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.
68 Reviews
Almost as good as the original.
lost-in-limbo24 February 2019
Julian Sands as the warlock (son of Satan) is back at it again, and his suave presence fitting as usual in a rather devilish sequel. This time around he makes much more of a bloody mess as he cruelly and imaginatively toys around with the owners of the scattered magical runestones, Druid Guardians and two meddling small-town teenagers who are the only ones that can stop him from opening the gateway to hell.
When we get Sands making people look foolish, it was a wicked blast - from the sardonic wit to the sexed-up vibes and the graphic shocks heavily reliant on practical make-up effects (like the insane birth sequence?!). However when it was just the cornball love struck teens getting together, or preparing for their epic encounter my interest sort of dipped, and pacing stuttered. Luckily when the two forces come together in the final half-hour there's all kinds of crazy excess, flourishing visuals and magic jousting. Makes the wait well worth it.
Genre journeyman director Anthony Hickok shows ticker and provides few deft, and offbeat touches to how he framed some of the set-pieces. I must admit there were moments when the visual effects are beyond hokey (floating baseball), but the sheer absurdity of it makes up for it. I'm just surprised this follow-up didn't get a theatrical release, as it a solid offering.
When we get Sands making people look foolish, it was a wicked blast - from the sardonic wit to the sexed-up vibes and the graphic shocks heavily reliant on practical make-up effects (like the insane birth sequence?!). However when it was just the cornball love struck teens getting together, or preparing for their epic encounter my interest sort of dipped, and pacing stuttered. Luckily when the two forces come together in the final half-hour there's all kinds of crazy excess, flourishing visuals and magic jousting. Makes the wait well worth it.
Genre journeyman director Anthony Hickok shows ticker and provides few deft, and offbeat touches to how he framed some of the set-pieces. I must admit there were moments when the visual effects are beyond hokey (floating baseball), but the sheer absurdity of it makes up for it. I'm just surprised this follow-up didn't get a theatrical release, as it a solid offering.
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?
Rare "C" movie...
A_Different_Drummer15 December 2020
Wretched attempt to recreate the magic of the original cult classic without the script, direction, cast or general smarts that went into the first. Sands took the paycheck but otherwise seems lost. The terrible acting is overshadowed only by the bad sets, lighting, editing and general lack of competence.
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
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
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.)
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.)
Boring and dumb
JTMokko5 September 2021
Bad acting and incomprehensible story.
Dumb start, middle and the end - all around a disappointment.
Even Julian Sands was bad in this. He always seemed to act like he was reading his lines from the paper.
Some special effects were quite descent, but that was about it.
No wonder this turkey didn't get a broad release.
Dumb start, middle and the end - all around a disappointment.
Even Julian Sands was bad in this. He always seemed to act like he was reading his lines from the paper.
Some special effects were quite descent, but that was about it.
No wonder this turkey didn't get a broad release.
The Armageddon on a limited budget.
Hey_Sweden7 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.
"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.
It's not really worth it.
filipemanuelneto20 October 2021
This film is the sequel to "Warlock", a 1989 film about the passage of a sorcerer from the past to present times, eager to carry out an evil plan. This time, the same sorcerer will try to free the Antichrist using the power of some magic crystals and thus start the reign of evil on Earth. However, he will have to rely on the opposition of the Druids, a magical brotherhood that has protected the world forever and will train two warriors to fight it.
The movie is much weaker and more uninteresting than the original movie. The biggest problem is a weak, disjointed, bland and really poorly written script. It simply failed to capture my attention and justify the time spent on the film. In addition, the script has the largest collection of lost, naive or boring subplots I've ever seen. Attempts at romance sound forced, the fears of the elderly about the fate of the young is cliché, the way the sorcerer behaves is predictable.
The cast is led by Julian Sands, who returns to the most notable role of his career to see it destroyed by a mediocre film. The actor is not the problem with this film, he really makes an effort to give his best and I want to highlight that, but the bad material they gave him doesn't give him much scope to do much. I also enjoyed the commitment and delivery of Chris Young and Paula Marshall, even though I felt there was no genuine chemistry between them. The film also features the worthy efforts of actors such as Steve Kahan, Bruce Glover and R. G. Armstrong.
