Scott LeBrun 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.

videorama-759-859391 I must confess, I only saw half of the first Warlock, and found it quite boring. This I didn't. It's a much more energized and exciting sequel, that I love to videe, now and again. I can't believe people enjoyed the first one more, like my brother, for starters, which has left me quite quizzed. W2 is much more gorier if going by the first half of the original, with some real over the top blood spilliages, like Ms Pacula's demise. This time our evil warlock, the great Mr Sands, who I must say was born to play this role, is here for much more evil purposes, like bringing the world to an end, where the only hope to end him, is a young lad Kenny (an older and much taller looking Chris Young, from The Great Outdoors) who possesses a telekinetic, talent, but is a bit rusty. He's infatuated with a girl, Sam (Paula Marshall) acting in a Romeo and Juliet play, who also possesses the same talent. What I liked too about this one, was the humour, caused mostly by Sands, delivering some killer lines, while also looking cool spewing black blood. Him breaking out of his mother's vagina, near the start (very icky) has him saying, the most memorable line, where you have to hear it for yourself. Director, Hickox, still fresh off the heals of Hellraiser 3, which also starred Marshall, makes a name for himself with these super entertaining flicks (the sexual psychological C Thomas Howell thriller, Payback came next) with some nice ECU shots, like one involving a smiling, and very much in love Marshall. The battle to the death between good and evil is very suspenseful, and I guess was a but overlong, but I couldn't go back to ever watching the original, as this is super entertaining, with a lot of yucky blood, and great effects, and that great warlock humour.

t_atzmueller The original „Warlock"-movie had much going for it: it had a compelling storyline that seemed to have jumped straight out of a comic book. Director and crew were obviously enthusiastic, producing a film that had all the best traits of cheap, yet dedicated horror-flick. And last but not least, it had an excellent cast, the chemistry being near perfect. Especially Julian Sands as evil incarnated had a charm and presence that one couldn't help but to root for him, despite all his mischief.Indeed, "Warlock" has the stuff that made it a cult-movie. Sadly, same cannot be said about its sequel. First, apart from Julian Sands, none of the original cast has returned. The well-worn though charming time-travel aspects (works almost every time, doesn't it?) are not present, the warlock has even lost his ponytail! It's almost like we're watching a similar, though not the same character as the super-smooth male-witch of the first part. It's not that the rest of the cast is bad either – having veterans like R.G Armstrong, Joanna Pacula and Zach Galligan – but Lori Singer and Richard E. Grant are missed greatly.Same goes for the special effects: true, "Warlock II" is slightly gorier than its predecessor and, true, the effects where still pre-CGI and hence had a more natural feel than 99 percent of the SFX today, but none of the scenes could match the magic that the original "Warlock" had.Speaking of Zach Galligan, compare "Gremlins" to "Gremlins 2": yes, the sequel was disappointing because it couldn't live up to the first part, but in the end, alright, it wasn't a bad movie. In the end, what saved the movie is the direction of Anthony Hickox who is in the same league with Miner; a veteran of cheap, straight-to-video horror flicks with a heart (minor trash-gems like "Waxworks", "Full Eclipse" and "Spaceshift" are testament to that).In retrospect, it's not even a bad movie if it had stood on its own. Especially if compared to the horrid "Warlock III" which, if you're a "Warlock"-fan and haven't seen it yet, I can only recommend: avoid it like… well, like a warlock avoids salt! I'll join the general consensus (of the time of writing – things may look different if you happen to read this in a hundred years or so), and give the film five points from five – and if I'll watch a few more contemporary horror flicks, infested with CGI and lifeless actors, I may even give it six or seven.

mollidew I was going to give this movie less but considering it is horror/fantasy I put five instead. I recognize most of the older character actors but other than Julian Sands that was it. I thought they all did a great job considering the story line. I like to play with twisting myth myself in my own stories but they could have at least called him a Sorcerer or Necromancer, evil magician and not a Warlock which is a totally wrong word to use starting with the first movie and instead of making these people Druids, make them some secret society that fights evil.The word warlock does NOT mean a male witch. It means an oath breaker, liar, someone who cannot be trusted and can apply to either a male or female. Considering the subject matter it would have more appropriately been a female but if using the other terms a male was fine. The Druids as someone else stated had no beliefs even remotely akin to Christianity at all. Neither did those who practiced witchcraft at any time. Therefore I consider the movie a campy one and without much merit. That isn't the fault of the actors but of the writers that wrote such hokey material. BUT taken on it's own and liberally with the storyline it's not too bad. I wouldn't recommend it unless you are a fan of the first movie which is pretty bad as well.