Warlock (1989) User Reviews

A fun, rather than frightening, late-80s horror film.

[BA_Harrison · 6/10 · 3 February 2007]

An evil warlock (Julian Sands) travels from the 17th century to modern times, in search of the pages of the Grand Grimoire (the Devil's bible), which, when assembled together, will reveal God's true name and allow creation to be undone. Hot on his heels is a witch-hunter, Giles Redferne (Richard E. Grant), who enlists the help of Kassandra (Lori Singer), a pretty girl who has been cursed by the warlock (for every day that passes, she ages 20 years).

Written by David Twohy (Pitch Black) and directed by Steve Miner (Friday the 13th Part 2 and 3, House), Warlock is a fun, if unexceptional, slice of supernatural horror. Twohy has obviously done his homework and fills the script with interesting little snippets of witch lore: Redferne uses a witch compass to track his foe, uses salt as a weapon (witches hate the stuff) and creates a potion (from the boiled fat of a boy!) to enable him to fly. Miner's direction is similar in style to his earlier movie, House, with the emphasis on fun rather than fear. The film is workmanlike but not particularly memorable visually, and is unfortunately let down by some poor special effects.

Warlock is diverting enough entertainment while it lasts and worth checking out if you're a fan of all things 'witchy'. Just don't expect anything exceptional.

Lacks substance, but not entertainment.

[lost-in-limbo · 7/10 · 3 July 2005]

A witch hunter (Richard. E. Grant) is chasing an evil warlock (Julian Sands) that got transported from the 17th century to 1980's Los Angeles. With help from a young woman (Lori Singer) who's received a hex from the warlock, they team up and rush against the clock to stop him from getting his hands on the pages of the Grand Grimoire (satanic bible) and in doing so he could undo all creation.

Director Steve Miner (Friday the 13th Part 2 & 3, House) achieves probably his best film in "Warlock". Some people might say his best is "Lake Placid", but I couldn't stand that annoying film myself. Anyhow, the fact is the plot of "Warlock" might be very formulaic and lack depth in the religious lingo, but he delivers a pleasurable supernatural chase thriller here. Involving some enterprising performances that go in hand-to-hand with the well-paced story, witty humour and energetic action scenes. All of these elements seem to gel perfectly for an incredibly fun ride that hardly has a dull moment to be had.

There are some nice effects are on show (warlock flying through the sky) and good makeup is provided. The violence is hardly graphic, but there's some mild graphic scenes and implied violence too. Miner adds in some nice added touches with extremely solid direction that keeps a solid pace and well-orchestrated camera-work that captures the rather exquisite scenery when the film takes a detour in the countryside. Not particularly suspenseful or uneasy viewing, but well organised action set pieces, some horrific sequences and humorous moments (ingenious ending) makes up for it. There are some well-organised scenes of excitement and thrills, especially the sequences involving a farmhouse and a terrific climax in the eerie graveyard. It's layered with a potent score by Jerry Goldsmith that builds on some rare tense scenes, but more on the rapid mood of the film.

What truly make the film standout are riveting performances even though they feel hammy. There is such an excellent blend of chemistry between the leads. With each of them throwing back and forth to each other smart and witty dialogue. Julian Sands central performance leaps out as a powerful warlock out to destroy mankind. He fit's the role perfectly with this deviously venomous presence about him. Richard. E. Grant is charming as the very determined warlock hunter Giles Redferne. When these two characters meet, the confrontations between them always spices up the film. Lori Singer is enjoyable as the unknowingly Kassandra who adds to the humour and zest of the film.

The film might be nothing out of the ordinary, but you can't deny the upbeat tempo of a thrilling adventure that leads you on a whirlwind trip from Los Angeles to Boston.

It's daft and flawed, bu it's still oddly entertaining

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 10 October 2016]

WARLOCK is a cheesy and derivative horror movie from director Steve Miner, the man who brought us the similar-in-style HOUSE. The story is of a 17th century warlock who is captured by irate locals but manages to escape to the then-present day, pursued by a vengeful witch hunter. The warlock's plan is to gather together three parts of an ancient grimoire which will allow him to destroy the world.

The first thought upon watching this movie? Derivative. There are bits of THE TERMINATOR, HIGHLANDER, and THE ICEMAN COMETH in this one, and it's not as good as any of those movies. In fact, it's completely cheesy, with Julian Sands going into complete ham mode as the baddie of the piece and Richard E. Grant struggling throughout with his Scottish accent. The film's budgetary constraints are also more than apparent as this looks and feels more like a B-movie than an A-list picture.

My biggest complaint, however, is with the casting of non-actress Lori Singer, whose attempts at humour fall flat time and time again. She's awful, it has to be said, and really drags the film down so much that I was laughing at it rather than with it. That's a pity, because WARLOCK remains an oddly enjoyable outing. It's not as gory as you'd expect but there are some imaginative death scenes. The special effects have dated badly but are pretty fun to watch, particularly the ones involving the warlock flying around. I liked the mythology in the film including the witch-finding apparatus and the seeing eyes. Cult actress Mary Woronov has a good cameo. WARLOCK remains predictable from beginning to end, but as a bit of cult fun it remains enjoyable.

