Warlock
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.93 You Save: $8.05 (54%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $5.89 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Warlock
Movie Review: Good movie!!!!!
Summary: 4 Stars
I liked "Warlock" a lot. The whole "male witch" aspect of the movie was very good, and I love Julian Sands. It was also kind of on the funny side.Movie Review: He comes from the past to destroy the future.
Summary: 3 Stars
Warlock is a bizarre 80's horror flick that had some fantasy and witch craft elements to it and it features two great British actors Julian Sands and Richard E. Grant who were both terrific in their roles the only problem I had with this film was the special fx which looked abit dodgy especially when the Warlock starts flying into the air, the special fx looked kind of outdated. The story's about a witch hunter from 1691 named Redferne (Richard E. Grant) who has been chasing an evil warlock thats been plaguing his puritan town and has killed his wife up to the very moment of his beheading by the local people but just as he thinks hes won the warlock escapes and travels to 1988.
He hopes to put together the devil's bible by joining 3 sets of paperwork called the Grand Grimoir so he could one day rule the world, offcourse Redferne is not pleased by this and decides to travel into the future 1988 and save mankind. There were a few humorous and campy scenes where Redferne is kind of a fish out of water and is also frightened by electronic gadgets and stuff like that. There was very little gore in this film but overall I wouldn't say it was bad, it was definitely an enjoyable horror/fantasy film which also happens to be a cult film.
Lori Singer also stars in the film as Kassandra who comes across both characters and sees how evil The Warlock is when he bites off her roommates tongue and gouges his eyes out (probably the only gory part of the film) and I thought her acting was very good and convincing as the heroine who helps out Redferne she also acts as his guide as they go through a road trip in search of The Warlock, you might also enjoy the jokes about witchcraft and Richard's character which I find very amusing and made this film seem much more enjoyable than it already is, if it weren't for him then this film probably wouldn't have worked.
This film has a good mix of action, decent gore and some comedy but like I said the special fx could have been much better cause they look way too cheesy and bad, alot of people said that the sequel was better since they improved the special fx so I might check it out. The film was also directed by Steve Miner who is well known for these type of b-movies and low budget horror films hes also responsible for making Friday the 13th parts 2 and 3 and House so if you've seen those films then you probably should know what to expect.
Movie Review: Not bad for a low budget , not scary though
Summary: 3 Stars
Julian Sands was good as the warlock who travels through time looking for his book of evil. The warlock hunter was sincere and true to his character. This movie could have been better with more CGI. But as it stands it was ok. Enjoy!Movie Review: The horror...the horror
Summary: 2 Stars
I sat down to 'Warlock' with no illusion that it was somehow going to be be the masterpiece of horror that passed me by years ago and I got pretty much what I expected. A standard 80's, somewhat tame, horror flick. It's more a fantasy film than horror, as there is no real horror element to it. The film is akin more to 'Highlander' than it is to 'Mark of the Devil' and even by the over zealous nature of censorship of horror movies in the 80's, it's extremely tepid.
The story, which has been covered on the site before, deals with transportation of a 17th Century Boston warlock (Julian Sands) to "modern day" America and the persuit of him by the witch hunter Giles Redferne (Richard E. Grant) and 80's chick Kassandra (Lori Singer) as he attempts to stop the necromancer from discovering the locations of a Grand Grimoire, a satanic tome which will revel the true name of God and enable the warlock to undo all of creation...somehow.
The story is bunkum, of course, but in films of this type that is usually of a secondary or even tertiary concern. So, it suffices, for the purposes to putting the characters in the places they need to be. But that's it. The makeup and effects are generally sub-par, even for the period, the acting from Lori Singer is awful and the general setting of "modern day" America has been done a thousand times before and it presents nothing new here.
All that should mean that 'Warlock' is not a good film and it's not. it's not even a horror film...but...it's not a bad film either. It does an admirable job during its opening and manages to retain the viewers interest throughout its running time, which is commendable in itself. Julian Sands lends a certain gravity to his part and is very watchable. He plays his character completely straightfaced and it's all the better for it. Grant, complete with dodgy Scottish accent, seems to think the whole thing is nonsense, but he's enjoying himself and it comes across. Out of the three leads, Singer is the worst by far. In fairness, her character is limited (although the rapid aging is a good angle), but she just isn't that good an actress and comes across as irritating.
Even so, the 90+ minutes of 'Warlock' passes by relatively harmlessly and there are enough good scenes to reward the viewing. Sands and Grant's funny "period talking" is entertaining and the film as a whole is not without its charm. Overall, it's worth a watch, but I don't believe I will be seeking out the sequels.
Movie Review: If You Like A Real Review - Warlock
Summary: 2 Stars
I watched Warlock with low expectations, and I wasn't disappointed.
Interestingly, somehow it spawned sequels, a Warlock II and a Warlock III
although the 3rd movie is only nominally a sequel, since none of the actors nor the plot bear much resemblance to the first and second films.
Very early my thoughts were: What makes a bad film worse? NO ENGLISH SUBTITLES! (sure sign of low budget). Second: Oh, the horror! The horror of bad CG, that is! This is not really a "horror" film, as it isn't scary and it isn't that gross either. Other reviewers have amply sketched the plot. The plot is thin, the special effects are pretty shakey at times, the budget is limited, and some of the acting is lame. On the other hand I've seen worse movies. I actually watched the complete thing in one sitting, which is not bad. What saves this movie? Well, Sands as the Warlock really throws himself thoroughly into acting this part. He seems to give his best acting skills to what is, let's be honest, a second-rate film. He plays a charater that is completely, entirely evil (what more could one expect of one Satan is willing to make his chosen one?)--with no redeeming features. He does it with a quiet intensity that actually starts to draw one into the story. Second to him is Richard Grant's performance as his nemesis, the witch (the movie keeps changing the reference-witch, warlock--who cares? Witch seems to be the generic term and most were female; warlock is specifically a male witch..but I digress) Grant as the witch hunter does I'd say the second-best performance, with Lori Singer trailing in 3rd place as a modern LA girl caught up by circumstance (and romantic interest to the witch hunter). The soundtrack is nothing special. Some decent performances by supporting actors (like a Mennonite farm owner, for example) help a bit. The visuals do manage to get generally better toward the end of the movie. If you like a modest attempt at another "save the world from Satan" movie, maybe you will like it. Just don't expect The Omen....