source: Warlock: The Armageddon

Trailer—Warlock: The Armageddon

Warlock: The Armageddon

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.

But I absolutely loved this movie. I mean loved it. I don't know why but I did. Starts out so cheesy with the Druids doing their thing and then we go whisking off to the our time whenever he is given birth. With the training of the 'Warriors' and him traveling across country to find the rest of the stones. So stupid, but I catch myself watching it on airplanes, and whenever I am traveling. Then Netflix got it, oh man, stop now. The special effects are horrible to todays standards, and then the acting is great, but I think its one of the most entertaining B horror films ever made. I would highly recommend it to anyone. Trust me, you will be entertained.

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?

Like so many sequels, this one is somewhat of a disappointment. It's nowhere as interesting as the first, and the Warlock is more of a kickass supernatural type, a Freddy or Jason, then the subtly nuanced character of the first movie. Here he's basically a unstoppable juggernaut. The movie also goes for more gross-out F/X than plot development, although the hapless druidic types (as played by R.G. Armstrong, Charles Hallahan, and eventually Bruce Glover) are kind of interesting. It's not bad, but just a so-so effort that could have been far better.

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.

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.