Warlock: The Armageddon brings the Warlock (Julian Sands) back from oblivion, but this sequel would've been better off staying in oblivion.  The golden-maned Sands portrays the Warlock far more devlishly in this one with a darker charm, but has no worthy or even respectable adversary this time around.  Sands essentially carries the entire movie, and any scene without him is rather uninteresting.  His charisma and charm on screen is so electric that you simply crave more of it when he leaves the screen.  The plot doesn't offer anything all that engaging or particularly special.

The Warlock is brought back to recover a collection of gems that, together, can destroy all of creation (yes, again) by bringing his father, Satan, into our world.  Meanwhile, in some rural town two teenagers are chosen to be trained and fight the Warlock.  Chris Young and Paula Marshall play those two youths who aren't too fond of their parents having to kill them first before being embued with these new special powers.  Frankly, they care more about what they're gonna do on Saturday night than being the saviors of all creation.  These two amateurs are expected to go up against the unholy spawn of Satan, and prevail?  I can only suspend my disbelief so much before a premise becomes laughable.  Truly, I was more involved in the Warlock and his quest to destroy humanity than caring about this rural pair of teens in love being forced into a situation they want nothing to do with.  Honestly, I wanted this film to have nothing to do with them.  It's rather sad when you actually want the villian to destroy all of existence - at least we'll be spared more sequels.  Of course, Sands was not brought back for Warlock III: The End of Innocence which was a non-sequel casting Bruce Payne in the title role.

This sequel is much gorier than the original, but the story and characters are far weaker.  It's not a question of bad acting, it's a question of a bad script.  Screenwriters Kevin Rock & Sam Bernard did not write any notable films in their careers, and this one is no different.  Director Anthony Hickox had just finished Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth, and I feel this film is worse than that uneven sequel.  Hickox directed some decent horror films like Waxwork & Waxwork II, but after this film, he never directed another recognizable film.  At best, he's proven to be a b-grade director not capable of producing anything without a hefty helping of cheese.  Ultimately, looking over the credits of this film, the only notable talent involved is Julian Sands.  From the screenwriters to the director of photography to the music composer, there's nobody of note here.  Charles Hallahan (The Thing) and Zach Galligan (Gremlins, Waxwork) do have roles here, but they're nothing more than essentially inconsequential supporting roles.

I can say that the visual and makeup effects are entirely superior to the previous film, and that's bizarre since this film's budget was $4 million less than the first film.  The powers of the Warlock are exponentially more extensive and destructive here than in the first movie, but it doesn't matter when the story loses the heart and the charm that the first had with Redferne (Richard E. Grant).  Again, Warlock: The Armageddon is really cheesey and pathetically weak in nearly every facet - Sands being the only exception.  This sequel is okay if you want to see more of Julian Sands' purely evil, sadistic, and wonderfully devilish performance, but that is all that is worth seeing in this film.  The original Warlock wasn't any major blockbuster success, and so, Trimark probably didn't feel that much effort needed to be put forth for a sequel.  Not to mention that Trimark was rarely known for anything but B movies and direct-to-video fare (they've since been absorbed by Lion's Gate Films).  If the first movie was filmed as well as this one, and had this much gore - it would've kicked some real ass.  Unfortunately, what really is the most important aspect with both is good story and character.  This film lacks both whereas the original Warlock really had it in good amounts.  So, I really am left to stick this film with a 3/10 rating.  See it if you want, but you're not missing much otherwise.  At best, it's cheesy early 90s horror shlock, but was there any other kind in 1993?  Either go rent the original Warlock, or if you really want some bad ass demonic vanquishing, try Constantine.