Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Mr_Ectoplasma This drive-in schlockfest has Pamela Franklin starring as a Los Angeles woman who moves to a bizarre small town in Northern California with her husband (Michael Ontkean) where he is to be employed for a toy company. The longer she spends there, the more disconcerted she becomes over the influence his boss, Mr. Cato (Orson Welles), has on the townspeople, which consist exclusively of young, fresh-faced hippies with a taste for all things occult."Necromancy" had a troubled release history and was apparently re-edited to some degree in the early 1980s and re-released as a softcore film under the title "The Witching Hour"; the cut of the film I saw was apparently an early R-rated cut under the "Necromancy" title that is allegedly close to writer-director Burt Gordon's original vision, if you want to call it that. "Necromancy" as a whole feels like a "vision" of sorts-a hazy, drugged-out romp through Manson family-era California, with a supernatural twist. It suffers terribly from disjointed editing and a general lack of cohesion, which is disappointing given that the narrative is actually quite straightforward.The film will remain an eternal curiosity for Welles's involvement, though his role is minimal and his presence generally underwhelming. The lovely Pamela Franklin (who many genre fans know and love from "The Innocents" and "Legend of Hell House") is a formidable lead and does what she can with the material; a strappingly handsome Michael Ontkean plays her husband and is less impressive but still has a likable screen presence; and Lee Purcell (later of Wes Craven's TV schlocker "Summer of Fear") is aptly doe-eyed and dead-faced as a distant member of the town/coven trying to revive Welles's dead son.The film has a clever albeit rather standard twist that gives it a fun bite considering most of it is rather straightforward despite its acid-trip aesthetics. In the end, the film suffers greatly from serious disjointedness (presumably because it is so badly edited), but there are some ominous, utterly bizarre (and sometimes eerie) visuals throughout that are distinct to the era. Ultimately, what we have here is a drive-in-calibre occult flick, which, depending on who you are, may or may not be a complete delight. For visuals alone, I feel it's worth watching, though it does present itself as a serious case of "what might have been." 7/10.

MartinHafer I saw an extended version of "Necromancy" that is available to watch on YouTube. The introduction claims that deleted footage was restored in this version--making the film more complete and coherent. So, when you see some reviews that hated the movie, it is possible they saw the shorter version. As for me, the film I saw was MUCH better than the current 4.2 and this could be because it's more the director or writer's original vision.Pamela Franklin stars as Lori. While Orson Welles gets top billing, she was clearly the focus of the film...and I assume they billed Welles first to improve marketing or as part of the contract to get Welles to appear in the movie. Lori recently had a miscarriage and her husband Frank (Michael Ontkean) has taken a job near the town of Lillith. However, the folks offering the job had a lot of strange questions--questions about his and his wife's religious beliefs. While these sort of questions are illegal to ask, he responds that they are both atheists and that seemed to make the employer happy...or so Frank says.When they get to Lillith, they find the place is a hellhole....and that really isn't an exaggeration! The folks are all members of a Satanic cult led by Mr. Cato (Welles) and Lori naturally wants to leave. But Frank inexplicably blows off her worries and seems to like the place and the strange people. So why did they REALLY come here and why are the folks so interested in Lori?This movie is above all, creepy...with a dark, brooding atmosphere throughout. The story, though sometimes confusing, was also pretty interesting...but suffers some because of its close similarity to "Rosemary's Baby". In other words, if you've already seen this earlier film it's pretty easy to guess what's going on in "Necromancy". Not a great film but food if you would like a few chills.

lucyskydiamonds Like most comments I saw this film under the name of The Witching which is the reissue title. Apparently Necromancy which is the original is better but I doubt it.Most scenes of the witching still include most necromancy scenes and these are still bad. In many ways I think the added nudity of the witching at least added some entertainment value! But don't be fooled -there's only 3 scenes with nudity and it's of the people standing around variety. No diabolique rumpy pumpy involved!This movie is so inherently awful it's difficult to know what to criticise first. The dialogue is awful and straight out of the Troma locker. At least Troma is tongue in cheek though. This is straight-faced boredom personified. The acting is variable with Pamela Franklin (Flora the possessed kid in The Innocents would you believe!) the worst with her high-pitched screechy voice. Welles seems merely waiting for his pay cheque. The other female lead has a creepy face so I don't know why Pamela thought she could trust her in the film! And the doctor is pretty bad too. He also looks worringly like Gene Wilder.It is ineptly filmed with scenes changing for no reason and editing is choppy. This is because the witching is a copy and paste job and not a subtle one at that. Only the lighting is OK. The sound is also dreadful and it's difficult to hear with the appalling new soundtrack which never shuts up. The 'ghost' mother is also equally rubbish but the actress is so hilariously bad at acting that at least it provides some unintentional laughs.Really this film (the witching at least) is only for the unwary. It can't have many sane fans as it's pretty unwatchable and I actually found it mind-numbingly dull! The best bit was when the credits rolled - enough said so simply better to this poor excuse for a movie LIKE THE PLAGUE!

cfc_can I figured that any horror film with Orson Welles in it would be weird. Necromancy sure was but it was a little too weird for it's own good. The film does indeed have a creepy feel as it deals with a coven of satanists/witches in a small town and a young woman's attempt to escape them. The director though seems to be deliberately trying to confuse the audience by using flashbacks and dream sequences. By the finale, there are too many unanswered questions. What's worse, as the story is so confusing, it's pretty hard to root for any of the characters. It seems odd that Welles would agree to headline this film especially since he doesn't have that much to do. Maybe someday they will put out a tape of the outtakes and bloopers from this movie. Now that would really be fun!