Witchfinder General

I have a copy of Witchfinder General from many years ago. Recently, whilst re-organising my collection, I happened upon it and watched it once more. This film still manages to induce general feelings of horror on account of its violence, even though it is not really a 'horror' film as such. Watch it for its superb cinematography which lends it an appearance of freshness that belies its 35 years. It still looks as if it could have been made yesterday. Some of the more violent scenes will make you squirm. The cruelty of the period portrayed can only be imagined and the cheapness of life comes across as truly shocking. Vincent Price is excellent as Hopkins (though maybe a bit 'mature' to portray him, since he was witchfinding in his late twenties and died in his early thirties). To think that this evil man really existed and operated unchecked for several years leaves one cold. A minor masterpiece that all lovers of the macabre should enjoy.

What made me go to this movie? I remember going to the theatre with my high school bud to see this. I could not handle the sadistic violence. I actually covered my eyes after the third wave of torture. As I turned away I looked at my friend who also turned to me but smiled. Hmmm....sick f**ker or just an act? This movie would have been better without all the unnecessary horrible on screen treatment of humans. I've seen many horror films but this one ranks at the top as the most violent. The movie theme is witch hunting, and back in those days if someone pointed to another and said they were a witch that is automatic guilt! No trials, the accused is disposed of. What a great time! At least there are no sleazy lawyers... *SPOILERS* The sadistic torture includes (not in order): 1) A so-called witch (convicted, probably not guilty) being burned at the stake while she screams in agony. Before they set her on fire though, she gets slapped in the face so hard that the palm of the slapper's hand is covered in blood. 2) The hero's girlfriend in the movie gets captured and a spike is driven by hand through the freckle on her back because that was said to be a mark of evil. 3) There's more of the stab with the pick stuff and other forms of torture that I've since forgotten. Trust me, it's bad. During the course of this movie I began to shield my eyes in anticipation of the next incident only to hear the bloodcurdling scream of the victim. I was not having fun yet. I'm surprised I didn't walk out, maybe I wanted to stay just to know that the bad guy gets it at the end. Sorry, but this isn't my idea of a horror film. This is just over the top torture that some sick individual directed and wrote. I give this movie a big thumbs down, don't waste your time unless you like senseless brutality.

I just saw this movie on the big screen and was very disappointed. The movie is essentially about sadistic witch hunters in Britain during the chaos of its Civil War (Cromwell's time). I consider myself a fan of horror films, of British films and movies of this era, including ones with Vincent Price. After watching the movie, I was surprised to discover that it has been rated by some as one of the best British Horror films of all time. Perhaps, I was just expecting something very different given that it is also known as "Edgar Allen Poe's Conqueror Worm" (a Poe poem). The movie is not based on anything that Poe wrote, although parts of the poem are quoted in voice over at the beginning and end of the film. One could quote the poem to describe the film: "That motley drama--oh, be sure". I could not help feeling while watching the movie that it is closer to a mediocre western or army/war movie than a horror flick. It is violent -- with lots of sadism and poor quality fake blood, but it would have been more effective with less gore (perhaps the director's youth can be blamed for his not realizing that imagination of things not seen can be more horrible than showing acts of brutality? Less "shocking" perhaps, but more "horrible"?). That said, I did occasionally cringe at torture scenes. However, because there is very little real character development, I could not find myself really caring what happened to our hero and heroine or to any of the tortured victims of the Witchfinder General. I never felt surprise or suspense or fear or even concern during the movie. I even found myself occasionally bored and my mind wandered to the quality of the horse riding (which our hero seems to do well) and to the building material of the houses (nice scenery throughout) rather than to what the characters were doing. The bare breasted (and *) women adorning certain scenes also did little for the plot development. I found the plot to be predictable, not something I expect in a "horror" film (which I don't think this really qualifies as). I do not think that this was one of Price's better performances. He appeared to maintain the same expression throughout the movie. Some of the minor characters were good, although some were a bit camp (especially an old horse seller and a fisherman). I don't know if they were meant to be funny, but I found them a hoot (as did the rest of the audience). Perhaps I am the wrong gender to enjoy this movie? All the women leaving the theater were saying how poor they thought the movie was (and laughing at themselves for having actually paid to see it), while the men seemed to have thought it was good and some men claimed that it was even great. On the positive side the film did stimulate a great deal of conversation among the theater patrons, although much of the discussion seemed to be directed at why it was bad or arguments as to its merits, none of which I bought.