"My Dad hates all that stuff about Jesus and the 12 apostrophes"

[Backlash007 · 30 October 2002]

It usually takes a special audience to love most of the movies I review. But there's something truly wrong with you if you can't sit back and enjoy Warlock. It's nothing but pure fun. Warlock is a Steve Miner classic. Like his previous film, House, it's loaded with inventiveness. David Twohy's (Pitch Black, Critters 2) script is marvelous and gives us many memorable moments. My favorite occurs when Lori Singer is hammering the Warlock's tracks in the train yard; extremely original. Another great sequence is when the Grand Grimoire is finally assembled. The acting is stellar for the genre. You have gotta love Richard E. Grant's (Bram Stoker's Dracula) accent: "Witches loathe salt." Julian Sands is always superb but is at his most evil in this role. He truly is the Warlock (which is why I'll never watch the third Warlock installment). Steve Miner has brought us some good genre flicks and this is, without a doubt, one of his best (forget about H20).

Note for genre buffs: Look for Ian Abercrombie (Army of Darkness) and Mary Woronov (Deathrace 2000) in small roles.

Eighties Horror Comfort Food

[LanceBrave · 7/10 · 3 April 2014]

Throughout the seventies and eighties, New World Pictures released some of the most endearing schlock cinema of that era. Many of studio's horror, sci-fi, and sexploitation films are looked back on fondly. The last movie the company produced was "Warlock." The film appears to be an unambitious late eighties horror flick at first but has developed a cult following over the years. Dig a little beneath the surface and you'll realize why. The film was directed by Steve Miner, director of the first two "Friday the 13th" sequels and oddball haunting flick "House." Screenwriter David Twohy would go on to write blockbusters like "The Fugitive" and "Waterworld," as well as gaining a following for the Riddick series. Stars Lori Singer, Julian Sands, and Richard E. Grant all have fandoms of their own.

The story owes more then a little to "The Terminator" but trades in robots and time travel for witchcraft and magic. A grand warlock, before being executed in 1600s Boston, travels forward in time, winding up in 1980s L.A. A witch hunter with a personal grudge against the sorcerer leaps into the portal after him, following him into the future. The two men cross paths with Kassandra with a K, a snarky twenty-something living in the city. The Warlock uses his Satanic powers to cause chaos, even aging Kassandra twenty years, the witch hunter on his trail the whole time. The MacGuffin motivating the evil witch is an ancient book that could bring about the un-creation of the universe. Needless to say, neither Redferne nor Kassandra want that to happen.

"Warlock" strikes the right balance between humor, campy special effects, eighties action-style thrills, and harder horror elements. The script gets some decent laughs out of its "fish out of water" premise. Both Redferne and the Warlock have comical reactions to modern society, particularly to airplanes and cars. Lori Singer's Kassandra, meanwhile, frequently reacts to the supernatural insanity suddenly in her life with sarcastic one-liners. Side moments, like a cop's radar going crazy when the flying Warlock speeds by or a surprisingly modern reverend, also provide chuckles. For laughs of the unintentional variety, some of the film's special effects, like animated fireballs or the flying wizard, haven't age the best.

However, "Warlock" is still a horror film and provides some grisly and clever moments for genre fans. Upon arriving in L.A., the Warlock bites a man's tongue out, the severed appendage landing in a simmering fry pan. Mary Woronov's cameo as a fraud spiritualist ends with the villainous wizard yanking her eyeballs out. When a Mennonite makes eye contact with the witch, he's immediately cursed, blood running from his eyes. The most morbid element of the film happens off-screen, when the villain murders a child to rend his fat. That the film's tone isn't completely thrown out of balance by such a dark moment is a testament to Twohy's clever writing.

The nature of magic also provides some witty moments. Those removed eyeballs mentioned earlier float in the Warlock's hand, deepening his sight. A cut to the chest magically heals, in a simple but satisfying special effect. When the evil wizard appears in a home, it has immediate effect on the surroundings. Milk goes sour. Bread won't rise. Though the villain is the one that mostly practices magic, it's a two-way street. Hammering nails into his footprints puts the witch in immense pain. Salt burns his skin. A bloodied weather vane is used to determine what ground is holy and what isn't. It's refreshing that the script treats the Warlock as a blatantly Satanic character, an old-fashion horror-movie witch.

If the smarter then average script isn't the main attribute here, it's the stand-out cast. Julian Sands' reputation as a cult actor would mostly be founded on his work here. Sands' icy coolness and effete handsomeness suits the part well. (I'm not surprised a certain portion of the female population found him incredibly sexy.) He strikes a good balance between serious threat and wry sarcasm. Richard E. Grant, primarily known as a comedy actor, actually does well playing the straight man, the deathly serious Redferne. He's even convincing as an action hero, stabbing Sands or grabbing him with a whip. Grant's comedic strength still shines through, especially when faced with his own corpse. The best performance probably belongs to Singer though. She shows a deft comedic timing, gamely trading barbs with her male co-stars. She's effortlessly charming and, even if the script can't sell the romance between Grant and her, the two still play off each other nicely.

