Back in the late eighties/early nineties, when the horror genre was being fed consistent revenue from a still-growing home video market, just about any scare film could spawn a franchise. The original "Warlock" was only a modest success but that was still enough to justify a sequel two years later. "Warlock: The Armageddon" has a more ambitious story then the original, a more comedic tone, and is simultaneously more fun and less satisfying then the first.Only loosely connected to the first film, "Warlock II" builds a wildly different mythology around the titular villain. There's some typical nonsense about lunar and solar eclipse and how the wall between Earth and Hell is thin during this time. This is a opportune moment for the Warlock, upgraded from merely a powerful witch to the literal son of Satan, to reemerge. A sect of druids protect the five rune stones the villain needs to bring about Hell on Earth. A prophecy marks two of their children as the true warriors that will prevent the end of days. The film follows the druids training their youngest members for battle while the Warlock travels across the country, collecting the remaining stones and committing magically-assisted murders."Warlock: The Armageddon" is essentially two movies stapled together. One is campy but incredibly entertaining while the other is campy and boring. The Warlock's killing spree provides the trashy thrills horror-fans are likely looking for. The film beings with the evil witch being reborn, in a sick and twisted moment, and continues in similarly outrageous fashion. The Warlock comes across each owner of the stones, offing them in ways related to their personality. The death scenes are high-pitched and ridiculous. A gas station attendant has his eye torn out, a snooty art collector is bent into a piece of modern art, a hooker gets scalped, not to mention a lengthy stop at a carnival sideshow. Julian Sands is having a ball. He hams it up, digging into each cheesy one liner the script gives. Sands never winks, maintaining the seriousness of the Warlock character, while letting the audience know what a good time he's having. Gory, silly quasi-slasher thrills like this are probably what you'd expect from an underachieving sequel to a sorta-popular eighties horror movie.The other movie "Warlock 2" also is doesn't entertain in the same way. The tale of the druids raising two new warriors is snore-inducing. The audience certainly doesn't care about Chris Young's protagonist, a gee-shucks young kid named Kenny. His romance with Samantha, played by a wooden Paula Marshall, is of no interest at all. The storyline, involving rune stones and ancient prophecies, is horribly clichéd. It's the kind of mythological story we've heard hundreds of times before in horror and fantasy films. Any time the movie focuses on this plot line, the audience really wishes it would be back to the Warlock killing people.Director Anthony Hickox had previously directed the "Waxwork" films, "Sundown: The Vampires in Retreat," and, most pressingly, "Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth." Like "Hellraiser III," Hickox has made a movie about a formally serious villain suddenly performing over-the-top kills and cracking wise about it. Luckily for us, the Warlock is a far better fit for this style then Pinhead. Hickox's direction is energetic, with multiple tracking shots of bodies flying through the air. His creativity, which has always been fun but undisciplined, is best displayed during the final fight. The Warlock explodes a building, walking back to Earth on an invisible staircase. He dismembers enemies with his hands and shoots them down with his finger. However, the climax proves a bit underwhelming. Not only is the bland hero pitted against the far more charismatic Sands, the way the villain is defeated comes out of nowhere.I've never gotten around to seeing "Warlock III" but the lack of Julian Sands doesn't make me quick to check it out. "Warlock: The Armageddon" probably wouldn't be half as much as it is without Sands' camping it up. It's a fairly undemanding flick for horror geeks and certainly would have prospered from a more balanced and creative script. But, then again, what can you expect from an in-name-only sequel to a sort-of obscure movie.

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.

Julian Sands again stands out as the evil oozing, soft spoken disciple/ son of Satan in this slightly less well done sequel to "Warlock." The problem is mostly one of a script that could have been a little more exciting and with a few more thrills. The level of gore just was not as necessary to the story line. Given all that it was still a very watchable film. I have noted one error in the listed credits. Charles Hallahan is listed as Ted Ellinson, the father of the female lead in the story. Actually that part was played by Bruce Glover(best known from "Diamonds are Forever.") Hallahan actually played Ethan Larson. The opening scene was somewhat confusing. SInce the Druids were supposed to stop the birth of the Warlock, why were they the ones at the birth, and who were the others that slaughtered most of them?

How the hell do they come up with this stuff? Dig this: Once every 600 years, for five days following the solar eclipse, God is actually powerless. During this short period of time, the Devil has the chance to take over the earth if – and only IF – his son, the Warlock, manages to bring together five magical stones and involve them in some sort of satanic ritual. The only individuals that are able to prevent the Warlock from raising the Armageddon are carefully selected druids; people that have to die in their human form and get reborn as Godly warriors. What the hell?!? The biggest advantage of low-brained cheese horror is that you never require seeing the original in order to enjoy the sequels. I recall seeing "Warlock" long time ago, but I don't remember much, except that the basic plot outline was entirely different than the events featuring in "Warlock: The Armageddon". Julian Sands (still a regretfully underrated actor) once again stars as the Warlock, and he emerges – fully-grown – from the womb of poor woman just because she disposes of the first stone. His journey starts in New York, and our anti-hero has to travel all across the USA for gathering all the stones before he's expected in sunny California for the actual showdown. "Warlock: Armageddon" is a surprisingly entertaining B-movie, mainly because it's fast-paced and featuring quite a large amount of gory killing sequences. Julian Sands' performance also contributes a lot to the fun-factor of this movie, as he portrays his Warlock character as a truly obnoxious bastard who walks up the catwalk in the middle of fashion shows and deliberately runs his fast car over cute innocent bunnies. Naturally the script contains a lot of stupid dialogs and absurdly grotesque situations, but still one particular sequence is effectively eerie and disturbing, namely when the Warlock enters the traveling freak show to collect his third stone. In the "House of Wonders" he encounters a creepy midget and some genuine medieval torture devices. The 'heroic' characters are pretty lame and their extended druid-trainings (reminiscent to the Jedi-Knight training) are the least interesting moments of the entire film. Okay entertainment for undemanding horror fans.