Witchfinder General (1968)

Touches You

That was an excellent one.

Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

This 60's telling of Matthew Hopkins, the Witchfinder General, is a classic of it's time, starring Vincent Price as the titular character, and featuring Ian Ogilvy. As the witchfinder general it was Hopkins's task to find and destroy any witches on the English Isles, which according to legend, he managed with ease and brutality. Price manages to bring Hopkins to life as a nasty and vindictive, seedy little man with a draw towards torture and pain. Ian Ogilvy, playing Richard Marshall, who is angered when Hopkins attacks a local priest and his daughter. Toe to toe Ogilvy and Price really deliver excellent performances in this film and help drive the tension and action. This is a brilliant example of how you can make a film work with a semi- decent story and great actors, who needs a massive budget or CGI! A great film for fans of retro horror films or anybody looking to make a lazy Sunday afternoon that little bit more fun. Enjoy :)

Alongside the later films The Bloody Judge (1970) and The Devils (1971), Witchfinder General was one of a small sub-set of movies that can perhaps best be described as historical horror films. These took a true historical setting or character and adapted it for the screen while ramping up the salacious content to the point that they partially fell under the horror genre as well. I guess they were a natural off-shoot from the plethora of 60's Gothic costume horrors which were so popular at the time. The central character in this one was the infamous lawyer Matthew Hopkins who committed hundreds of horrendous crimes during the chaos and lawlessness of Civil War England. He was essentially a sadistic opportunist who carried out his murders in the name of God. This agent of the Royalists ended up murdering hundreds of 'witches'. Watching this film again recently, it got me to thinking how hundreds of years later things haven't really changed all that much, with a disturbingly parallel scenario playing out in the Middle East right now, where the group known as ISIS have exploited the chaos of the Syrian Civil War to commit a multitude of violent killings all in the name of their religion. It seems that religion, opportunism and hypocrisy still result in horrific violence today as they did back in the 17th century.This was renamed Conqueror Worm in the USA, which was the name of a poem by Edgar Allen Poe. This was clearly an attempt to associate it with the earlier Roger Corman directed, period-set Poe adaptions which also starred Vincent Price. Aside from part of the poem being read in the closing credits, the film has nothing to do with it though. It was directed by Michael Reeves who died shortly after its release at the age of 25 from an accidental over-dose. He did not want Price in the lead role; it was forced upon him by the distributor. In the event, perhaps unsurprisingly, there were tensions between them on set, although this may have inadvertently helped the film's tone. Price eradicates his typical hammy style and puts in an impressively chillingly cold performance. Truthfully, it's some of the best acting he ever did and shows the range he was capable of. Aside from the central character, this one overall is a pretty humourless and bleak affair, yet because of this it holds up much better than most of its contemporaries. It is apt that it takes this approach; however, as Hopkins is an utterly vile character who subjects many people - mainly women – to various horrific tortures, but also coerces the younger women into having sex with him. Like many religious fundamentalists, he is a hypocrite and a sadist. It's to the film-makers great credit that they were bold enough to tell the story without holding back on these unpleasant aspects.The film benefits from on location shooting in East Anglia where the atrocities actually happened. The locales are sometimes quaint, yet other times vaguely sinister but always authentic feeling. The period detail in general is pretty good, with good costuming etc. Visually this is a nice-looking film. Aside from Price there is good support work too from Ian Ogilvy as the hero and Hilary Dwyer as his victimised fiancé. The story itself plays out to a very fictionalised conclusion, yet this is neither the first or last historical film to do that. In summary, this is a very impressive and distinctive film.

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

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