Warlock: The Armageddon (1993) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
52 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Once upon a time, evil was a cool distraction
QueenofBean18 October 2003
It had been years since I had watched this film, but watching it recently, I was reminded of how much I enjoyed this sequel to the original warlock. The characters weren't near as annoying as that girl who lost her bracelet in the original, and the Warlock was actually given some pretty cool lines and parts. I don't know, maybe it was the plot, but the Warlock just seemed so much more evil in the sequel. Is it cheesey? Yes, because the early nineties were a cheesey time, but sometimes it's fun to look back at the past and smile.

If you like cheap, cheesey horror films, this one might make you grin.
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
9/10
"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 | Copied to clipboardCopy link
9/10
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!
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
7/10
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 | Copied to clipboardCopy link
10/10
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 | Copied to clipboardCopy link
7/10
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 | Copied to clipboardCopy link
6/10
A more gruesome movie than the first, but not as good.
Aaron137513 February 2004
Julian Sands returns here, but I don't know if he is supposed to be the same guy are not. The rules are all changed around here and in many ways it is almost an entirely different movie. The Warlock in this movie seems nearly indestructible than in the first, and instead of the puritan types that were the ones to try and stop him in the first one, here he must be stopped by druids. This time the Warlock makes a most memorable first appearance, and then he goes after these magic stones so he can release Satan into the world. This makes the druid angle seem rather dumb as I don't think they believe in such things. However, it still is a rather good movie, just not as good as the first...in fact this movie might have seemed better if the first one never happened. The movie though does follow a certain pattern. You see scenes of this kids coming into terms with their special powers to stop the Warlock, then a scene of the Warlock finding one of the stones, finally whoever has the stone is killed in an unusual way, and then repeat. This happens till the end and the big showdown occurs. I do so enjoy the shotgun scene. That is about all there is too it, but then the Warlock does kill people in vastly different and interesting ways. Not a great movie, but it is okay and worth checking out, though it is rather gruesome at times.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
7/10
This sequel surpasses the original, but only by a very small margin.
Elswet24 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Anthony Hickox is only about a light year ahead of Steve Miner in his vision of modern-day witches and magick users, but he still gets it wrong.

The narrative begins as such: 'Throughout time, people known as Druids have used their mystical powers to protect the Earth from evil. Once every millennium, when the sun aligns with the moon, these guardians summon the magic of their sacred rune stones in the quest to prevent the birth of Satan's son...'

Druids would be working hard to prevent untoward events, yes. But the birth of Satan's son is not a concern to the Druids, who also realize and understand that Satan is a Christian heresy and invention, and not one that any pagan would hold in high regard. Therefore, the entire plot of this movie is moot and negated, as far as learning or 'getting' anything from this movie.

However, it is an entertaining thriller with a few surprises, turns and even a twist or two. Classic 'B' movie horror, again starring Julian Sands, and as sequels go, I find this one to be a more entertaining endeavor than the flick from which it spawned.

The idea of the Druid Stones is ancient, though they had nothing to do with the birth of Satan's son. As legend has it, the Druid Stones were the only keys to the seven World Gates, leading to seven different areas within the three dimensions of this World; IE: Primordial, Psychic, and Ethereal planes. Therefore, the signs and omens utilized within the context of this movie are quite good and well used.

The story centers around two young people, Kenny (played by Chris Young *Buck of Candy/Aykroyd's 'The Great Outdoors'*) and Samantha (Paula Marshall, who's had a rather...obscure acting career, so far). Both are children of Druid heritage and blood, and although neither have been trained, taught, nor raised within the magickal system, now they must realize their powers and abilities in order to prevent the end of the world.

A bit far-fetched, if you ask me. What's also a bit far-fetched is the very idea that a Druid's power comes from 'God.' Druids were here thousands of years before christians and the Hebrew god YWYH. That was just stupid. Outright ignorant.

A small listing of well-seasoned actors makes this movie quite enjoyable, regardless of the puerility of story line/plot. This production is full of 'B' movie effects and classic horror fare. The mirror scene with the carny has a very strong 'Dean Koontz' feel to it with the end of that scene finishing out in an almost Hellraiser style. All in all, not a bad way to kill ninety minutes.

This movie rates a 6.7/10 from...

the Fiend :.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
A Letdown after the original...
Gislef11 September 1998
Like so many sequels, this one is somewhat of a disappointment. It's nowhere as interesting as the first, and the Warlock is more of a kickass supernatural type, a Freddy or Jason, then the subtly nuanced character of the first movie. Here he's basically a unstoppable juggernaut. The movie also goes for more gross-out F/X than plot development, although the hapless druidic types (as played by R.G. Armstrong, Charles Hallahan, and eventually Bruce Glover) are kind of interesting. It's not bad, but just a so-so effort that could have been far better.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
7/10
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 | Copied to clipboardCopy link
6/10
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 | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Pretty good...except...
jsnyang4827 February 2002
Not bad, WARLOCK: THE ARMAGEDDON does seem better than the first. Even though there are many body counts, and we do see some improvements in the special effects, something still seemed to be wrong......