Matthew Hopkins existed and called himself 'Witchfinder General'. He used sleep deprivation to get confessions - torture was not legal in England for witchcraft investigation. In England convicted witches were always hung, never burnt. The entire scene of burning is a total invention. The real Matthew Hopkins was soon discredited, although belief in witches lasted much longer. A decent film could have been made about the real events. This isn't it. I can't see anything except a pretext for a rather gruesome film that misses the point of what the witch-craze was about. Things similar to the film did happen in other countries, but the attempt to make it more real by setting it in our own country is not honest.

England, 1645: in the midst of civil war, opportunistic witch-finder Matthew Hopkins (Vincent Price) and his sadistic assistant John Stearne (Robert Russell) travel from village to village forcing confessions from suspected witches for both profit and personal gratification. After the pair torture and execute priest John Lowes (Rupert Davies), taking advantage of his beautiful niece Sara (the lovely Hilary Dwyer) in the process, roundhead soldier Richard (Ian Ogilvy), Sara's fiancé, swears an oath of revenge. The last film from British horror director Michael Reeves, whose promising career was sadly cut short at the age of 25 by an accidental overdose, Witchfinder General is a brilliant account of the barbarous acts perpetrated against so-called witches during the 17th century, supposedly all in the name of God. Benefitting from Reeves' unflinching direction and a faultless performance by Price as a man who must surely qualify as one of cinema's most loathsome villains, the film is not only a thoroughly effective piece of sickeningly violent horror entertainment, but is also at turns a chilling lesson on one of the darkest periods in British history, a devastating indictment of human nature, a heart-warming love story, and a satisfyingly brutal revenge drama.

Witchfinder General starts with a pair of gallows being built in a field, a woman (Gillian Aldam) accused of being a witch is dragged from a nearby village & hanged... It's 1645 & England is in the grip of a bloody civil war, on the one side there is the Royalist Party who fight for King Charles & on the other side there's the Roundheads who form Cromwell's Parlimentary Party. There is no law or order & the corrupt like Witchfinder Matthew Hopkins (Vincent Price) can hide behind the fear he commands, he takes advantage of his position & the god-fearing people he is supposed to protect & serve, Hopkins is paid for every witch he takes care of, in his own unique way, so all he does is have his equally corrupt assistant interrogator John Stearne (Robert Russell) torture a confession out of someone, pronounce them as a witch, execute them & then wait for the cash to come in. However Hopkins accuses & tortures a priest named John Lowes (Rupert Davies), his niece Sarah (Hilary Heath as Hilary Dwyer) pleads with Hopkins to spare her uncles life & even has sex with him. After Hopkins is finished with Sarah he kills her uncle anyway. Sarah's boyfriend, a Roundhead soldier named Richard Marshall (Ian Ogilvy), becomes aware of the events & sets off on a personal mission to put an end to Hopkins & his barbaric corrupt ways... Also known as The Conqueror Worm (I have no idea what this alternate title means although I think it was a marketing ploy to associate it with the Edgar Allen Poe poem of the same name) this British production was co-written & directed by Michael Reeves & is a solid historical horror that takes itself extremely seriously but I couldn't help but feel it's a little overrated. The script by Reeves, Tom Baker & Lewis M. Heywood is based upon the novel Matthew Hopkins: Witchfinder General by Ronald Bassett from 1966. The film has a decent storyline that entertains & is more than just a collection of torture scenes as it explores various other themes most notably corruption & the abuse of power. At it's most basic, like virtually all horror films, it's just a good vs. evil scenario with the expected results. The character's are well fleshed out, unfortunately the film can drag in places especially the middle. Director Reeves committed suicide in 1969, the year after Witchfinder General was made. The opening is great as the woman is dragged through the street's to the newly built gallows, the noose swinging in the breeze & a priest reading the bible as she is mercilessly hanged all watched by Hopkins on horseback. The film never quite reaches these atmospheric heights again. The violence & gore is disappointing so don't go into Witchfinder General thinking it's stuffed with torture scenes as it most certainly isn't. A woman is beaten in a cell, there's some gunshot wounds & a bit of splattered blood but very little else. There is some brief nudity in the full uncut version but, again, not much. Technically Witchfinder General is very polished, the nice English countryside locations, good cinematography, good looking sets & costumes while as a whole it's well made throughout. The acting is strong by all as Price gives probably his best performance, apparently director Reeves wanted to cast Donald Pleasence but American co-financier AIP insisted on Price. Witchfinder General is a good solid horror film with a decent story, a dark atmosphere & passes an hour and a half painlessly enough. Just don't expect the best film ever & in fact I much prefer the similarly themed film Mark of the Devil (1970). Definitely worth a watch.

