When I found this movie I seriously thought it would be another horror movie about sorcery and, in fact, the plot revolves around a malevolent wizard searching for a very old book in the twentieth century. But I was wrong: it's a lightweight and imaginative fantasy film, that entertains the audience effectively and allows for good laughs. And only fantasy could forgive such an unbelievable script, far-fetched characters and overly theatrical interpretations. Julian Sands and Richard E. Grant are the lead actors and do what they can to be OK. However, the best way to do that is the exaggerated and cheesy way they always are. Even so, Grant adopted a false accent that always sounds forced. In the past did they speak through the nose? Lori Singer was the one who I dislike the most because she never gets into the spirit of the movie and has no talent for jokes, even considering the comedic potential of her character... This is, in short, a comedy of absurdities with a touch of "B movie" style, which may be purposeful or not. But it's quite nice, if we are in the mood.

I will say without apology that most 80's movies that are period, fantasy, horror, sci-fi, or anything similar are pure garbage. This film is anything but! Let's break it down by details:First, the acting. I won't say it was remarkable, but it certainly was above par for the time and subject matter. Julian Sands is always good as a villain, and Richard Grant always does a good job. Lori Singer was a bit weak at times, but not enough to really detract from the movie-- also quite nice to look at, and the lack of a weak romance storyline was kind of refreshing.Next, the effects. The 80's did produce movies with better effects than this one, but they certainly weren't bad--especially for the period. I've seen things made in the new millennium that are worse.Finally, the plot. I won't say it's scary, but the plot was certainly compelling. There were a few interesting twists here and there (especially Renferne's end), and the overall flow was well-paced and anything but dull. If you believe in magic or in God and Satan, then the kick will be even stronger.So, you definitely want to see this at least once. It's a solid 7.5-8. Not going to win any awards, but still quite good. Praise be to God that there actually is an 80's supernatural thriller worth watching!

Oh man, this movie was fun!-5 for bad camera/quality +/- 0 for special effects, they were not good but somehow they weren't that bad and looked rather realistic for a 1988 B-Movie. -2 for the bad acting +3 for quite kool characters. That good guy totally reminded me of a less capable version of one the Castlevania protagonists. The Warlock was absolutely evil, he was much of a villain somehow you gotta love that guy he is absolutely one of the most villains I ever saw in a movie! +2 Good story somehow, it was fun and really a lot happened. It had it's own type of humor I really enjoyed +1 A lot of different places they went to, a lot sceneries -1 some situations were ridiculous.Even if you can't look at VHS quality, it's rate funny

From mediocre writer David Twohy and mediocre director Steve Miner, comes Warlock, a very mediocre movie. There are way way worse films of this sort, but this is pretty cheap. This is the kind of story that Sam Raimi could do justice to. Neither Twohy nor Miner are able to make anything clever out of this. The finished product is disappointing, It begins in 17th century Massachussets (the third British colony in America, famous for its witch hunts) A hieratic is about to meet the noose for worshipping Satan. On the day he receives his sentence, the clouds come and take him away, off to 20th century California. A witch hunter seeking revenge for the murder of his wife follows the warlock (somehow) into the future, and using a witch compass proceeds to track him down. He also has the help of Kassandra, a young lady seeking to reverse a spell that was put on her, when the Warlock entered her house.Warlock doesn't really work as a horror, a fantasy or a comedy. Despite its campy absurdity, it's hard to laugh at, unless looked at as an unintentional comedy, which would relieve you of having to question things like, how does a man dressed in sheep's wool get passed airport security carrying a four foot piece of copper used as a spear?So what is Warlock? it is nothing more or less than a cheaply made, product of the B-movie industry, with bad special effects, sub-par picture quality, and the occasional moments that provoke giggles don't cut it.