Technically, the film is fraught with problems, starting with its basic editing and inelegant and tiresome cinematography. On the other hand, I liked the sets and costumes used. I also found some special effects and visuals interesting, even though for the most part they seem too primitive and weird to look believable. There are a good number of pretty repulsive gore scenes, and bloody deaths. For me, the best one was my arrival in the Wizard's world, through a horrifying and brutal birth. Some of them, however, are simply disgusting. The sound resources are lousy, and the soundtrack is equally dismal.
The movie is much weaker and more uninteresting than the original movie. The biggest problem is a weak, disjointed, bland and really poorly written script. It simply failed to capture my attention and justify the time spent on the film. In addition, the script has the largest collection of lost, naive or boring subplots I've ever seen. Attempts at romance sound forced, the fears of the elderly about the fate of the young is cliché, the way the sorcerer behaves is predictable.
The cast is led by Julian Sands, who returns to the most notable role of his career to see it destroyed by a mediocre film. The actor is not the problem with this film, he really makes an effort to give his best and I want to highlight that, but the bad material they gave him doesn't give him much scope to do much. I also enjoyed the commitment and delivery of Chris Young and Paula Marshall, even though I felt there was no genuine chemistry between them. The film also features the worthy efforts of actors such as Steve Kahan, Bruce Glover and R. G. Armstrong.
Technically, the film is fraught with problems, starting with its basic editing and inelegant and tiresome cinematography. On the other hand, I liked the sets and costumes used. I also found some special effects and visuals interesting, even though for the most part they seem too primitive and weird to look believable. There are a good number of pretty repulsive gore scenes, and bloody deaths. For me, the best one was my arrival in the Wizard's world, through a horrifying and brutal birth. Some of them, however, are simply disgusting. The sound resources are lousy, and the soundtrack is equally dismal.
Simultaneously More Fun and Less Satisfying then the First
LanceBrave3 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you like cheap, cheesey horror films, this one might make you grin.
This sequel surpasses the original, but only by a very small margin.
FiendishDramaturgy24 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 :.
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 :.
I would rather #2 than watch Warlock 2
BenTramerLives7814 March 2021
Warlock 2 started off half way decent but then to me it seemed as though someone with ADD may have written this one. I felt like the story was all over the place and there wasn't enough effort in making a truly good sequel to an interesting film. This movie, in a word, blows. Sorry.
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.
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
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
Hickox fails to work his magic.
BA_Harrison15 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Julian Sands returns as the titular warlock, who is reborn to try and gather together six runestones that will enable Satan to walk the Earth. Standing in his way are a group of ageing druids, two of whom have teenage kids, Kenny and Samantha (Chris Young and Paula Marshall), who must become druid warriors to do battle and save the planet from evil.
Anthony Hickox hit the ground running with gory tableau horror Waxwork (1988) and Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat (1989), but his subsequent sequel to his directorial debut (Waxwork II: Lost in Time) and his third in the Hellraiser series (Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth) were less impressive, the director ill-advisedly aiming for a more mainstream, teen-friendly approach (possibly inspired by the success of numerous cheesy Nightmare on Elm Street sequels).
The malaise continued with this follow up to 1989 supernatural hit Warlock. Hickox's film is too silly to be scary, but not funny enough to be a comedy; it sits awkwardly in the middle ground, never getting the balance right. There is some fun to be had from the ridiculous death scenes, as Sands' character creatively kills those who possess the runestones, and the gore is handled well enough, but the pacing is off and the less said about the sloppy visual effects (including early CGI that looks awful) the better.
Highlights include a woman giving birth to a fleshy sac that eats her Pomeranian, a dwarf impaled in an iron maiden, a fashion designer dropped from a height through a skylight, and a gloopy meltdown for the warlock at the end. Dumbest moments include a victim turned into a Picasso-style statue, the warlock shooting a druid with his fingers (blowing smoke from the deadly digits afterwards), and the scalping of a hitch-hiker (an effect achieved with a wig, a bald cap, and some ketchup).
5.5 out of 10, rounded up to 6 for IMDb.
Anthony Hickox hit the ground running with gory tableau horror Waxwork (1988) and Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat (1989), but his subsequent sequel to his directorial debut (Waxwork II: Lost in Time) and his third in the Hellraiser series (Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth) were less impressive, the director ill-advisedly aiming for a more mainstream, teen-friendly approach (possibly inspired by the success of numerous cheesy Nightmare on Elm Street sequels).
