# Warlock (1989)

### reviewed by
Mark R. Leeper

                                       WARLOCK
                           A film review by Mark R. Leeper
                            Copyright 1991 Mark R. Leeper

Capsule review: Three years after the coming attractions ran, WARLOCK is finally getting a release, albeit spotty. A prestigious producer, a good director, and a distinguished cast turn out a good drive-in horror movie made with care and imagination. The one flaw is a rather obvious borrowing from the plot of TERMINATOR. Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4).

One of the odd mysteries of cinema of late has been "whatever happened to WARLOCK?" Three years ago there were coming attractions that promised a horror film with a nice look. From what we saw it could have been decent or it could have been another special effects and gore film. But for three years it did not seem to get released either to theaters or to cassette. Finally, in 1991, the film is getting a spotty, here-and-there release and while nothing great, it is certainly closer to my best hopes than to my worst fears. Only on reading material about the film afterwards do I discover that the film had a pedigree that should have raised my expectations--perhaps to the point that I would have been disappointed when I actually saw the film. It is produced by Arnold Kopelson, who also produced PLATOON. It is directed by Steve Miner, whose HOUSE did have some good moments. It stars Julian Sands of A ROOM WITH A VIEW and Richard Grant of WITHNAIL AND I. The film has a very nice look. It is clear this was not intended to be a film dominated by special effects. There is a little gore, about the amount you might find in a Hammer Films horror piece of the early 1960s. Most of the other effects are nicely orchestrated, and occasionally done with the subtlety to leave the viewer not quote sure what has just been seen.

The worst touch is that the basic plot is very similar to TERMINATOR. The film opens near Boston, Massachusetts, in the year 1691. A rather unappealing witchfinder, Giles Redferne (played by Richard Grant) has sentenced to death a rather charismatic sorcerer (played by Julian Sands). Our warlock escapes with a spell that catapults both him and the witchfinder into modern-day Los Angeles. There the warlock begins a mission to re-unite three separated sections of the Devil's Grimoire. When brought together they will tell the warlock God's most secret name. (This aspect sounds more as if it came from the Kaballah than from 17th Century European tradition.) Reciting that name backwards will uncreate the world which then presumably Satan can recreate by his rules. The warlock kills one of the two housemates who care for him after a somewhat rocky arrival. The other housemate he curses. Each morning she will find herself aged twenty years over the day before. This rapidly aging woman (played by Lori Singer) and the witchfinder set out to find and stop the warlock.

This is an oddly sexless film and that works in its favor. The plot is never stopped nor is its mood sabotaged for gratuitous scenes of titillation. Nor is the film padded out with long chase scenes. The film is 102 minutes long because there was just about 102 minutes of story to tell. Most of those 102 minutes show some imagination. Don't get me wrong: WARLOCK is a drive-in sort of movie, not great cinema. It is not a ground- breaker even as a horror film. It is a drive-in movie that delivers the goods just about every moment it is on the screen. I give it a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.

                                            Mark R. Leeper
                                            att!mtgzy!leeper
                                            leeper@mtgzy.att.com
    .

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews