baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (The Phantom) (04/10/91)
WARLOCK
A review in the public domain
by The Phantom
(baumgart@esquire.dpw.com)
Surprise of surprises, WARLOCK was actually released -- to a paying
audience -- in New York City, the place the Phantom calls home. This
caught the Phantom somewhat off-guard, as he expected that WARLOCK would
suffer a fate similar to that of BRIDE OF REANIMATOR, which is even now
shocking unsuspecting parents of the twelve-year-olds who are renting it
in droves from Blockbusters across the country. The long-awaited sequel
to the cult classic REANIMATOR got either no theatrical release, or such
a limited run that it made no difference; for all intents and purposes,
the film went straight from the mind of Stuart Gorden to a half-dozen
video duplicators across the country.
Such things depress the Phantom, for he knows that there is a
market for horror out there, if only the independent production
companies responsible for most of it could muscle their way into our
increasingly monopolized theater chains. Getting an independent film
into movie houses is no mean feat these days, even -- or perhaps
especially -- in New York, which has been neatly divvied up by
MCA/Universal on one hand and Loews/Paramount on the other. These days,
some films are playing everywhere, and some almost nowhere, and never
does it have anything to do with the quality or type of film -- just the
distributor.
WARLOCK's story is slightly different: it was one of the last few
films still on the shelf at New World Pictures when that 'B' movie
powerhouse found that all its low-grossing schlock had come back to
haunt it straight into Chapter 11 proceedings. Even two hit television
series (The Wonder Years and Tour of Duty) couldn't save it, and when
the lawyers had finally finished picking over its corpse, there was
WARLOCK, still in the can. It appears that rather than let it go
completely to waste, some small and limited distribution was made
overseas (the Phantom believes that it may have had its world premiere
in Australia, of all places), followed quickly by an equally brief
showing stateside. As the lights dimmed and the film began, the Phantom
was pleased to note the many scratches and splices that this "New York
premiere" copy of the print already contained. Sadly, that print had
seen more states, more countries, and the insides of more theater
auditoriums than the Phantom is ever likely to see in his lifetime.
(THE PUNISHER, WARLOCK's brother on the shelf at New World when the
debt hit the fan, is likely to suffer a similar fate; both films were
advertised in in-theater previews two years ago, and it's only now that
WARLOCK is seeing the light of day. The Phantom is still rather eagerly
awaiting the estimable Mr. Dolph Lundgren in his near-Shakespearean,
sure-to-be-remembered-at-Oscar-time performance.)
That said, the Phantom should move on to the film itself, which
turned out to be quite enjoyable in a low-key, low-rent sort of way.
Directed by Steve Miner, WARLOCK feels very much like Miner's 1986
horror-comedy HOUSE, which turned out to be a surprise box-office hit.
It was a film that blended just enough laughs with just enough scares
and offered little to offend anyone. Audiences responded well to its
style and pacing, which resembled nothing so much as an extended episode
of Tales from the Darkside. It was, in a way, the ARACHNOPHOBIA of its
time -- though unlike ARACHNOPHOBIA, people actually went to see HOUSE.
WARLOCK tells the story of an upwardly-mobile demon, who travels
through space and time in search of each of the pieces of the Devil's
Bible (which in the film is referred to very gravely as "The Grand Grim
Something-Or-Other" -- the Phantom can't quite remember, though everyone
had very serious expressions on their faces when they said it). This
anti-Bible, when reassembled, would also show the true name of God,
which, if spoken backward, will cause all of existence to be uncreated
-- a sure way to end the film, if there ever was one, so it pretty much
guarantees that nothing of the sort will happen for at least 90 minutes.
For reassembling the Bible, the Warlock would be rewarded by meeting the
Cursed One himself, or by becoming his servant, or his chauffeur, or
personal assistant, or something of that nature. In any case, it was a
definite career advancement for this very 80's-style warlock. On second
thought, perhaps the Warlock wanted to be more downwardly-mobile than
upwardly-mobile.
With long blonde pony-tail, custom (all-black) tailoring, and a
profile that looks like it came straight out of an Armani ad, Julian
Sands plays a very charming demon. But trailing him out of the past --
in reverse TERMINATOR style -- is a certified "good guy" (to borrow a
phrase from Chuckie) named Redferne, who is bent on avenging the death
of his sweetheart. And has been so for centuries. Talk about
grudges...
Redferne had last tangled with the Warlock in the film's opening
scenes (set in late 17th century Massachusetts), and it was only by the
narrowest of margins that the Warlock escaped public execution.
Curiously, he was sentenced to be hung and then burned over a basket of
live cats. The Phantom isn't sure what effect this last part of the
sentence is supposed to have had -- perhaps baskets of live cats were
used regularly as part of the complex criminal justice system of the
late 17th century -- but as our Constitution now clearly prohibits
allowing cats anywhere near a public execution, the Phantom suspects
that such a sentence will come as quite a shock to some of the more
liberal members of the audience. Frankly, the Phantom would consider
even 100 hours of community service with a basket full of live cats to
be cruel and inhuman punishment, and so he was once again reminded of
just how lucky he is to be living in these more enlightened times.
