Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Organnall Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

t_atzmueller The original „Warlock"-movie had much going for it: it had a compelling storyline that seemed to have jumped straight out of a comic book. Director and crew were obviously enthusiastic, producing a film that had all the best traits of cheap, yet dedicated horror-flick. And last but not least, it had an excellent cast, the chemistry being near perfect. Especially Julian Sands as evil incarnated had a charm and presence that one couldn't help but to root for him, despite all his mischief.Indeed, "Warlock" has the stuff that made it a cult-movie. Sadly, same cannot be said about its sequel. First, apart from Julian Sands, none of the original cast has returned. The well-worn though charming time-travel aspects (works almost every time, doesn't it?) are not present, the warlock has even lost his ponytail! It's almost like we're watching a similar, though not the same character as the super-smooth male-witch of the first part. It's not that the rest of the cast is bad either – having veterans like R.G Armstrong, Joanna Pacula and Zach Galligan – but Lori Singer and Richard E. Grant are missed greatly.Same goes for the special effects: true, "Warlock II" is slightly gorier than its predecessor and, true, the effects where still pre-CGI and hence had a more natural feel than 99 percent of the SFX today, but none of the scenes could match the magic that the original "Warlock" had.Speaking of Zach Galligan, compare "Gremlins" to "Gremlins 2": yes, the sequel was disappointing because it couldn't live up to the first part, but in the end, alright, it wasn't a bad movie. In the end, what saved the movie is the direction of Anthony Hickox who is in the same league with Miner; a veteran of cheap, straight-to-video horror flicks with a heart (minor trash-gems like "Waxworks", "Full Eclipse" and "Spaceshift" are testament to that).In retrospect, it's not even a bad movie if it had stood on its own. Especially if compared to the horrid "Warlock III" which, if you're a "Warlock"-fan and haven't seen it yet, I can only recommend: avoid it like… well, like a warlock avoids salt! I'll join the general consensus (of the time of writing – things may look different if you happen to read this in a hundred years or so), and give the film five points from five – and if I'll watch a few more contemporary horror flicks, infested with CGI and lifeless actors, I may even give it six or seven.

Paul Magne Haakonsen First off, let me say that you can watch "Warlock: The Armageddon" without having seen the first "Warlock" movie. Of course you will have more depth to the warlock character, if you have seen it, but you will not miss out on anything if you haven't.This sequel is as good as the first movie in the series.Again, the role of the sinister warlock is portrayed by the charismatic Julian Sands. And in this movie the character is much more dark and evil, far more twisted than the warlock portrayed in the first movie. Julian Sands is so perfect for the role of the warlock.The cast is good, and the roles of the druids are good, both for the young druids and the elderly druids.The movie has a bunch of cool effects and wicked magics, something that have to be seen. However, it is not all good though, the scene with the knife went horribly wrong. That knife is perhaps the worst CGI effect I have seen to date.For fans of adventure genres or for people who like to play D&D games, this movie provides good entertainment. And like the first "Warlock" movie, this also have enough entertainment for more than one watching. I never grow tired of it, at least!

denys-fire This is one of my favourite movie. Actually, it's not a horror movie because there's not much gory thing inside. But it's a nice fantasy movie with battle against God and Satan. I'm not a believer of any religion and this is why I enjoy movie like God VS Satan.This movie have good visual effect (for that time) and like almost people here said, Julian Sand play well the son of Satan. The way that Satan's son die (truck lights) can be arguable but in general the way that this movie goes is very nice. For me, the only sad thing, finally, what is the old name of God????!!?!?So, if you like fantasy movie with a bit of horror, witchcraft and God vs Satan, I highly recommend this one. The first Warlock was very nice too but this one appear to me a little bit more serious. If you read other reviews, you'll see only bad comments about this movie but no one have suggestions for another movie in that kind.

ozthegreatat42330 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?