There are still scenes that reveal a load of cheesy effects such as the scene where the receptionist's lips are sealed (VERY obvious stop-motion). But in this sequel, some REALLY cool action takes place, scenes where the Warlock meets the people against him. My personal favorite was the scene where Julian Sands shot down two old magic dudes with his "hand gun". This sequel does contain creepier scenes that prophecizes the reborn (?)Warlock, and scenes that hints an upcoming bodycount. Overall, this sequel is worth watching.

9.5/10 -0.5 for cheesy level, but only half the points are removed due to the other cool scenes.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
8/10
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 | Copied to clipboardCopy link
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 | Copied to clipboardCopy link
8/10
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.

**SPOILERS**

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 | Copied to clipboardCopy link
7/10
MORE VIOLENT MORE EVIL!!
psycho_15327 December 1999
Okay this wasn't a great movie but Julian Sands is great as the warlock. more violent that the original, Part 2 shows the Warlock as a much eviler being which I liked. The story is 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. I do admit that the first one concentrated on the plot and the atmospher and the second one was lets do a sequel and kill some people but I didn't mind that. I thought it was a good watch, funny at times.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
6/10
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 | Copied to clipboardCopy link
7/10
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 | Copied to clipboardCopy link
10/10
I love certain scenes.
bluegreengem1 February 2000
I voted a 10 on this movie because there were several scenes that gave me a bone-shattering chill down my spine. I wish I could say what scenes but I don't want to give away parts of the movie. *grins* You are gonna have to watch it and see for yourself. This movie will definitely be worth your time.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
9/10
Nice, but Warlock 1 iz better
TDLofCC6 October 1999
Once again Warlock mayhem with Warlock Julian Sands, he is tha bomb 4 a warlock. Though once again in the genre horror it was not 2 me, more of a comedy actually. Had fun while watching it ....
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Julian Sands is the perfect Son of Satan
Gex8 September 1998
Although for me Julian Sands is now typecast as an evil, evil man, it is a role I think he will have no problem filling. I tend to gravitate towards the bad guy, and Julian is one I wouldn't mind meeting. The lack of any remorse through all the mutilations and sacrifices adds a great suspense to the character, because without a possibility of reason, anything can happen and probably will as does with Warlock II.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
4/10
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 | Copied to clipboardCopy link
2/10
Far Worse Than I Expected
Theo Robertson29 May 2004
I was doing a bit of channel hopping and came across the opening credits of some movie that was starting . When I say " Movie " I was convinced it was one of those made for television movies ( TVM ) since everything was so brightly lit and plastic looking . Unsure what I was getting I picked up the TV guide which informed me the movie was WARLOCK: THE ARMAGEDDON . I`d seen the original WARLOCK and found it disappointing but after seeing the sequel the original was some kind of masterwork in comparison

The first problem is with Anthony Hickox directing . After seeing HELLRAISER 3 : HELL ON EARTH I had some reservations about Hickox ability as a director and after seeing this I do hold the view that he`s not much cop as a director . As I said everything about this movie is far too brightly lit and plastic looking just like you`d see in a TVM while the cast are either poor actors or they`ve been poorly directed . Hickox also insists on filming sequences in slow motion for no other reason than it seemed like a good idea at the time . I also think we could have done without blood splashing everywhere

The script too is very bad with the characters being nothing more than cyphers . It lacks any type of idiosyncratic dialogue too . Take this scene for example where the warlock approaches a New York taxi driver

Warlock : I want you to transport me to Chicago

Taxi driver : Get the f*ck outta my face buddy

So there you go the only written scene that features anything resembling characterisation revolves around a stereotypical view of NYC cab drivers . But my major problem with the script involves the plot - I`m not sure it actually has one . What happens is that the Warlock is born ( From a scene stolen from XTRO ) and he goes on a journey which involves him killing people in a bloody way every five minutes . I criticised the original movie for not using its great potential but this sequel had no potential to start with

I suppose gore hounds might like it but anyone expecting a coherent story and good acting should give this a wide berth
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
5/10
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 | Copied to clipboardCopy link
4/10
Totally adorable!
Fredrika11 October 2003
I love this movie, and Julian Sands is so... gorgeous. It is really a b-movie, but it has got so much charm, but it's all because of Julian. I don't really like any of the scenes where he doesn't participate. Since they can't have spent very much money on the film, I think they've done a pretty good job!
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed