ridiculous rating

Expected more

An action-packed slog

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

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.

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.

I've seen bits and pieces of this film before - vague memories of seeing it years ago. Tonight I was able to re-view the uncut version of the film... I have to say it is one of Vincent Prices best films - in fact, maybe for the entire cast! Richard and Sara's romance is the stuff fairy-tales are made of - the kind of romantic relationship I dream of having. Although the movie is not a romance film - Richard and Sara's relationship is one if the focuses of the movie.Price portrays Matthew Hopkins very well - he's vicious, wicked and down right nasty.The story is well written and easy to follow. Some of the scenes in the movie are hard to watch: realistic rape, torture and general brutality so well filmed that it's hard not to take your eyes off the screen.Impeccable costuming, settings and scenery. This is yet another movie I felt I was drawn back to medieval times.9.5/10

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