans.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Talk about a ONE MAN show!!!!
cool_cool_124 April 2006
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.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pretty good, could've been a lot better
slayrrr66618 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
'Warlock: The Armageddon' is a more than capable sequel to the original film.


A druid ceremony is interrupted and five sacred stones are stolen and buried, hoping to never be used again. Today, high school teen and future warlock Kenny Travis (Chris Young) is having a series of problems involving his girlfriend Samantha (Paula Marshall) and the school bully Andy. (Craig Hurley) Kenny's father Will (Steve Kahan) tells him of his destiny, but he would rather get along with Samantha. The Warlock (Julian Sands) is reborn and goes off in search of the five sacred stones that are needed to bring his father back to Earth. One of the stones is held by fashionista Paula Dare (Joanna Pacula) and acquires it forcefully. Kenny learns that he comes from a long line of druids who protect the world instead of destroying it and that only he can defeat the Warlock. Will and his Warlock friend Franks (R.G. Armstrong) teach him to learn the ways of the druids to fight the Warlock, who continues on a bloodbathed path to find the stones. With Samantha coming along to help, Kenny takes on the Warlock for the fight of mankind.

The Good News: I'm really glad this one is a bloodbath. The first one was a very decent effort that featured very few gore effects, but this one contained several impressive kills. Being impaled on a series of spikes from a torture chamber, having an eye ripped out, having more than twenty slash marks all over their body, and being dropped over thirty feet onto a skylight, then falling trough with blood splattering on the onlookers are just some of the scenes which are more violent in here than in the first one. The elevator scene, with the stabbing, was the real killing highlight because of the suspense it involved. Because there was a couple false movements where something didn't happen when it was believed to have been, then it suddenly happens does shock the first time viewer. However, than is the only main jump in the movie. Sands really seems to have fun in the role as he actually kills people in this movie. He almost becomes a sort of Freddy-ish killer in this movie, as he does have a few pretty funny comments to his victims, but they just don't seem as good as Freddy's lines. He does kill with abandon, so it does come as a surprise when he kills them. The actual method of killing the Warlock was pretty creative, with the whole scene carrying out pretty entertaining way. The battle shifts back and forth as no one has a clear-cut advantage over the other and it never loses your interest.

The Bad News: There was a serious lack of jumps in this movie compared to the first one. The first one was pretty clever in how it build up suspense in it through the use of camera, scene layout, lighting, etc. This one simply abandoned that in favor of simply showing images that could've been scarier, but instead seems rather dull. If you get used to the violence, this becomes a very shock-less movie over time. The Freddy lines do need some work, as only a few are actually pretty funny. If only they would've taken the same approach, then part three would've been the laugh-fest it could been.

The Final Verdict: It could've been a whole better than what it was, but as it stands, this is a very entertaining film. It has a lot more blood and gore than the first one, so gore hounds will love this one. Seek it out if you like the first one or if supernatural films about witches and warlocks are up your alley.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, Brief Nudity, and a brief sex scene.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Absoloute Epic!
rossi_9531 May 2004
This film upon first glance was a one of a string of films i have recently seen, that looks, in the TV guide, like it could be pathetic to the point that it is funny to watch due to the year it was made and by the description. The words used "horror sequel", "son of devil" and made in 1993, simply branded it a must see film between me and my mate Mark.

This film turned into one of the funniest films I have ever seen and to say it is a horror would be a mockery to all horror films. However place it within the genre of comedy, and it is up there challenging with the best of comedy films.

The basic storyline made it easy to understand i.e. did not have to concentrate, which is good because i was crying with laughter too much.

It follows the old theme of the evil being lead back to the main characters at the end, via the collection of 6 stones, randomly placed around the world, from Circuses to museums.

Excellent acting from the son of the devil, made me believe that he actually was the son of the devil and his ways of murdering the stone holders was humorous to say the least, except for the one in the circus where that brought genuine fear to my mind.

A well written script with such instances as rabbits being run over and hair being pulled off makes for an exciting and humorous viewing of one of my favouritist films of all time.

Simply an 8.5/10 due to effective blood ridden moments, great acting and funny moments.

Hail the guy that created this masterpiece
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews