I just saw this movie on the big screen and was very disappointed. The movie is essentially about sadistic witch hunters in Britain during the chaos of its Civil War (Cromwell's time). I consider myself a fan of horror films, of British films and movies of this era, including ones with Vincent Price. After watching the movie, I was surprised to discover that it has been rated by some as one of the best British Horror films of all time. Perhaps, I was just expecting something very different given that it is also known as "Edgar Allen Poe's Conqueror Worm" (a Poe poem). The movie is not based on anything that Poe wrote, although parts of the poem are quoted in voice over at the beginning and end of the film. One could quote the poem to describe the film: "That motley drama--oh, be sure". I could not help feeling while watching the movie that it is closer to a mediocre western or army/war movie than a horror flick. It is violent -- with lots of sadism and poor quality fake blood, but it would have been more effective with less gore (perhaps the director's youth can be blamed for his not realizing that imagination of things not seen can be more horrible than showing acts of brutality? Less "shocking" perhaps, but more "horrible"?). That said, I did occasionally cringe at torture scenes. However, because there is very little real character development, I could not find myself really caring what happened to our hero and heroine or to any of the tortured victims of the Witchfinder General. I never felt surprise or suspense or fear or even concern during the movie. I even found myself occasionally bored and my mind wandered to the quality of the horse riding (which our hero seems to do well) and to the building material of the houses (nice scenery throughout) rather than to what the characters were doing. The bare breasted (and nude) women adorning certain scenes also did little for the plot development. I found the plot to be predictable, not something I expect in a "horror" film (which I don't think this really qualifies as). I do not think that this was one of Price's better performances. He appeared to maintain the same expression throughout the movie. Some of the minor characters were good, although some were a bit camp (especially an old horse seller and a fisherman). I don't know if they were meant to be funny, but I found them a hoot (as did the rest of the audience).
Perhaps I am the wrong gender to enjoy this movie? All the women leaving the theater were saying how poor they thought the movie was (and laughing at themselves for having actually paid to see it), while the men seemed to have thought it was good and some men claimed that it was even great. On the positive side the film did stimulate a great deal of conversation among the theater patrons, although much of the discussion seemed to be directed at why it was bad or arguments as to its merits, none of which I bought.
Perhaps I am the wrong gender to enjoy this movie? All the women leaving the theater were saying how poor they thought the movie was (and laughing at themselves for having actually paid to see it), while the men seemed to have thought it was good and some men claimed that it was even great. On the positive side the film did stimulate a great deal of conversation among the theater patrons, although much of the discussion seemed to be directed at why it was bad or arguments as to its merits, none of which I bought.