The film's central threat, that the villain could undo the entire universe by speaking God's one true name backwards, probably isn't given as much attention as it deserves. The way the Warlock is dispatched, a payoff on a character's briefly mentioned diabetes, comes a bit out of nowhere. Yet "Warlock" functions fantastically as eighties horror comfort food. A genuinely eerie Jerry Goldsmith score keeps things rolling along. The film's fantastic VHS-box-lending poster art got the film rented more then a few times which is the ideal way to watch it. The movie was popular enough to spawn two sequels, only one featuring Sands, but the Warlock has never reached the status of a Freddy or a Pinhead. Which is a shame since the film proves highly entertaining.

It stars Julian Sands, what more need be said.

[ozthegreatat42330 · 7/10 · 2 March 2007]

As others have written, this is a fun horror movie, even if a bit gory. Julian Sands was ideally cast as the warlock, and Richard E. Grant is both funny and compelling as the witch hunter brought to the future to stop him. At first Lori Singer's character is somewhat annoying and whiny but it also grows on you.

The scene with the warlock and the little boy is a good one, and the episode with the Mennonite's farmer, who has no trouble in believing Redfern is also excellent. This film is fast paced and that is the mark of a good thrill film also. It is not the best horror film that was ever made but it is well worth a viewing late at night, with the lights turned down, and perhaps a storm outside to add to the atmosphere.

Pretty Good Witch Movie

[ryan-10075 · 7/10 · 19 August 2019]

In 1681 an evil warlock (Julian Sands in top form) is about to be killed for what he has done. Then a giant storm hits and he disappears to come to modern times. A bounty hunter Redferne (excellent performance by Richard E. Grant) does the same and comes to modern (or 1989) Boston. . Sands crash lands into the apartment of Kassandra (remember its with a K) played by Lori Singer. He has been brought to modern times to construct the bible of Satan. What sounds like could be very bad TERMINATOR rip-off turns out to be a pretty good horror flick due to the performances of Sands and Grant. While Singer is okay in her role, she certainly is not bad, but doesn't seem to shine like the other two do.

The film also has quite an effective score from Jerry Goldsmith and some of the dialogue or bantering between Redferne and Kassandra does seem to brighten up the film.

The one bad thing with this film are the effects. They to me don't even hit middle ground. They are just cheesy and bad at times. I don't really remember one effect where I thought that was cool. To me if they sharpened the effects and if they got a stronger performance for the Kassandra character they may have had themselves a great movie here. That and director Steve Miner was coming off the success of a few good horror films (FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 2 & 3 & HOUSE) they seemed to have a capable director. Written by David Twohy. I was give this a rating of 7 and seemed to have some fun while viewing it. Followed by two sequels.

Not very intelligent, but entertaining.

[FiendishDramaturgy · 5/10 · 23 September 2003]

SPOILERS

Historically, this production begins in the days of the Malleus Maleficarum (also known as the Witches' Hammer), a most dire manuscript written by Jakob Sprenger and Heinrich Kramer (two Dominican priests) who completely fabricated the entirety of its contents, and forged the approval of the theological faculty at the University of Cologne, in 1486. Their deception and lies were discovered and corrected, but not until 1898; it was far too late by then. Of course, the true witches were never discovered, being cunning and crafty people as they are, but millions of innocents were burned, hung, or left in crow's cages to die. (`Complete Book of Witchcraft,' Raymond Buckland, Llewellyn Publications)

The Witch in this movie, is one of christian invention. Luciferians were the original "satanists," and they had no need for the blood of innocents, the fat of unbaptized male children, or guidance from satan. They merely saw a different name on the deed to the universe. (`Wiccan Mysteries,' Raven Grimassi, Llewellyn Publications) Without christianity, movies of this sort would have no basis for the characterization of `evil.'

It wasn't until the fictitious inventions of those two insane Dominican monks that Satanism was born. Before that, satanists and devil worship simply did not exist. Nor did it exist for some long time afterward, as satanism was their heretical invention...the horned god of the old world religions cast down into the form of the devil of the new religion. Before the Malleus Maleficarum, satan did not have horns, nor did he have a tail. Suddenly, after the introduction of their deceit and heresy, satan/the devil started to resemble Ceronus of the ancient European religions.

This movie glorifies Witch-hunters, who were nothing more (in my opinion) than the ale-stoked primeval equivalent of the modern day rednecks with the gun racks in the back windows of their dog-carrying Ford trucks, the John Deere hats which never sat behind a plow or tractor, and the inborn (or is that "inbred?") ability to "air blow" snot onto the ground without the use of a handkerchief.

From the view of history, most Witch-hunters were goodly men, doing what they were told was the "good and Godly thing." They were poorly-raised haplessly misled sheep being herded by wolves in priest's cassocks...much like today's zealous bigots proselytizing from door to door. To the movie's credit, I must say that the Witch-hunter's recognition of the Mennonite hex-mark was an inspired idea, as many of the old religions are still very active today. All ancient religions of the old worlds (ancient christians included) used and believed in magick...including magickal symbols, sigils and signs. Indeed, even today, signs, sigils and symbols are used by virtually all companies, organizations and groups.