Both the Warlock and Redferne pop up in late 80's Los Angeles,
which seems less of a shock to the Warlock than it does to Redferne, who
arrives (and remains) dressed somewhat peculiarly in furs, as if he had
last been tracking the Warlock through 17th century Montana rather than
pre-colonial Boston. One of the film's small in-jokes is that neither
the Warlock nor Redferne attract much attention in L.A.
Also on hand is our heroine -- Kassandra (with a 'K') -- who makes
the mistake of letting the Warlock get away with one of her personal
objects; as it happens, one of her cheap plastic bracelets is all he
needs to cast a devilish hex on her. This gives Kassandra some personal
incentive -- beyond just the saving all of existence -- to help Redferne
stop the Warlock from completing his task and getting that corner office
in Hell.
The film focuses almost exclusively on the chase, and this is just
as well, since it keeps the bogus Catholic theology to a minimum and the
plot humming along. Other recent bogus Catholic theology horror films
have fared both better and worse: THE EXORCIST III was a far superior
film, but it took itself very seriously and was excessively stagey at
times. On the other hand, no one -- apparently least of all the
filmmakers -- took THE FIRST POWER very seriously, and in addition, it
spent far too much time attempting to explain things and far too little
time on acting lessons for Tracy Griffith for it to have been much good.
(THE FIRST POWER was a terrible film, but in many ways it stands as the
best homage ever made to one of the worst horror -- or mainstream --
films of all time, EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC, a film that featured
nothing *but* pseudo-Catholic theology and fabulously bad acting.)
WARLOCK, by way of contrast, uses the Warlock's quest for the Grim
Whatever as the means to a very ordinary ends (a 60 minute chase with
the requisite fight to the death before the closing credits);
fortunately for us, it spares only the briefest of moments on all the
theological mumbo-jumbo. In a sense, WARLOCK could be considered the
HARD TO KILL of horror films, and with his excess of charm and
male-model good looks, it's easy to think of the Warlock as the Steven
Seagal of demons. Julian Sands plays the Warlock like Steven Seagal
plays, well, Steven Seagal, and the Phantom could never shake the
thought that at any moment the Warlock was going to take on a gang of
bikers in a billiards parlor, swinging a pool cue in lethal fashion
while keeping one eye on himself in the mirror over the bar. However,
although the Warlock does engage in some gratuitous acts of violence
early on, he soon limits himself to scuffling with old Mennonite farmers
and threatening meek looking priests.
Things proceed pretty much as you might expect -- WARLOCK is a film
that holds few surprises other than the timing and placement of a few
assorted Spring-Loaded Cats -- but the film doesn't really suffer for
being completely predictable any more than did THE TERMINATOR, on which
it is quite obviously based. (WARLOCK also adds a dash of WITNESS and a
pinch of THE OMEN, just to keep from being too bland.) Instead, its
predictability and good humor are its assets and account for much of the
film's considerable charm. As with HOUSE, there is little for all but
the most severe critic to find fault with; it is a film that's much too
easy-going to dislike. On the other hand, neither is it a film that
will be much remembered in a few months -- like a good episode of Tales
from the Darkside, one might think of it fondly for a week or two and
then let it fade painlessly from memory. Unlike Tales from the
Darkside, however, WARLOCK will be back to remind us all of its
existence in a few months when it reincarnates itself as a video release
in Blockbusters nationwide.
Among the film's high points are the acting, which is as good as it
gets in this sort of film -- though the Warlock's first victim could
give even Tracy Griffith a run for the worst actor of the nineties --
and the dialogue, which is unusually witty, especially when either the
Warlock or Redferne is uttering an oath of some sort. Redferne's
Scottish accent is a tad bizarre, and he says "Tarry not" a lot, but his
speech and dialogue play off well against Kassandra's beach-bimbo L.A.
chatter. There are continuity errors aplenty -- starting not even 10
seconds into the film with a pay telephone that rings as its receiver
hangs at the end of its cord -- but the plot has no gaping holes and at
least attempts to make sense when it needs to. And although the special
effects sometimes seem to have been salvaged from POLTERGEIST's cutting
room floor, they are mostly adequate and occasionally first-rate. As an
added bonus, the editing is quite good and the music, by Jerry
Goldsmith, is better than it has any right to be.
To be honest, WARLOCK isn't really worth seeing in the theaters
(even if you can find a theater in which to see it). Better to wait a
month or two and then check the recent release section at Blockbusters.
The film's easy-going nature and general good humor will play just as
well at home as it does in the theater, and the popcorn is free.
All in all, WARLOCK is not -- by any means -- a great horror film
-- but it's entertaining and diverting, and the Phantom recommends that
you give it a try, especially if you're looking for something a little
lighter than the standard horror fare.
: The Phantom
: baumgart@esquire.dpw.com
: {cmcl2,uunet}!esquire!baumgartleeper@mtgzy.att.com (Mark R. Leeper) (04/18/91)
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