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).
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).