Simple spells were also used to make determinations, such as the "witch-compass" used by Redfern the Witch-hunter. All that having been said, the movie itself, as far as movies of this kind go, is quite entertaining. There are several major eye-rolling moments and a couple of places where you just HAVE to laugh,but all in all, it's not nearly as bad as some movies I've seen.

Julian Sands is ... well, he's Julian Sands. If you're into Full Moon Productions, B flix of any kind or just good, off-brand movies, you probably know who Julian Sands is. His acting is quite dramatic and even almost believable.

The idea of the flying potion is as ancient as the use of Magick itself; however, the recipe requiring the fat of an unbaptized male child is a recipe which has been bastardized over the years by the dogmatic lies of catholicism. The recipe clearly asks for the fat of an unborn kid of male gender. A baby GOAT, not a human child, and this recipe was used by those who were still doing blood sacrifices; ie: Aztecs, Incas, Druids and Egyptians, among others. Early christians also did blood sacrifices to Jehovah. Read the bible and see for yourself. I have.

The concept of the Grand Grimoire is not satanist, but actually more Stregherian (Italian/Etruscan Heritage Tradition) in nature. Strega consists today of the family traditions passed down from Mother to Daughter in most Italian bloodlines. With the introduction of the Malleus Maleficarum, most sects went underground, inside their own families, or disbanded all together.

Each small sect, group or coven if you will, had a Book of Shadows, named such in order to indicate that the book was written after the commencement of the Burning Times...in the Shadows of the catholic church and their executioners. These books, and I have read 9 such books, contained nothing more than the group's initiation rite, rites to the Moon Goddess/Goddess of Nature... and bounty/harvest rites to the God of the Hunt. These books also contain tables of moon charts and secret herbal names such as "eye of newt," and "tongue of bat," referring to herbs found commonly in the European mountainsides of Italy and its surrounding terrain.

These books are nothing more than what I have described here. Most have neither knowledge, nor desire to possess such knowledge, as Necromancy, or any of the other Dark Arts. Every genuine "Grimoire" I've ever read (the oldest dating back to 1286) was based around love and light, protection spells, healing and prosperity for self and family. While there are "Dark" books out there, to be sure, for the most part, Witches did not write them. Christian heretics wrote them. As that is what Satanism IS...a christian heresy.

I found the "Warlock's use of Latin quite interesting, as many of the ancient texts are written in this language. It was the language of scholars of the time, and is still used in catholic rites today. Go figure. But most male witches do NOT embrace the label "warlock," as it means "oath breaker," literally translated, and is a highly derogatory term.

I also found the qualification Redfern makes to Kassandra with a K concerning the end of "all worlds," and not just this one, to be very intelligent and enlightened. Quite open-minded to be coming from a handmaiden of the church of zealots.

Another point is the Warlock's use of high magick. High magick is no longer possible on this plane, by any individual. The closest thing we have to high magick anymore are the psychic gifts of a select few; ie: telekinesis, telepathy, psychometry, and the like. The creation of magickal forces which are visible to the physical eye just doesn't happen.

Magick as such, was portrayed much better in the battle scene between Gandalf and Sauromon in the "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring," where the magick itself was unseen, only the results of each spell cast - each blow from the magickal staves - could be seen.

The ending of this movie, from the time they get to Boston and thereafter, is quite entertaining, interesting and satisfying. I find the "Warlock" movies to be quite enjoyable, but only as "B" flick entertainment goes.

The streams of fire the "Warlock" sends after Kassandra are very Terry Goodkind-esque, reminiscent of his Wizard's Fire. Not particularly convincing as an effect, but I've seen worse. *lol* (Ever see "Killer Clowns From Outer Space?" *lol*)

When Redfern finally decides to kiss else having been said and done, his soul is ready to rest; he has moved beyond the loss of his beloved Marion, and can finally rest in peace. Nice ending to an entertaining, if not wholly intelligent movie.

It gets a 5.5 for entertainment value from the Fiend :.

Warlock is Fun, Mystery, Drama and Supernatural. Just great

[gooelf50 · 9/10 · 9 March 2007]

I rarely watch any thriller type movies that involve the supernatural and and sort of monster or witch. They all tend to have similar plots and fail to challenge the imagination. I only saw this movie because my wife and daughter had just tuned it in when I arrived home one day. I watched simply to spend some time with them and chat during commercial breaks. I was caught up in this story very quickly and remained glued to my seat until it was over. Basically a male witch, played by Julian Sands, who wishes to reverse creation by finding a long hidden biblical document, makes the leap from the 15th century to present day to search for it. He is pursued by an equally determined witch hunter, played by Richard Grant. The movie is comical one moment and bone chilling the next. It's well presented and thrilling from start to finish. The witch chaser pursues the warlock across country, with the assistance of a young lady who falls into the story, with the chase culminating in a Graveyard in a very old section of Boston. Lots of excitement, drama, comedy and horror along the way. A delight to watch.

You tellin' me you're a witch...? You ain't no witch! Witches are girls!

[lastliberal · 7/10 · 12 March 2009]

Oh, dost thou scare me! hang me and burn me over a baskets of cats. I'm dead, you dolt, I don't care what you do after that. I can't believe they believed such nonsense in 1691, but apparently they did.