A stunning low budget film that seems to transend it's limited budget. For once, Price doesn't ham it up and Ogilvy gets to go deeper with his old Etonian dashing hero persona. There is genuine horror from the first scene of a woman being burned, Hopkins' sidekick performing emergency surgery on himself and the feeling of a people opressed and cornered on all sides by war and religious panic. A special mention must go to a man who I think is the most underrated cinematographer in the movies: John Coquillon, who makes the scenery haunting yet beautiful like a Constable painting.

A powerful and unsettling film which is definitely not for the weak - kneed. Not easy to watch in some parts. But the mid-17th century was a turbulent time in British history with a civil war raging and the foul menace of devil worship festering throughout the countrysyde. All the players do a fine job. Although, Vincent Price is, of course, the stand-out performer. No other actor was able to portray genuine evil quite as effectively. There's no high camp fooling around in this one. What a brilliant talent he was. The music in this picture also deserves a special mention, particularly the opening theme which magnificently recreates an appropriate 17th century mood. Michael Reeves sheer production skill overcame the limitations of what was obviously a tight budget. I believe that the 1960s was the golden era of English cinema and television. Check the internet for extensive biographical information on the real Matthew Hopkins- WITCHFINDER.

I had been wanting to see 'Witchfinder General' for years, and I must say it almost lives up to its reputation. The version I watched was the restored uncut one, and while I thought the film had one or two slight flaws (mainly with the script), it is very, very good. This was the third and final movie directed by Michael Reeves, who sadly died of a drug overdose a year after it was released while still in his mid twenties. 'Witchfinder General' certainly shows a lot of promise, and is very well made on what I imagine was a fairly modest budget. Many describe it as a horror movie, but I think thriller is a more apt term. While it has some brutal and violent moments, and it does concern witches, there is no supernatural theme. It is similar in many ways to the underrated 'Mark Of The Devil' and Jess Franco's disappointing 'The Bloody Judge', two movies released after this one, and undoubtedly influenced by it. Horror legend Vincent Price clashed with Reeves on set with the latter telling him not to ham it up. Price took offence at this but obviously heeded the advice, and his performance here is arguably the best of his career. Price is brilliant throughout, and the supporting cast are all pretty good, especially Reeves regular Ian Ogilvy, and Robert Russell as Price's surly assistant, and there's a good cameo from Patrick Wymark ('Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun') as Cromwell. 'Witchfinder General' is a very good film which deserves to be seen by a wider audience, and Michael Reeves death is a tragedy for all movie lovers.

source: Witchfinder General