Alicia
I love this movie so much
ShangLuda
Admirable film.
FuzzyTagz
If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.
Open Space
Although cheaply made, and most people don't like it, if you watched 1st movie, you surely won't be too much disappointed with this one.While not a sequel at all to a 1st movie, while it can be debated, since same actor plays Warlock, and story can be merged, since in 1st movie Warlock failed to "uncreate" the life as he was killed in his human form, but promised by Satan that he will become "son of Satan" if he manages to "bring together" the lost pages of Grand Grimoire, which he did. So basically Warlock (human) didn't fail in his quest, to which comes debate if this movie is a sequel as Warlock is now more of Demon and not human at all...But intro story is now different, and again debatable, why would Satan stop at only one plan to destroy humanity... Thus we are greeted with Druids, their sacred stones and rituals to stop the evil. And again Warlock comes to play to take something and bring back to Earth the very evil that was stopped in 1st movie...Unfortunately as story is not that bad at all but actors and visual effects are, with Blu-ray version out you can clearly see many defects of visuals, mostly when Warlock is steeping down the invisible stairs, when he is burning with badly rendered pixel fire and when Kenny (the 1st warrior) is thrown onto some sort of pipe that magically isn't static in the concrete but moves while he's breathing.But overall if you like sadistic movies where bad guy tortures his victims with supernatural powers and cannot be stopped easily, you will enjoy this B class Horror flick.
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.
oneguyrambling
Warlock 2 on the other hand eschews any semblance of care and attention in favour of ramping up the gore quotient and introducing a little nudity to the mix, and while neither of those things are bad in isolation the fact is that this is considerably more low rent that its predecessor.Julie Sands returns as the Warlock in spectacular fashion. How about this: when a woman dons the wrong necklace during an eclipse the usual process of impregnation, gestation and delivery are amalgamated and fast tracked to a 40 second process – I wouldn't be surprised if the Japanese were involved, they make everything run more smoothly – imagine her surprise (if all that wasn't shock enough!) that her new child is immediately adult sized and can speak.In a further miraculous turn she instantly regains her pre-baby body (Hollywood stars = JEALOUS!!), only to have the unfortunate news that she is about to die and have her own skin turned into a map.The upshot of W2 is that once again the Warlock is trying to bring about naughty things, this time the birth of Satan's son. He has but 6 days after his 'rebirth' to collect 6 precious stones in between eclipses while God ain't looking.Of course he can't have it all his way, two "I know that guy from somewhere" character actors and an old guy turn out to be modern day druids hellbent on stopping the Warlock from succeeding, only they can't do it alone so they conscript two young teens named Kenny and Samantha to be Druid-Warriors (what a combo that must be in Dungeons and Dragons) to do most of the leg work for them.So again we have a situation where the Warlock fangs around collecting things while the good guys prep his downfall from a remote location. This is because realistically there is no way known that two kids could take on a Warlock, so they must keep the two sides apart until the finale, by which time the audience no longer cares and will believe anything if it helps end the movie.Training for the young witch-fighting duo consists of learning to deal with dodgy CGI – seriously this was made in the 90s and Star Wars puts it in the shade as far as FX go – and tension is created by them repeatedly being told the same facts about the Warlock… he's dangerous, he'll kill you, blah-blah-blah.The amusement on the other hand is created unintentionally by a Reverend and father of Samantha, through his overacting and hamming up every scene that he appears in. I know this was never going to be a serious drama but surely someone better than him was around? Final Rating – 4.5 / 10. All that aside if there is one thing to take from this review it is don't watch Warlock 2: The Armageddon. It is less than not very good.
denys-fire
This is one of my favourite movie. Actually, it's not a horror movie because there's not much gory thing inside. But it's a nice fantasy movie with battle against God and Satan. I'm not a believer of any religion and this is why I enjoy movie like God VS Satan.This movie have good visual effect (for that time) and like almost people here said, Julian Sand play well the son of Satan. The way that Satan's son die (truck lights) can be arguable but in general the way that this movie goes is very nice. For me, the only sad thing, finally, what is the old name of God????!!?!?So, if you like fantasy movie with a bit of horror, witchcraft and God vs Satan, I highly recommend this one. The first Warlock was very nice too but this one appear to me a little bit more serious. If you read other reviews, you'll see only bad comments about this movie but no one have suggestions for another movie in that kind.