But, the Warlock (Julian Sands) was too slick for them and ends in in present day LA. Soon, Redferne (Richard E. Grant) appears to bring him back in some kind of reverse Terminator. A tongue bitten out and eyes removed in the first 10 minutes. This should be interesting.

Lori Singer (Short Cuts) joins Redferne after being cursed by the Warlock to age 20 years every day. Can't think of a worse curse for a woman. They travel to Boston to stop the Warlock, who discovers along the way that a certain priest has been doing unpriestly things, and uses that to get his information.

There is not a lot of special effects, but what there was seemed good for the time.

The real fun of this movie is the interaction of Singer and Grant. They made it worth watching.

Oh, yeah, get thee you male children baptized.

Could and should have been so much better

[paulclaassen · 4/10 · 12 April 2020]

I have fond memories of watching 'Warlock' as a child and remember it as one of my favorite horror films.

Unfortunately - having watched it now as an adult - I have mixed feelings. The visual effects are impressive, and Julian Sands is very good as the evil, merciless warlock, yet it lacks something: suspense. 'Warlock' is unfortunately not as good as it could have been due to parts of the movie playing like a comedy. The annoying humor is present even during serious moments, rendering them ineffective in the process.

Throughout the film Lori Singer has a constant humorist attitude. It therefore doesn't help much that Richard E Grant and Julian Sands are trying to be serious. This should either have been a horror comedy, or a full-on suspenseful horror, but the blending of genres just doesn't work here. Even during the film's climax they throw in silly comical one-liners.

In general, this wasn't a bad film, and it was quite entertaining. It just could have been so much more.

Would I watch it again? Maybe in another 10 years or so...

This supernatural Terminator knockoff is a lot of fun.

[b_buddy1 · 8/10 · 6 February 2010]

James Cameron's 1984 masterpiece The Terminator remains one of the greatest time travel epics ever made. A true Sci-Fi classic, it grossed $78 million at the box office and was an instant favorite of critics and fans alike. Perhaps it was inevitable that its premise—that of a hero and his mortal foe battling across centuries as well as great distances—would be duplicated a score of times by lesser filmmakers in lesser films. Universal Soldier, Highlander, and their myriad dismal sequels come to mind, as does the 1993 Stallone vehicle, Demolition Man. Steve Miner's unsung 1989 B-movie Warlock is very much in this same category of Terminator knockoff. Though underwhelming in its production values, Warlock manages to outshine its contemporaries through fine writing, directing, and above all, acting.

The beauty of Warlock's story lies in its simplicity. This is not a film with delusions of grandeur; it has more in common with Highlander than Braveheart. Hot on the trail of his mortal enemy the Warlock, our hero Redferne dives courageously after his foe into a magical time vortex that transports him from 17th century New England to 1980s Los Angeles. A true fish out of water, it isn't long before Redferne finds himself tasered at the hands of those infamous proponents of brutality, the LAPD. He's arrested but doesn't stay in jail for long. An innocent bystander named Kassandra ("With a K!," as she is quick to remind all) posts bail when she realizes Redferne may be the one person who can free her from the curse the Warlock has placed on her. Kassandra (Lori Singer) is a vain young woman who has been cursed by a spell that leads to rapid aging. At the pace of "a decade twice over a day," Kassandra not only rapidly loses her looks but has less than a week to live unless she can reverse the spell. The only way to do that is by confronting the diabolical Warlock, who rightfully terrifies her. After some convincing, Kassandra eventually agrees to join Redferne. The odd couple set off on a quest to find the Warlock and end his reign of terror before it goes any further. Along the way, the Warlock takes council with Satan himself and begins a quest to undo all of creation by uniting the pages of a spell book called the Grand Grimoire. Fully assembled, the Grand Grimoire spells out the true name of God which, if spoken backwards, will destroy the universe.

The character to whom we are to relate immediately as an audience is the Sara Connor proxy, Kassandra. Initially, she is not a likable leading woman; she is written as dim witted, cowardly, and vapid. But by the film's end, I came to find her if not pleasant then tolerable. The kindest thing I can say of Singer's performance as this boor is that it is adequate; she is never charming but far from odious. It would take an actress of the highest caliber to make me really care about Kassandra and Singer just doesn't have the chops. Still, she does what she can with the role and her effort is commendable.

Like The Terminator, Warlock focuses as much on its antagonist as it does on the heroic duo out to defeat him. The Warlock's true name is never revealed on screen. Instead he is referred to only by title, a nice touch that paints him as less a man than an entity of nameless evil. He is wantonly cruel, blond, and impossibly beautiful. His powers are formidable; superhuman strength, a hypnotic gaze, and flight to name just a few. English actor Julian Sands has a ball as the title character. The scene in which he plays video football with a young boy on a swing set is tremendous; as is the scene in which he admires a victim's pinky ring before rudely hacking the finger off. Misfortune in the form of death and dismemberment inevitably befall all who cross his path, but Warlock takes care not to become an exploitation film. Most violence happens off screen, is merely hinted at, or is handled humorously.

