Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Micransix Crappy film

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

clanciai Vincent Price is unbearably cruel in this picture, but unfortunately that is how it was. It is more or less a true story, and the reality of it was probably crueller still - Matthew Hopkins murdered hundreds in his profitable witch-hunts and went on for three years.Both the acting, the direction, the photography and the music is outstanding in this film, contrasting sharply to its horrible story. Personally I find Ian Ogilvy the best acting performance here, Vincent Price is a little too professional and acting more or less on routine, he had been making characters like this for twenty years and more, while also Rupert Davies like always is perfectly reliable, while only Patrick Wymark as Cromwell is a little out of place, a little too small and fat and not quite convincing. But the greatest credit goes to the direction, to realize a film like this with all its abhorrent cruelties and inhumanities and keeping it convincing, realistic and in control. It's a revolting but admirable masterpiece of a historical film exposing the truth of man's darkest sides as he is gone to his worst, which unfortunately happens sometimes.

Lucabrasisleeps I think I may have seen it with the wrong expectations since I have an interest in old style British atmospheric horror. But what I got was a bleak historical movie which is not visually very impressive. But as a depiction of the witch huntings and the general mood at that time, this movie does have an impact. But still, now could it be considered a masterpiece? I am not so sure. Vincent price is good as the cruel witchfinder. Hilary heath is gorgeous and is pretty good as the tragic heroine of the movie. There are some torture sequences but I guess in the current day, they are mostly tame but they got the vibe right. There is a sad depressing vibe throughout the movie and that resonates in the torture sequences as well. Gore lovers might want to look elsewhere though. The movie moves in predictable directions but still it was interesting to watch the various detailed signs and frankly, excuses to kill the women. Maybe the witchfinder himself was a highly religious man who had issues with his own desires. Vincent price portrays him as an opportunist but maybe in reality he was just a highly religious man who still had his weaknesses. And he hated being weak and that would the source of his hatred for women. It is mostly a regular revenge torture film and a wholly bleak look at the times. The ending is good as well I thought and there couldn't be any justice or happiness anyway. Since too much blood had been shed and too many lives were lost. But maybe that was the cathartic release necessary for the lead characters. I thought it was OK. 6/10

Sandcooler Writer/Director Michael Reeves died at the depressingly young age of 25, but even within a film career than barely span over four years he managed to show a lot of promise. His visual flair was abundant, his screenplays were clever and well-written and most of all, he had guts. If you're barely out of film school (figure of speech, he never went) and you still tell a legend like Vincent Price not to "ham it up", you have what it takes. And it worked, because Price is actually frightening in this movie. He doesn't do any of the usual fun fair routine we know (and love) him for, he's actually portraying a character here and doing a fantastic job of it. He carries the movie throughout, stealing scenes with his intimidating persona and generally being a villain you love to hate. Reeves also went through the trouble of trying to be historically accurate, though this is mainly an excuse to cram in some torture scenes (historically accurate torture scenes!). Still, I appreciate the effort. The only real problem the movie has is its rushed ending, which is very predictable and just screams "let's get this over with". An uninspired moment is an otherwise excellent period piece.

Wuchak Released in 1968, the British film "Witchfinder General" (originally known as "The Conqueror Worm" in the USA) details the infamous witch-finding exploits of Matthew Hopkins in Eastern England circa 1645-1647. Hopkins (Vincent Price) and his colleague John Stearne travel from village to village brutally torturing "confessions" out of suspected witches and charging the local magistrates for the "work" they carry out.Some call the film "the original torture porn" and I suppose it was pretty radical in 1968, but it never struck me as being a torture-obsessed film. It always struck as a British Western with a simple rape/murder/revenge plot: A soldier's beautiful fiancé is savagely raped and her Uncle, a Priest, tortured & murdered for supposedly being a witch. When the soldier (Ian Ogilvy) finds out he vows revenge.Don't get me wrong, this is a good film, it's just that it always came across to me as more of a Western transplanted to 17th century England than a torture/horror film. The only death that I found truly unsettling was the one where a woman is burned to death by being lowered into a bonfire. That scene definitely has a lasting impact.The writer/director was Michael Reeves, a promising young filmmaker. Unfortunately he died of an accidental barbiturate overdose not long after the film was released at the way-too-young age of 25. The dosage was too marginal to suggest suicide; besides, he was already busy working on another film project.Reeves and star Vincent Price reportedly didn't get along. Reeves originally wanted Donald Pleasence for the title role but the studio forced Price on him and he had to rewrite the script accordingly. Reeves mainly objected to Price's hammy acting style and did everything he could to get Price to play it straight. He would say things like, "Please, Vincent, try to say it without rolling your eyes." At one point Price pointed out to Reeves, "I've made 87 films, what have you done?" The director responded, "Made three good ones" (LOL!!).After seeing the film the following year Price admitted that he finally saw what Reeves was trying to do and wrote him a 10-page letter praising the film (!). After Reeve's death Price stated: "I (finally) realized what he wanted was a low-key, very laid-back, menacing performance. He did get it, but I was fighting him almost every step of the way. Had I known what he wanted I would have cooperated." The film is only partially accurate as far as history goes, although the gist is true. Hopkins was in his mid-20s when he committed his atrocities, not almost 60 as was the case with Price. Also, Hopkins & Stearne were accompanied by female assistants. As far as Hopkins' death goes, tradition tells us that disgruntled villagers caught him and subjected him to his own "swimming test," although there's no actual evidence to support this; most historians believe he died of tuberculosis at his home shortly after his torturous escapades in 1647 (only 27 years old).One of the film's highlights for me is Hilary Dwyer, who plays the soldier's fiancé/wife. She's just a uniquely beautiful woman all around and a pleasure to behold.Another strong point is the ending which ***SPOILER ALERT*** depicts the soldier mad with rage hacking someone to death while his just-tortured fiancé screams and screams. The evil inflicted upon them has brought them to this point of maniacal frenzy. It's reality, my friend. Despite the rather downbeat ending I've always viewed it as somehow uplifting for obvious reasons. There's no reason we shouldn't assume the soldier and his wife move on to live a happy life together. ***END SPOILER*** Some make it a point to stress that "Witchfinder General" is not a Hammer film but rather American International. Regardless, the picture is a British film made at the time when Hammer was in its prime; it therefore has that Hammer vibe, which is why some mistake it for a Hammer picture. Needless to say, if you like Hammer films you'll appreciate this.At the same time, "Witchfinder General" stands apart; it has its own uniqueness, no doubt due to Reeve's burgeoning genius. As such, the film is special to me. Some of the photography is hauntingly beautiful; the protagonists -- the noble soldier and the lovely Sarah -- are exceptional; the villains dastardly; and the ending innovative.So why not a higher rating? Because, as special as this film is, it's not the most engrossing saga. Artistically, it's gets an 'A' for a low-budget film from that era but, story-wise, they could've made it more compelling.The film runs a short-but-sweet 87 minutes and was shot in Suffolk & Norfolk, England. GRADE: B