|
Movies •Books •Music •Food •Tv Shows •Technology •Politics •Video Games •Parenting •Fashion •Green Living •more >

Lunch » Tags » Movies » Reviews » Warlock (1989 movie)

Warlock (1989 movie)

3 Ratings: 3.7
A 1989 fantasy-horror film about a warlock who travels into the future.

Warlock was a 1989 horror film produced by New World Pictures and distributed by Trimark Pictures. It was directed by Steve Miner, written by David Twohy, and produced by Roger Corman. The cast includes Julian Sands, Lori Singer, and Richard E. Grant. … see full wiki

Director: Steve Miner
Genre: Drama, Fantasy, Horror
MPAA Rating: R
1 review about Warlock (1989 movie)
Showing 1-1 of 1
Sort by:

A nice horror thriller hybrid with fantasy elements.

  • Sep 20, 2011
Rating:
+4
Taking place in 17th century Boston in the year 1691, the Warlock (Julian Sands) is facing execution for his crimes. Before he can be killed, he's set free and sent through time by a supernatural force, which carries him to 1984 in Los Angeles. Once there, he begins on his path to end the world. The man who captured him named Redferne (Richard E. Grant) follows in hot pursuit. After an encounter with Warlock, a woman named Kassandra (Lori Singer) is forced to join Redferne in putting an end to Warlock's evil ambitions. -summary


Well that was totally unexpected. When I first came into this film I was prepared to see a full fledged supernatural horror film, with demons and the whole nine yards. Sad to say that wasn't what I got at all. Fortunately, I'm able to re-adjust my mindset on the fly, and take the film for what it is, because if I happened to be too narrowminded, then I would despise this film for all the wrong reasons. Directed by Steve Miner, Warlock appears to be more of a fantasy with horror elements that deal with witchcraft. Although the film isn't pure unrestrained horror to me, it's still a very fun and entertaining ride.

The film somewhat begins with a slow start. However, once the plot and side plots are made clear, and the characters have been introduced and partially developed. The film finds its footing and delivers well on the old chase formula. Julian Sands plays his role well as the cold blooded chaos bringer, who will use any means necessary to carry out his goal, as well as cause his enemies suffering. The writing was very good when developing him as pure evil without the use of over the top gore scenes. This is a skill certain horror directors lack. Do I really need to call out names?

In the violence department, don't take it the wrong way as if the film is on a kiddie level. There are a couple of brutal moments to be found but the gore is minimal. The plot is non stop fun, and the writing manages to squeeze in a few comedic spots which really do work, and doesn't seem to clash with the serious nature of the film. The foul language is kept pretty low and nudity is non-existent.

The acting is among the strong points with everyone delivering fine performances. Lori Singer was a standout for sure, but I won't add any spoilers on her end, and I felt Sands and Grant did a great job speaking with 17th century dialect. The special effects really have a dated feel that sometimes comes off laughable, but it's all part of the fun as far as I'm concerned. The climax is worked out very well, by tying up loose ends and providing proper closure. The only real issue that I have with the film is that it doesn't completely feel like a horror film to me. It's not the least bit scary at all nor atmospheric either. To include, I never really felt a sense of dread or the possibility of death for the heroes. This is something people who hate serious gore can easily get into.

Warlock definitely isn't for the bloody thirsty crowd. I would like to give specific details on at least one death scene, but I feel it's too big of a spoiler. This is a film that takes you by surprise at times. I recommend this to those who are searching for a fun story minus the out of control violence. The film is 103 minutes.

Pros: Solid acting and fun plot

Cons: Not the least bit scary

What did you think of this review?

Helpful
12
Thought-Provoking
12
Fun to Read
12
Well-Organized
12
Post a Comment
September 24, 2011
Julian Sands was perfect for this role, I actually really love the second film, can't remember why but I did. The third film was ok for a straight to video release.
 
September 20, 2011
I really liked this film. In a lot of ways it's kind of just a fantasy version of "The Terminator", but it's still so much fun. I never did see the sequels.
September 20, 2011
Me too man, I can watch this right now. And you're not missing anything with the sequels.
September 20, 2011
I thoguht the first sequel was ok, but then....it sucked rotten eggs.
 
September 20, 2011
For some reason, along with TREMORS, I could watch this again and again and would never get tired of it. Too bad, the dvd is only on fullscreen, and they cheated the widescreen version by chopping the top and bottom to make it anamorphic....
September 20, 2011
I really like Tremors and I dug the second movie too. As far as movie format, I rarely notice those things.
 
1
What's your opinion on Warlock (1989 movie)?
rate
3 Ratings: +3.7
You have exceeded the maximum length.
Related Topics
Daybreakers

A 2010 vampire film written and directed by Peter and Michae …

Poster

2005 stop-motion-animation film directed by Tim Burton and v …

The Wizard of Oz

The classic 1939 MGM musical fantasy starring Judy Garland, …

rate more like 'Warlock (1989 movie)'
First to Review

"A nice horror thriller hybrid with fantasy elements."
© 2013 Lunch.com, LLC All Rights Reserved
Lunch.com - Relevant reviews by real people.
()
This is you!
Ranked #
Last login
Member since
reviews
comments
ratings
questions
compliments
lists