Richard E. Grant's performance as the witch hunter Redferne is nothing short of heroic. His character is loosely molded after Terminator's hero, Sgt. Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn). In the hands of a lesser actor, the valiant Redferne could have been a laughable caricature of superstitious Puritanism but Grant finds the heart of the character. Standing over a "witch compass" constructed of brass and witch's blood, he delivers the greatest line in the film; "Now brute, one last time we play the game out!" I enjoyed every word of Redferne's dialogue, all intoned with Grant's silver tongued faux Scots burr.

On a special effects level, Warlock falls flat on its face. This is a film produced by Roger Corman in the late 80s, which should give you some idea of what to expect. The bursts of magical energy the Warlock fires from his hands are truly garish. And don't get me started on the scene in which the Warlock is supposed to be flying down an interstate highway at 100 mph. Warlock's special effects suffer not only in comparison to recent films, but also in comparison to other films from the same time period such as John Carpenter's Big Trouble in Little China. Still, for all of the low budget special effect snafus, I enjoyed the fight scenes between Redferne and the Warlock immensely. I particularly enjoyed the climactic showdown in which Redferne takes on the Warlock with his bare hands.

All in all, Warlock is easily the best of the many Terminator knockoffs. It is action packed, well paced, and resists the temptation to get bogged down with a sappy romantic subplot. It never reaches beyond its grasp; it is a B-movie out and out and on that humble level it succeeds. It features an attractive cast and is well written, directed, produced, and especially acted.

How did this one pass me by?

[bowmanblue · 7/10 · 17 October 2014]

'Warlock' was released over twenty years ago and I've only just got round to watching it. And, I have to say, better late than never. It really is a fun movie.

No, it never tries to be particularly serious. It doesn't have the budget for that. It's about a warlock (or 'male witch' as we learn they are) who, upon being captured in the seventeenth century, only goes and pulls one of his disappearing tricks and ends up in modern day L.A. And, if that wasn't bad enough, he's only figured out a way of 'uncreating' the whole of God's great existence. Lucky for the rest of us that Richard E Grant and his (interesting) Scottish accent have also time travelled to stop him. So, he teams up with 'average Joette' Kassandra (with a K) and we have our movie.

And, 'our movie' happens to be in the same ball park as other great chases through Los Angeles. Due to the film's L.A. setting and the fact that we have two superhuman leads squaring off against one another, I couldn't help but think of Terminator. However, due to budget constraints, it's not quite as slick as the cyborg epic and falls more into those lower budget versions, such as Dark Angel and The Hidden. But then I also loved Dark Angel and The Hidden, so I didn't mind.

Warlock's special effects certainly aren't that special, but, by the time you find yourself laughing at how they portray someone 'flying' (I'm sure if you look closely you can see the wires) you should already be enjoying the whole film too much to really care.

Take the whole thing with a big pinch of salt. It certainly does. The dialogue is nice as our 'out of time' hero struggles to adapt to modern day living and women who wear make-up. All in all, it's nothing new, but it certainly is fun (you may need an appreciation of low budget 'so-bad-they're-good' type movies to really enjoy it).

Average horror film.

[poolandrews · 5/10 · 6 June 2006]

Warlock starts in Boston Massachusetts during the 17th Century where a witch (Julian Sands) has been captured & is awaiting execution at the hands of Giles Redferne (Richard E. Grant) but the witch manages to call upon the forces of darkness to open a time portal which he & Redferne are both able to travel through to the present which happens to be Los Angeles in 1988. The witch is taken in by Chas (Kevin O'Brien) & Kassandra (Lori Singer) but quickly kills Chas before he discovers that he will become the son of the Devil if he finds the three parts of the Satanic Bible, the witch also steals Kassandra's bracelet which has the worrying effect of ageing her 20 years everyday & unless she gets it back she will die of old age within a week. But all is not lost as help is at hand in the form of Redferne who vows to find the witch & kill him before he finds the pages from the Satanic Bible & plunge the Earth into eternal darkness as the Devil is set free...

Directed by Steve Miner I personally didn't think that much of Worlock, at best it's OK while at worst it's boring nonsense. The script by David Twohy seems to take itself a little too seriously, is a bit on the dull side & rather slow at times. The story has a few plot holes in it & there wasn't enough action or horror in it. The character's are quite likable & it's watchable on a basic dumb sort of level but I kept thinking that it could have been more & that something was missing, you know what I mean that little something extra that takes a film from being an average one to a good one. Like I say it's an OK way to pass 100 odd minutes but it's all rather forgettable, I think the situation in which Referne from the 17th Century suddenly finds himself in the 20th could have been played up a bit more & produced a few laughs. I may be wrong but I'm not sure that you would be able to take knives, whips & spears onto a commercial aeroplane fight either & I don't think that you would be able to get free plane tickets by just unplugging the credit card machine, I mean if a piece of electrical equipment breaks down the first thing you check is the plug & any leads. Anyway, Worlock is pretty dull stuff throughout & totally uninspiring.

Director Miner does an OK job, the film feels very 80's with the clothes & styles present. There aren't really any scares or shocks & the horror seemed to kept to a minimum. Forget about any decent gore, there is one chopped off finger, a severed tongue & a bloody skeleton at the end.

