'Warlock' was released over twenty years ago and I've only just got round to watching it. And, I have to say, better late than never. It really is a fun movie.No, it never tries to be particularly serious. It doesn't have the budget for that. It's about a warlock (or 'male witch' as we learn they are) who, upon being captured in the seventeenth century, only goes and pulls one of his disappearing tricks and ends up in modern day L.A. And, if that wasn't bad enough, he's only figured out a way of 'uncreating' the whole of God's great existence. Lucky for the rest of us that Richard E Grant and his (interesting) Scottish accent have also time travelled to stop him. So, he teams up with 'average Joette' Kassandra (with a K) and we have our movie.And, 'our movie' happens to be in the same ball park as other great chases through Los Angeles. Due to the film's L.A. setting and the fact that we have two superhuman leads squaring off against one another, I couldn't help but think of Terminator. However, due to budget constraints, it's not quite as slick as the cyborg epic and falls more into those lower budget versions, such as Dark Angel and The Hidden. But then I also loved Dark Angel and The Hidden, so I didn't mind.Warlock's special effects certainly aren't that special, but, by the time you find yourself laughing at how they portray someone 'flying' (I'm sure if you look closely you can see the wires) you should already be enjoying the whole film too much to really care.Take the whole thing with a big pinch of salt. It certainly does. The dialogue is nice as our 'out of time' hero struggles to adapt to modern day living and women who wear make-up. All in all, it's nothing new, but it certainly is fun (you may need an appreciation of low budget 'so-bad-they're-good' type movies to really enjoy it).

An odd phenomenon in the movie biz is that some movies that start out as simply good, or better than average, become, over the fullness of time, and after repeated viewings, iconic and unforgettable. This is a prime example. At the time, it seemed yet another outing for the always reliable Julian Sands, and it introduced to audiences around the world the impish Lori Singer (who to be fair never really found another film that connected with viewers as much as this one.) Even the plot seemed standard, old curse, new problems. But after multiple viewings (seen it about 7 times) you realize that the writer and director really had their A-game on, they really spun a yarn that, in the Indiana Jones tradition, just keeps moving and moving, and dragging the viewer along for the ride. Even the last few minutes -- a trick ending -- seems part of the overall experience. Can safely say this is the best "witch" flick of its kind, all style and substance, no teenage exploitation, and worth a view.

In Boston of 1691, a warlock is sentenced to death, but escapes magically into the future, followed doggedly by a witch hunter.There he is searching for the three parts of the Devil's Bible.Trailed by the witch hunter and the woman whose house he landed in, they must stop him, as the book contains the true name of God, which he can use to un-create the world.....Ever since i saw Sands in Arachnophobia, he has always been a Chicken in a Basket style actor to me, Very bad, but very more-ish.As with the film, it's one of those little lost gems that I have wanted to see since it's initial release but was never able to.I finally saw the movie, after tracking it down on the Horror Channel, and now I really wish I had saw it when I were 13, because seeing it as a 34 year old super film geek, it just stinks.The film is devoid of thrills, or scares, and honestly, the most exciting part of this is when Sands is playing a video game with the kid from Baywatch.Lori Singer provides the bad make up, and Richard E grant proves that Groundskeeper Willie isn't always animated.he effects are eye poppingly bad, even for 1988, and eventually the film gets sucked up in it's own absurdness.I saw the sequel before this, and believe me, it's a hell (ahem) of a lot more enjoyable.so bad it's boring.

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