Warlock (1989)If a dude crashes through your living room window wearing antiquated clothes and admiring your pinky ring, just run; you might have a warlock. Warlock (1989) is a supernatural horror movie about a...well, an unnamed warlock (Julian Sands) from the late 17th century who travels through time to present day (i.e. 1988) Los Angeles to escape his execution. A young waitress named Kassandra (Lori Singer)--with a "K", as she reminds us--discovers that after she and her roommate, Chas (Kevin O'Brien), tended his wounds, the warlock kills Chas, and she's subsequently cursed by him to age rapidly. Thankfully, a witch hunter named Giles Redferne (Richard E. Grant) who captured the warlock three hundred years ago has somehow also traveled through time, and is looking to finish what he started.
|
|
Written by David Twohy--of The Chronicles of Riddick fame--and directed by David Miner--of House (1986) fame (I'm ignoring the Friday the 13th movies)--you would think that Warlock would contribute something more clever than just an interesting (if done to death) concept about a time travelling baddie and his nemesis having some culture shock (see: 1979 thriller Time After Time) with the fate of the world in the balance, but you'd be wrong. Starting off with a simple prologue showing the warlock in chains and the colonial magistrates preparing to hang then burn him at the stake (just to be doubly sure) over a flaming basket of cats (!!!), this should be a solid opening to set the stage for this occult battle of good versus evil. Cheesy special effects aside--that tornado is really phony--there is a lot of potential for suspense to follow. Unfortunately, Warlock doesn't take itself seriously when it would have the greatest impact to do so. This is largely evidenced by the film's heroine, Kassandra, who is fundamentally reduced to comic relief at every turn, spouting quippy one-liners that sound as authentic as a three-dollar bill. Get this example: She's discovered that Chas has been violently murdered by a stranger who knows where she lives. She goes back home anyway to get her things--in the dark, by herself--so that when Redferne sneaks up on her, she calls the cops after getting away. Cops arrive, tase Redferne in (admittedly) one of the funnier moments in Warlock, and a cop advises her to gather her things and leave the house. She replies, "you gotta watch?" Beat. Cop: "Yeah." Another beat. Kassandra: "Time me." Okay...I seriously doubt that someone just ambushed in her home after her friend was murdered there would be so blasé as to set up a joke with the police right then and there. (Just sayin'.) There are, nevertheless, some intriguing moments in Warlock, such as the nature of the curse that the warlock puts on Kassandra or when he visits a spiritual "channeler" (Mary Woronov), tricking her into becoming the conduit for Satan (then taking her eyes along with him for the ride). But it's too often the case that any sense of tension gets swiftly deflated with goofball jokes or ridiculous scenes, as though any sense of dread was anathema to the movie--ostensibly a horror movie, mind you. My personal favorite example of this absurdity comes after Redferne and Kassandra corner the warlock in the attic of a Mennonite farmhouse. The warlock flies out of the window, yet Redfern maintains a grip on his leg with his bullwhip, dragging Redferne through the gardens as the warlock flails about midair. Priceless, and this goofiness is far from isolated. There are many other "culture shock" moments that consistently fall flat, like Redferne's anxiety about being on an airplane because "flying is for witches". (Yet driving in a car wasn't as big of a deal for him? Hmm...) Ultimately, these inconsistencies in tone and character distract from any possibility of greater depth or meaning which Warlock might have enjoyed in more imaginative hands.