I have to admit I was very surprised to learn that warlock had a budget of about $7,000,000, I certainly can't see where 7 big ones went on screen. There's no big name actors, no big action scenes, limited special effects & nothing that jumps out as being particularly impressive about the production. The acting was alright, Sands makes for a cool villain while Grant makes for a likable hero although I'm not sure about that accent...

Warlock is an OK way to pass 100 odd minutes if you've got nothing better to watch or if you like horror in particular but I found it all rather average & forgettable, didn't really do anything for me I'm afraid. Proved popular enough to spawn two sequels, Warlock: The Armageddon (1993) & the straight-to-video Warlock III: The End of Innocence (1999).

The sinners are much more fun!

[Odysseus-5 · 19 June 1999]

This movie actually is a pretty fun film with a lot more going for it than most people might think just looking at the cover. Sands is perfectly cast as the warlock, an evil-to-the-core witch who works for nothing less than the uncreation of the cosmos. Fighting him is an out-of-his-element witch-hunter who has chased him to the present (Grant) with a peculiar confidence. He knows his enemy and knows what he needs to do to prevent the warlock from completing the Grand Grimoire, but is lost in the present. Tagging along is a modern-day girl who is acceptably portrayed by Lori Singer caught between the warlock's unbelievable powers, her newfound friend from the past with an obsession, and her now blasted view of "how things work in the real world." Two things really make this film though. The first is that the explanations that are given actually don't bog the momentum down (and the filmmakers decide to leave some things unexplained or give the most cursory explanations to catch the audience up in the wild ride that Kassandra (Singer) has found herself in) and that although both the warlock and the hunter have powers, they are closly matched and totally obsessed, making for a very interesting conflict. There's also enough tongue in cheek to keep people interesting and to break occasional tension. Very watchable - go and try it on for size.

Just enough for an entertainment

[Seraphion · 6/10 · 20 June 2014]

The base premise of the story is just so commonly found.But the final story development is quite nice for me. It stays true to the older myths and help shape the myths used in other newer movies with the similar themes.

In my opinion, the acting just a -so-so, even for the era the movie is released in. Also, the execution of the screenplay is quite littered with unnecessary goofs and illogical things concerning continuity.

But for an overall judgment, I think this movie is quite entertaining, worth a 6 out of 10 score. And I agree at some newer publications referring to this movie as a classic at the genre of occult horror.

A little to much comic relief

[tvmicman-18694 · 6/10 · 21 June 2020]

When I saw this in my teen I remember it being awesome. Watching it again as an adult I feel that the one liners from Lori Singer were sometimes a little much. All in all it's still a fun mivie

better then the sequels

[al_phillips2000 · 7/10 · 20 December 2001]

Other than Lori Singer, I like everything about this film. Richard E. Grant is at his best, and Sands is pure Evil. The magic stuff is great and I love films that have magic, and/or sword stuff. This isn't medieval, but it all fits well in a modern setting.

Cream that has turned, an all blue flame.....

[FlashCallahan · 1/10 · 27 May 2012]

In Boston of 1691, a warlock is sentenced to death, but escapes magically into the future, followed doggedly by a witch hunter.

There he is searching for the three parts of the Devil's Bible.

Trailed by the witch hunter and the woman whose house he landed in, they must stop him, as the book contains the true name of God, which he can use to un-create the world.....

Ever since i saw Sands in Arachnophobia, he has always been a Chicken in a Basket style actor to me, Very bad, but very more-ish.

As with the film, it's one of those little lost gems that I have wanted to see since it's initial release but was never able to.

I finally saw the movie, after tracking it down on the Horror Channel, and now I really wish I had saw it when I were 13, because seeing it as a 34 year old super film geek, it just stinks.

The film is devoid of thrills, or scares, and honestly, the most exciting part of this is when Sands is playing a video game with the kid from Baywatch.

Lori Singer provides the bad make up, and Richard E grant proves that Groundskeeper Willie isn't always animated.

he effects are eye poppingly bad, even for 1988, and eventually the film gets sucked up in it's own absurdness.

I saw the sequel before this, and believe me, it's a hell (ahem) of a lot more enjoyable.

so bad it's boring.

A Good Horror Movie

[Gislef · 9/10 · 11 September 1998]

The late 80's and 90's have not been a particularly good time for big-budget horror movies, but Warlock, a kind of supernatural Terminator, works particularly well. Everyone is well-cast, although the focus is on the three leads. Julian Sands is at his most diabolical, but Richard Grant also does well, neatly portraying Redferne as a man out of time (essentially Michael Biehn's character from Terminator, in reverse). Lori Singer is...well, tolerable. The Warlock is not the all-powerful deity that the writers could have portrayed him as (and as he'll be portrayed in the next movie), meaning that the battles between him and Redferne are actually pretty interesting.

Sand's clear diction n Grants constipated face with the mullet hairstyle was epic.

