Witchfinder General

Audience Reviews

View All (299) audience reviews

S R Saw it because it was on my Time Out BBF list. It was on Pluto. I remembered seeing this perhaps in my childhood and it left a bad impression on me then. Price was sinister and the plot was melancholy, full of injustice and its still that way, but with an early 70s feel to it. I was left frustrated with the melodrama and contrived issues / plot. It's title was "Conqueror Worm". I don't plan on seeing it ever again. Rated 1.5/5 Stars •  Rated 1.5 out of 5 stars 10/22/24 Full Review Lewis M I got to see this in the movie theater back in 1972 as The Conqueror Worm. Unfortunately, the uncut version I saw has been long gone from all DVD/ Blu Ray releases. Pity. Price was never more effective because all the extra violence and torture that we saw in the States only added to the grimness and reality of Michael Reeves vision. A brutal film for its day. I felt as if I was alive in the 17th century experiencing the madness of the day and the murder of these accused women. Not to mention the ending where Ogilvy kicks out Stearns eye and just keeps swinging the axe into Price before his knees buckle. The fullness of that scene is gone as well. Sometimes it is best to see films on their theatrical release because you never know what is going to be missing once it hits the BluRay version. The fact that Reeves died shortly after making the movie and the company that owned the film went bankrupt might have something to do with this. Rated 4/5 Stars •  Rated 4 out of 5 stars 10/05/24 Full Review Matthew B Witchfinder General (to give the movie its original British name) is an example of how sometimes imagination can triumph over budgetary limitations. It seems astonishing to think of it, but some movies are only made so that the film studio can receive a tax write-off. Witchfinder General was made by AIP (American International Pictures) for this purpose, and they did not expect much from it. However they had underestimated the talents of promising young film director, Michael Reeves, here working on his third film. Alas, it was also to be his last one, and Reeves died from an accidental overdose of drugs and barbiturates soon after. We can only speculate on whether Reeves would have fulfilled the potential that his early movies showed. AIP did make one concession to add commercial appeal to the movie. They insisted on the casting of Vincent Price in the titular role. This may explain the changing of the movie title for American audiences. Price was known for having appeared in a number of movies based on stories by Edgar Allan Poe, and hence a title was chosen that alluded to a poem by Poe. Reeves was reluctant to have the veteran actor. He had wanted Donald Pleasance for the role, and had intended Matthew Hopkins, the Witchfinder General to come across as a weak and ineffectual authority figure. Price's presence involved changing the personality of Hopkins to match the actor's more theatrical personality. he movie was cheaply made. Despite being set at the time of the Battle of Naseby during the English Civil War (1645), we see only a handful of soldiers, and just a brief skirmish. The head of the Parliamentary side, Oliver Cromwell makes a fleeting appearance (played by Patrick Wymark) to add some authenticity, but this is not really a film about the war. The lighting also leaves something to be desired, and night scenes are so dark that it is hard to see what is happening. At times there is a tackiness in certain scenes, e.g. the gratuitous nudity in a tavern scene. Reeves refused to have anything to do with the filming of this scene. Notwithstanding these flaws, Witchfinder General transcends the limits of its origins, and to some extent manages to turn material that could be crude and exploitative in other hands into something more serious and thoughtful. In fact the more greatest criticism that has levelled against Witchfinder General is the amount of sadism in the story. If we think that what we see on screen is cruel and unpleasant, then imagine what was not included. The British Board of Film Censors demanded great changes to the original script and removed several nasty scenes. Later after the movie was completed, another two minutes were lopped off. These have been restored to the movie now. The censored footage does not remove a single scene or event from the movie, but it does reduce the amount of time spent lingering on violent and unpleasant actions. Despite this double whammy of cuts, the final movie still drew a good deal of criticism for its sadism, which was unusually high for the time in which it was made. Indeed the movie is hard to watch at times. There is much human suffering on display. The opening credits contain darkened images, some of them depicting women screaming. There will be further scenes of screaming throughout the movie, right until the end when we hear a woman screaming as the end credits begin to roll. The story is loosely based on the activities of a real witchfinder general, Matthew Hopkins. The real Hopkins was responsible for the execution of 300 witches, about two-thirds of the total put to death during this time. The real Hopkins was considerably younger than Vincent Price, and he died of consumption, a different fate from that in the movie. Reeves then takes liberties with the historical facts. His concern is rather with building up a feel for the mood of the age, where civil war had left much of the country with limited governance and a vacuum of power. Throw in the religious hysteria and extreme misogyny of the people who lived then, and the time was ripe for the abuse of power by individuals such as Matthew Hopkins. While Witchfinder General faced both budgetary restrictions and strict censorship, I would not say that the film suffered as a result. It may even have benefitted from the limitations that put a curb on some of the movie's excesses. Witchfinder General is not always an easy watch, and I am uncertain how far the movie manages the balance between unflinching realism and exploitative sadism. Nonetheless the final product is a provocative, unflinching and audacious attempt to show the dangers of superstitious fervour, the failure of justice and the misuse of power. I do not know if Michael Reeves was gifted enough to have carved out a future niche in the market of challenging and intelligent moviemaking, but I am sad that he did not live long enough for us to find out. I wrote a longer appreciation of Witchfinder General on my blog page if you'd like to read more: https://themoviescreenscene.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/witchfinder-general-a-k-a-the-conqueror-worm-1968/ Rated 4.5/5 Stars •  Rated 4.5 out of 5 stars 09/28/23 Full Review isla s This is a surprisingly thought provoking film. I didn't find it especially scary but for me it was more about the themes it covers - how people could abuse their power and authority over others and make townsfolk doubt the legitimacy of others. As a period drama its pretty good, as a character driven drama I'd say. Yes, I'd recommend this film. Rated 3.5/5 Stars •  Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars 03/31/23 Full Review Audience Member Not really all that horrifying except for a few parts here and there. Plays like more of an adventure movie than anything else. Half decent. Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 02/16/23 Full Review Liam D One of Vincent price's best horror movie an disturbing look at someone's power over everything Rated 4.5/5 Stars •  Rated 4.5 out of 5 stars 02/06/22 Full Review Read all reviews

Witchfinder General

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW