Witchfinder General (1968)

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Opening with a very brutal, pre-credits hanging, 'Witchfinder General' goes on to feature an exceptional performance from Vincent Price, who despite a clash with Director Michael Reeves (Reeves declined to greet the actor at the airport on his arrival and made it abundantly clear he was not happy with his casting), names this as one of his favourite performances. It is easy to see why – he is given Matthew Hopkins, a Witchfinder steeped in hypocrisy, cruelty and genuine sin. Despite Price's tendency to play extravagant characters, he invests Hopkins with a certain restraint, and is therefore extremely powerful: it is an excellent performance. Hopkins was a real life lawyer who, in 1644 elevated himself to witch-hunter, and is believed to be responsible for the deaths of 300 in the following two years.There is a lot of screaming in this film. Indeed, even as the end credits roll, the heartfelt cries of Sara (Hilary Dwyer) threaten to drown out the music before they finally fade away. Such outbursts are entirely warranted, given the saturation of lies and duplicity that make the law by which normal people are expected to live their lives.Michael Reeves died one year after this film's release, aged only 25, his potential as a director and writer barely tapped. His work on 'Witchfinder General' is unstinting in its depiction of vile human behaviour and gleeful cruelty, the camera never in any hurry to move away from scenes of graphic violence and barbarism, not least from Hopkins, who misuses the word of God entirely for his own end. Hopkins dies violently, but not as graphically as he deserves, hacked to death by a crazed Richard Marshall (Ian Ogilvy), whose wife Sara has suffered innumerable terrible acts of maltreatment.Whilst watching my DVD version of this film, there are many brief moments where the picture quality deteriorates noticeably – it suddenly struck me that these are scenes cut from the previous/initial release for reasons of bloodshed. Even with such pruning, the film provoked much outrage when it premiered. Despite this – or probably because of it – it was a success, even now held up as a cult classic. And so it should be. The way of life is presented in a way that causes the viewer to watch from behind their hands even today, and every member of the impressive cast is terrific, giving full-blooded, forceful performances. Donald Pleasance, Reeves' original choice for Hopkins, would have provided his own brand of excellence, but this is probably Vincent Price's finest hour – which is quite something for so prolific a performer.

The ancient past sure is gruesome and evil and Witchfinder General shows a very accurate portrayal of the Witchcraft Trials, the law back then was very flawed and was exploited to the point of which anyone can be accused of witchcraft if one person didn't like the other person or in this case the Witchfinder earning big money just by accusing innocent people, torturing them and then finish them off by executing them. Vincent Price playing as the evil Witchfinder General Matthew Hopkins does a fantastic job as the central villain, he's absolutely ruthless and cunning as he is essentially above the law, a very lawful evil character.Although I was kind of expecting more like hundreds of people being burned alive considering that this is one of the many films my mother couldn't sit through watching as to how gruesome and near to the reality of the past it is. Never the less it's a pretty good horror film.

What a great film. I watched the "Director's Cut" which had grainy segments of additional footage added back in. These were originally cut by BBC censors because they contained graphic images of women getting manhandled and tortured by a bunch of raging misogynists. Some of the shots are pretty nuts too! Like the one where they have an actress (or stunt double, maybe?) tied to that scaffolding which they are lowering over a real fire!!! The sad part is that this is supposed to be more of a historical drama than a typical horror genre film. And the first half speaks to that. It starts off pretty slow, but the pace really picks up by the end when everything starts to get graphic and extreme. In this sense the film is really effectively constructed because you almost let your guard down a little.Overall the acting is a bit cheesy, but Vincent Price has a genuinely creepy factor to him. And you have got to give them credit for doing an excellent job capturing the lustful misogyny in the facial expressions of the characters who were driving the witch-hunts and carrying out the torture. That's something that really stood out for me.As far as story goes, we start off with a couple young lovers: the daughter of the local preacher and her soldier fiancée. He must leave for the war, just as the Witchfinder General and his underlings move into their town- in search of witches to burn (so they can extract payment from the local magistrate).The Priest is accused...so his daughter tries to make a deal with the Witchfinder (who was forcing himself upon her) in order to save his life: she'll sleep with him (and betray her beloved) if he will spare her father's life. He f*cks her, then hangs dude anyways. DOUCHEBAG! Oh, she's also raped by his grimy partner. SCUMF*CK! Anyways...he finds this out and gets hellbent on vigilante justice.When they all cross paths again, the young couple find themselves bound and on about to be tortured by the Witchfinder and his crew. And of course, he tortures her and makes him watch- in an attempt to extract a confession from him, so that he can justifiably murder him, legally speaking.One thing leads to another, ultimately culminating with the explosive conclusion- which acts as both the climax and end of the film.And all of this is going down in what is effectively a period piece, remember.Really intriguing film with some really beautiful shots and really wild scenes (especially in the director's cut). This is among the first of the great Inquisition era Witchfinder films, alongside other greats like Inquisicion, Witch's Hammer, and of course Ken Russel's The Devils. Definitely check it out.8 out of 10.

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