I think that there is such a thing as "Eighties horror movies". This expression is often used to describe horror movies that embrace camp, and at least try for comedy, albeit usually awkwardly. There are lots of examples, and most of them were evidently made on the cheap. Sometimes it works, as some movies (like Society) go so far out into the strange that its sheer audacity or creativity makes it easy to forgive its technical gaffs. What's interesting to me about Warlock is that its main characters are cast with actors for whom these parts seem to underutilize their talents. Both Richard E. Grant and Julian Sands exude gravitas, yet it feels a bit like they're reduced to being just "British-ey colonists" from ye olden days here. For what it's worth, their acting chops and presence still manages to add much to Warlock in and of itself, to the extent that Sands would appear in the sequel. Nevertheless, this still feels like a squandered opportunity by failing to capitalize on these fine actors' range to make Warlock a serious horror movie instead of just ever more campy schlock. On the other hand, there is a sense of inherent playfulness because of it, particularly on the part of Sands. In one of the more twisted moments, the warlock intercepts a football from a kid in a trailer park. The two chat in a fashion, and when the warlock identifies himself as a "witch", the boy observes that witches (and warlocks, it would seem) are supposed to have a broom upon which to fly. The warlock chuckles with sinister intent. A couple of scenes later, it is revealed that the unbaptized boy was killed by the warlock for his fat, which he cooks over a campfire in a soup can before drinking it. Weird, gross, and yet darkly funny, and Sands sells it all. The same is true for the spirit medium's eyeballs which he holds out to find the lost pages of the "Grand Grimoire", a relic supposedly capable of undoing all of creation if the wielder reads God's name in reverse from it. (I guess there had to be some kind of MacGuffin in the movie.) And I know that I should check my expectations about Warlock, especially given everything I've shared, but there are two things which still have me scratching my head. First, why is it that "the devil's wind" that blows the warlock across time and space takes him to Los Angeles, instead of to Boston? I guess it's something to do with a third of this grimoire being conveniently concealed within the hollow of a table in Chas and Kassandra's house...a detail that eludes the warlock until he is presumably informed otherwise by Satan. And even more mystifying is how is it that Redferne is cast through time and space himself? I mean, he's no witch/warlock, and he seems pretty put out over any means of transportation associated with them, so...how? No answer. I guess that goes to show that even the creators of Warlock didn't feel it necessary to root the film very firmly in reality. And I guess that also comes with the territory when you're dealing with time-travelling witches, right? Yeah, let's go with that.
Recommended for: Fans of a lackluster campy "horror" flick from the Eighties, less concerned with verisimilitude than in padding the runtime with nigh-consistently mediocre attempts at humor. Warlock doesn't inspire audiences to seek out other horror gems from the Eighties (like Hellraiser, for example), but there is some joy that can be taken from the performances of the movie's leads, who seem to enjoy hamming it up and punching well below their proverbial weight class.
I think that there is such a thing as "Eighties horror movies". This expression is often used to describe horror movies that embrace camp, and at least try for comedy, albeit usually awkwardly. There are lots of examples, and most of them were evidently made on the cheap. Sometimes it works, as some movies (like Society) go so far out into the strange that its sheer audacity or creativity makes it easy to forgive its technical gaffs. What's interesting to me about Warlock is that its main characters are cast with actors for whom these parts seem to underutilize their talents. Both Richard E. Grant and Julian Sands exude gravitas, yet it feels a bit like they're reduced to being just "British-ey colonists" from ye olden days here. For what it's worth, their acting chops and presence still manages to add much to Warlock in and of itself, to the extent that Sands would appear in the sequel. Nevertheless, this still feels like a squandered opportunity by failing to capitalize on these fine actors' range to make Warlock a serious horror movie instead of just ever more campy schlock. On the other hand, there is a sense of inherent playfulness because of it, particularly on the part of Sands. In one of the more twisted moments, the warlock intercepts a football from a kid in a trailer park. The two chat in a fashion, and when the warlock identifies himself as a "witch", the boy observes that witches (and warlocks, it would seem) are supposed to have a broom upon which to fly. The warlock chuckles with sinister intent. A couple of scenes later, it is revealed that the unbaptized boy was killed by the warlock for his fat, which he cooks over a campfire in a soup can before drinking it. Weird, gross, and yet darkly funny, and Sands sells it all. The same is true for the spirit medium's eyeballs which he holds out to find the lost pages of the "Grand Grimoire", a relic supposedly capable of undoing all of creation if the wielder reads God's name in reverse from it. (I guess there had to be some kind of MacGuffin in the movie.) And I know that I should check my expectations about Warlock, especially given everything I've shared, but there are two things which still have me scratching my head. First, why is it that "the devil's wind" that blows the warlock across time and space takes him to Los Angeles, instead of to Boston? I guess it's something to do with a third of this grimoire being conveniently concealed within the hollow of a table in Chas and Kassandra's house...a detail that eludes the warlock until he is presumably informed otherwise by Satan. And even more mystifying is how is it that Redferne is cast through time and space himself? I mean, he's no witch/warlock, and he seems pretty put out over any means of transportation associated with them, so...how? No answer. I guess that goes to show that even the creators of Warlock didn't feel it necessary to root the film very firmly in reality. And I guess that also comes with the territory when you're dealing with time-travelling witches, right? Yeah, let's go with that.
Recommended for: Fans of a lackluster campy "horror" flick from the Eighties, less concerned with verisimilitude than in padding the runtime with nigh-consistently mediocre attempts at humor. Warlock doesn't inspire audiences to seek out other horror gems from the Eighties (like Hellraiser, for example), but there is some joy that can be taken from the performances of the movie's leads, who seem to enjoy hamming it up and punching well below their proverbial weight class.