[Fella_shibby · 6/10 · 21 January 2018]

I first saw this in the early 90s on a vhs n revisted it recently on a dvd. This movie is definitely for 80s fan. The sequels were awful. Julian Sands clearity in his words was over the top. Lori Singer's hair color n make up were lol. The witch's flying effects were badly done n very laughable. Richard E. Grants face looked as if he was constipated n his mullet hairstyle was funny. The film's initial cinematography was good. The kills were almost nada but the film was good fun for its time.

Campy, but not good

[Samiam3 · 5/10 · 13 March 2010]

From mediocre writer David Twohy and mediocre director Steve Miner, comes Warlock, a very mediocre movie. There are way way worse films of this sort, but this is pretty cheap. This is the kind of story that Sam Raimi could do justice to. Neither Twohy nor Miner are able to make anything clever out of this. The finished product is disappointing,

It begins in 17th century Massachussets (the third British colony in America, famous for its witch hunts) A hieratic is about to meet the noose for worshipping Satan. On the day he receives his sentence, the clouds come and take him away, off to 20th century California. A witch hunter seeking revenge for the murder of his wife follows the warlock (somehow) into the future, and using a witch compass proceeds to track him down. He also has the help of Kassandra, a young lady seeking to reverse a spell that was put on her, when the Warlock entered her house.

Warlock doesn't really work as a horror, a fantasy or a comedy. Despite its campy absurdity, it's hard to laugh at, unless looked at as an unintentional comedy, which would relieve you of having to question things like, how does a man dressed in sheep's wool get passed airport security carrying a four foot piece of copper used as a spear?

So what is Warlock? it is nothing more or less than a cheaply made, product of the B-movie industry, with bad special effects, sub-par picture quality, and the occasional moments that provoke giggles don't cut it.

Cheesy but macabre.

[insomniac_rod · 8/10 · 18 June 2006]

In the 80's , Horror movies about the Devil were not very popular mainly because the slasher genre was at it's peek. "Warlock" has some slasher elements and it works perfectly for the movie. The sinister atmosphere is great and that's what makes it a creepy movie. The plot is macabre and devilish but the black humor makes it a whole different experience than the one you expect.

There's gore, violence, and my favorite element, the constant references to the Devil and the anti-Christ. Well, this movie is one of the best of it's kind and should be watched by people who enjoy the supernatural and devilish situations.

There are some cheesy scenes mainly because of the cheap f/x but are okay anyways. Oh and you gotta love Giles Redferne's Scottish accent. He is awesome in his character. His unintentionally funny scenes he tries to adapt to the new world although he's centuries past it.

The Warlock is simply menacing and with a cool attitude. He truly makes his presence to be menacing and evil when it's needed.

Kassandra may be too bland but she's perfect for the role. She's pretty, sexy, and delivers some interesting moments to the movie.

My favorite unintentionally funny quote:

Pastor: May I ask what your interest is in finding such a book?

Giles Redferne: Our interest lies in stopping those who would see all good falter. It lies in stopping the powers of misrule from coming of age. It lies in finding that damned book, and thwarting a vile beast of a man who shall not rest until God himself is thrown down, and all of creation becomes Satan's black hell besmeared farting hole!

Pastor: (Puts an awkward face like "what the f***?!)".

Kassandra: You asked.

"Warlock" is a macabre Horror movie with plenty of black humor and cheese for the please and that's why it deserves to be watched.

For 1988 this is a badass cult classic ( D+ Movie ) My Ratings 7/10

[THE-BEACON-OF-MOVIES-RAFA · 7/10 · 1 February 2020]

Warlock is devilishly fun entertainment. Julian Sands and Richard E. Grant are both perfectly cast in the leading roles.

An Evil Warlock in League with the Devil

[Uriah43 · 5/10 · 31 January 2023]

This film takes place in 1691 with a powerful warlock being held in chains in a tower within the small city of Boston where he is scheduled to be executed within 24 hours. At least, that is the decree by the city elders. Unknown to them, however, Satan has other plans and that very evening a storm develops which creates a fierce whirlwind that teleports the "Warlock" (played by Julian Sands) to present day Los Angeles where he is propelled into a house occupied by a young woman named "Kassandra" (Lori Singer) and a man named "Chas" (Kevin O'Brien). Being a rather kind-hearted soul, Chas immediately bandages his wounds and puts him in his own bed to help him recover. The next day, the Warlock repays Chas' kindness by murdering him. It is then revealed that Satan deliberately sent him to that specific place and time in order for the Warlock to recover a portion of an ancient book that was secretly stashed inside a table within the house. Having thus secured the book, the Warlock then prepares to go to the next location to retrieve another portion of the book. But before he does that, he conjures a spell which causes Kassandra to age at an alarming rate. But what the Warlock doesn't realize, is that his main nemesis by the name of "Redferne" (Richard E. Grant) has followed him through time and--with the help of Kassandra--intends to reverse the spell and kill him before he can acquire the other two pieces of the book. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that this is one of those films that I have mixed opinions about. On the one hand, it had an entertaining plot, stellar acting on the part of Julian Sands, and some good action scenes. The problem, though, had to do with the rather poor special effects which were quite bad--even for that particular period in time. That being said, despite this rather noticeable flaw, the film still managed to pass the time well enough, and I have rated it accordingly. Average.