The malaise continued with this follow up to 1989 supernatural hit Warlock. Hickox's film is too silly to be scary, but not funny enough to be a comedy; it sits awkwardly in the middle ground, never getting the balance right. There is some fun to be had from the ridiculous death scenes, as Sands' character creatively kills those who possess the runestones, and the gore is handled well enough, but the pacing is off and the less said about the sloppy visual effects (including early CGI that looks awful) the better.
Highlights include a woman giving birth to a fleshy sac that eats her Pomeranian, a dwarf impaled in an iron maiden, a fashion designer dropped from a height through a skylight, and a gloopy meltdown for the warlock at the end. Dumbest moments include a victim turned into a Picasso-style statue, the warlock shooting a druid with his fingers (blowing smoke from the deadly digits afterwards), and the scalping of a hitch-hiker (an effect achieved with a wig, a bald cap, and some ketchup).
5.5 out of 10, rounded up to 6 for IMDb.
How to use your VCR as a tool of torture ...
Shan-1226 December 1998
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
Really weak sequel
rdamian19636 April 2022
"Won't you give your boy a kiss, Mother?"
ryan-1007516 November 2020
To me more of a remake or a retelling of the original as Julian Sands returns as the title character. Here it is slightly different as he must be reborn in a crazy scene that tries to but in my opinion does not outdo a similar scene in XTRO. Not for the squeamish anyways. He's brought to modern times to capture rune stones and bring Satan to earth. Standing in his way are druids (including Steve Kahan, R.G. Armstrong, Charles Hallahan and Bruce Glover) who train their children (Chris Young and {Paula Marshall) to battle this evil warlock and send him back. In those scenes it seemed like jedi training to me and Kenny needed to listen to Master Yoda a little closer.
Sands is still great as the warlock and his character seems even more hell bent on leaving victims. A better than average horror flick cast as well that also includes George 'Buck' Flower that will have to keep a quick eye out for and Zach Galligan in a hilarious scene. I generally enjoy Anthony Hickox films so I was looking forward to viewing this one. It is much gorier than the original, but in today's standards some of the effects don't work much better than the original. Worth a watch though if you enjoyed the original.
Sands is still great as the warlock and his character seems even more hell bent on leaving victims. A better than average horror flick cast as well that also includes George 'Buck' Flower that will have to keep a quick eye out for and Zach Galligan in a hilarious scene. I generally enjoy Anthony Hickox films so I was looking forward to viewing this one. It is much gorier than the original, but in today's standards some of the effects don't work much better than the original. Worth a watch though if you enjoyed the original.
Not intimidating
josephmpapp5 August 2023
Julian Sands was devious in the original. He was cold, calculated, and determined. The magic was strange but had a odd familiarity in it.
This film didn't have that. It was more like the cheap dimension direct to video sequels we saw in the late 90's. Show a series villian and add random acts of horror. Yawn.
The drama surrounding our druid heroes was so melodramatic and uninspiring. In the original, the characters had a more reasonable motive to stop the Warlock. This was more of a Saturday morning cartoon plot. Rather than just stopping evil, it ended up being a cheesy self discovery magic story with bad acting and cheap sets.
If you don't watch this, you won't miss anything aside from laughs and yawns.
This film didn't have that. It was more like the cheap dimension direct to video sequels we saw in the late 90's. Show a series villian and add random acts of horror. Yawn.
The drama surrounding our druid heroes was so melodramatic and uninspiring. In the original, the characters had a more reasonable motive to stop the Warlock. This was more of a Saturday morning cartoon plot. Rather than just stopping evil, it ended up being a cheesy self discovery magic story with bad acting and cheap sets.
If you don't watch this, you won't miss anything aside from laughs and yawns.
"Give me the stone!"
Foreverisacastironmess12330 June 2016
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!
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.
Inferior to the original
tomasctinoco30 July 2023
This movie falls short of the original, feeling like a low-budget made-for-TV production. While the plot has potential, the execution leaves much to be desired. Perhaps the director should have considered creating a compelling sequel to the original, building upon its successful plot instead of opting for a soft reboot. The focus on the warlock is insufficient, and too much time is devoted to developing unengaging supporting characters that never really bring anything important to the overall development of the plot. The poorly written script leads to laughable dialogue, and the balance between the warlock and supporting characters is off. Lastly... The editing is choppy and the cinematography is terrible.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
