GL84 With a fear of witches among the local peasants, a vengeful witch hunter and his assistant travel to a remote village supposedly steeped in witchcraft, and once a group of soldiers learns of their treacherous behavior set out to hunt them down and bring them to justice.There is a lot that really impresses in here. One of the main features involved here is the fact that the film is for the most part historically accurate in what happens. The characters, the towns, the accusations and the tortures and executions are all real- life scenarios and events that makes what happens all the more terrifying in knowing that what happened to the people in the film where actually done in real life. Watching the torture scenes where people are chained to a rock wall, stabbed and sliced with knives or constantly slapped around until a confession is heard, dumping the bodies into a river to see if they sink or swim and adjust the punishment according to what happened are extremely brutal and uncompromising, which makes them all the more terrifying when added to the realistic attitude and feel to the film. The realism extends to more than just the violence, which has some really impressive sets and setting, with the towns being realistically captured and giving off an impressive air of menace and foreboding that really works to the film's advantage. The rural villages and countrysides are even better as the wide-open spaces and large plains make them all the more spectacular and a real treat for the eyes. It also extends beyond that as well as Price has never been more evil, and he's never been this campy. You are never given the impression that you are supposed to like him or celebrate his acts, and this is one factor that makes the movie work. It's a great performance that really enlivens the proceedings and is an absolute joy to watch. This really isn't that bad of a film without a lot to dislike, but what's there is pretty big. The biggest issue is that the film itself doesn't seem as gory and violent as the reputation gives it. Returning to its grim tone and torturous violence today seems like a humdrum exercise, not because it has lost its power, but because the model it ushers in is a worn-out, overused feel to those of us with a passing interest in what happened. The tortures mainly consist of being slapped around until a confession and then the real torture begins, but the fact that most of the torture time is spent with the slapping technique, it leaves the feeling that it's more brutal in reputation than in practice. It also wastes a great opportunity by never concerning itself with any sociological or historical analysis of what that led to the conditions under which the witch-hunts occurred. It would've been a lot more interesting had the film actually done the trials and accusations to really amp up the rest of the hypocrisy and corruption present. That would've added to the feeling of total dire that the film exudes, and is a shame that it wasn't done in that manner. All in all, it's not bad but does feature a few big flaws.Today's Rating/R: Graphic Violence, Nudity, Language, an off-screen Rape and a mild sex scene.

Leofwine_draca In the world of '60s British horror cinema, few films were as gritty, downbeat, disturbing or downright violent (not to mention mean-spirited) as this one. In fact, none were. WITCHFINDER GENERAL is a landmark in the history of cinema, and along with NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, it helped to usher in the new wave of ultra-violent '70s gore films where a happy ending could no longer be guaranteed. It's a brilliant film but also a depressing one to watch; nobody will come out of this with smiles on their faces (unless they're sociopaths), instead a feeling of cold sickness (your mileage may vary) similar to the gut punch of THE EXORCIST. I love this movie because of the way it paints the English countryside; an idyllic and beautiful rural landscape, packed with lush foliage and picturesque villages, accompanied by the famously lyrical 'Greensleeves' type music. Yet into this Eden comes death; painful, protracted death. It's a film which focuses on death. Death by drowning, burning, hanging. and many other varieties.One of life's ironies is that director Michael Reeves himself died after the production of this, his last film. His career had been interesting but short-lived, but at least this and THE SORCERERS are worth seeing. Vincent Price dominates the cast as the cold-hearted Matthew, a man you hate yet also one of his more human portrayals of a monster; there's no over-acting here, just a realistic persona of a man without a conscience and out for his own ends. Supporting him are the gleefully sadistic John (believed to be a woman in historical stories) who enjoys 'pricking witches' and beats a fair number of people to watch. Hilary Dwyer is the damsel-in-distress who undergoes rape and torture and screams her head off; Ian Ogilvy is surprisingly deep as the Roundhead who finds himself pushed over the edge by the murderous antics. There's just enough time for Patrick Wymark to show a convincing cameo as Cromwell himself and Rupert Davies to undergo sadism as a priest accused of conspiring with devils.Comment has been made that the structure of this film is similar to the classic "revenge western", with Ogilvy riding through a rugged and wild landscape in search of his wife's abuser. That may be so, but the film is still unpredictable throughout, right down to the manic climax. It's an affecting piece of work that rewards close viewing and which still packs the same impact today as it did thirty years ago. Horror fans should buy immediately. Oh, and watch out for a cameo from Steptoe himself, Wilford Brambell!

Torson Falcradine Shown on 31 October 2015 on BBC2 what is impressive is that this movie has stood the test of time. Not only is it beautifully made but also sees Vincent Price excelling.Based on a true story the historical facts are adhered to and it is hard to imagine this movie was made for less than £100,000.This is a stunning low budget film. Vincent Price is excellent and Ian Ogilvy also gets a chance to excel with his dashing persona. Sad to think that the director Michael Reeves committed suicide within a year of the films release after well known spats with Vincent Price.The photography is beautiful though not particularly good quality. Costumes and sets are very authentic as are the location scenes.Having not heard Vincent Price for quite some while now it is refreshing to hear his stilted diction and takes me back to his films of the 70's

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