Spoiler-free Reviews of older movies! Facetious remarks in red.

Bulletin Board

Bulletin Board:

I recently noticed that I've had waaaay more comments posted to this site than I had thought (which is great!) but they were all automatically flagged as spam so I didn't see them (which is not great). A word of advice if you want it seen: avoid hyperlinks or anything else the blogger.com system might interpret as an advertisement/lure. Or if you want it to be private and only for me, send an email to the address below.

Any requests? Comments? Suggestions?
Let me know on the General Discussion page or at pstuart.pdr@gmail.com!

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Warlock (1989, R); Warlock: The Armageddon (1993, R)

You've got the dubious treat of a double-feature review of the first two (there were three apparently, but the third had a different lead actor and diverged a bit in story) Warlock films.  Julian Sands plays a/the Warlock, convicted witchcraft (deal-with-the-Devil variety rather than the friendly Earth-child variety that you're more likely to encounter in real life), and he somehow gets into a time vortex that throws him into modern day (late 1980's at the time of filming) California.  The intended method of his execution was the funniest part of the movie for me: hanging and burning over a basket of live cats (like several other elements of this film, they never explain what the cats were for).  The synopsis/tagline for the films says he's the Devil's (favorite) son, but the story itself leads me to believe that this is meant in a figurative rather than literal sense.  The first film has Richard E. Grant (the snotty butler from Gosford Park) playing a whip-wielding witch hunter Giles Redferne, slightly reminiscent of the hero from a Castlevania game; he's sort of a Kyle Reese to Sands' Terminator (1984).  The Warlock wields magical powers and intends to gather pieces of an arcane artifact with ill intent and Redferne and the first modern-person to encounter Warlock, Kassandra (played by Lori Singer, who was also featured in Footloose) try to stop him.  It's not clear how Redferne got to the current era.


It was supposed to be humorous in some ways as the two time-displaced characters have fish-out-of-water experiences (Thor was much better in that regard).  The acting was mostly terrible, the effects were not very good (though that's mostly a product of the time, and not a fault of the filmmakers), and I found most of the characters unlikable.  The mostly bland Redferne was probably my favorite character, and I could not stand Kassandra.  The movie becomes far more tolerable if you pretend that this is Lucius Malfoy's origin story (Harry Potter series).  If someone were to summarize each scene for you, it could sound pretty cool, and might even make a decent short story, but it completely fell apart when these actors had to say lines and move around for an hour and a half.  If I'd seen it when I was a kid when the special effects did not pale so much in comparison to others I've seen, I might have liked it... but unless this film holds some nostalgia for you, I don't imagine you'll like it.  Unless you like bad movies, but the second film in this series is a better bad-movie (and a worse movie overall) than this one.  If you liked Lawnmower Man, then this might be up your alley.
Left: Julian Sands as Warlock, Right: Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy

Warlock: The Armageddon is the second film in the series, and pretty disconnected plot-wise from the first.  I wasn't offended about this movie, and it did have some good-bad movie appeal, but it was still really bad.  Unlike the first two Terminator films - in which the first enhances enjoyment/understanding of the second, but is not required for it - this film makes no reference at all to the first one other than this being clearly the same character.  Continuing with a slightly-Castlevania theme, the villain is resurrected early in the story to wreak havoc on a new generation.  Special effects are improved from the first, possibly due to increased budget, possibly due to improved technology at the time of filming/editing.  Sands returns to reprise his menacing and laconic role, though with slightly shorter long hair and more modern garb.  This film is much different than the first one because the heroes are the descendants of druids whose lineage has striven to prevent Warlock's resurrection throughout the ages.  The main character is a kind of dorky comic book loving high school kid who is supposed to do battle with the big bad and take him down.  The trouble (OK, one of many troubles) with this film is that the demographic and weakness-to-power element of the hero is aimed at a younger audience (older childhood to early teens) a la The Last Starfighter, but this film has partial nudity, a lot of language and some decent gore.  I guess the early '90s were notorious for making movies that were aimed at kids but not appropriate for kids (remember all those Terminator and Swamp-Thing toys?).  Also not very good in any sort of quality way, but it did have some decent horror elements in terms of Warlock using his power to terrorize people (kind of like Wishmaster, Leprechaun, or Lord Of Illusions).  Again, if you liked Lawnmower Man, or if you like good-bad movies (Troll 2, for example) then you'll get a kick out of this, but otherwise steer clear.  For me, they're both about 1.5 stars.

2 comments:

  1. You are corret! This is the true, but almost peoples not import about that series.
    The H.P. have influences of Warlock series.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I haven't seen Warlock, but Julian Sands was my personal pick to play Lucius Malfoy. I wouldn't be surprised if Jason Isaacs based the performance on him!

    ReplyDelete