User Reviews

The Witchfinder-General of the title is Matthew Hopkins, a real-life individual who, during the English Civil War of the 1640s, was responsible for around twenty people being hanged as witches. Most had been forced to confess under torture. Although Hopkins was not, as he claimed, officially appointed to that position by Parliament, it is no coincidence that his activities took place in East Anglia, the most firmly Parliamentarian area of England. It is one of the ironies of history that the supposedly modern, democratic Parliamentarians were more likely to have a superstitious belief in witchcraft than were the supposedly more reactionary Royalists.

The film presents a fictionalised account of Hopkins's career, and takes some liberties with historical accuracy. The real Hopkins was only in his twenties at the time of these events, much younger than the middle-aged character portrayed by Vincent Price. He did not meet a violent end, but died of natural causes. His victims were all hanged; contrary to what is shown here death by burning was not used as a punishment for witchcraft in England. Apart from Hopkins the main character is Richard Marshall, an officer in Cromwell's army. He becomes involved when Hopkins arrests John Lowes, the vicar of Brandeston, Suffolk, and the uncle of Marshall's sweetheart Sara. Lowes is tortured to make him confess, but Hopkins promises to spare his life in exchange for sexual favours from Sara. Having obtained what he wants, Hopkins continues to torture Lowes and eventually has him executed. Marshall vows revenge on Hopkins and his sadistic assistant John Stearne. (Lowes and Stearne were both historical figures; Marshall and Sara are fictitious).

When the film was released in America, it was renamed "The Conqueror Worm" after the poem by Edgar Allen Poe. Although it has very little to do with that poem, this was done in order to suggest a connection with Roger Corman's cycle of films based on Poe's works, most of which also starred Price. Although "Witchfinder-General" does not form part of that cycle, it does have something in common with Corman's last Poe film, "The Tomb of Ligeia". Both films were shot on location in East Anglia and both make effective contrast between gloomy indoor scenes and shots of verdant English countryside. In "Witchfinder-General" the indoor scenes have a chiaroscuro feel, with dramatic contrasts of light and shadow. The outdoor scenes were shot in autumn, and although beautiful the autumnal colours add to the film's melancholy air.

There are also similarities with two films from the early seventies, Ken Russell's "The Devils" and Robin Hardy's "The Wicker Man". Russell is said to have disliked "Witchfinder-General", so there was presumably no conscious influence, but it is noteworthy that both films have a seventeenth-century setting, both were controversial because of graphic depictions of torture and execution and both are about the misuse of religion for political or personal ends. The real Hopkins may have been a fanatic who sincerely believed in the reality of witchcraft. The character portrayed by Price is a hypocrite who has taken up a career in witchfinding out of financial and sexual motives; he is well-paid for his services, and his position gives him numerous opportunities for blackmailing women.

Many horror films (such as the majority of entries in the Hammer series) ask the viewer to accept that evil supernatural forces are real. "Witchfinder-General" and "The Wicker Man" have many differences (the latter, for instance, has a contemporary setting), but both reject this position. In Michael Reeves's film, as in Hardy's, what is to be feared is not the supernatural but superstition, not witches, ghosts or demons but irrational beliefs which lead people to commit violent acts. The two films have been bracketed together as "the only two intelligent British horror films"; they are certainly the two most prominent rationalist British horror films.

"Witchfinder-General" was one of a number of British films from this period which could treat violent themes in a more explicit way, thanks to the gradual relaxation of censorship in the sixties, but this trend was not universally welcomed and the film aroused much controversy when it first came out. Some hailed it as a masterpiece which confirmed the promise Reeves had shown with his previous film, "The Sorcerers". Others, most notably Alan Bennett in "The Listener" ("the most persistently sadistic and morally rotten film I have seen"), condemned it for what they saw as excessive, even offensive, levels of violence. Today, we are more used to violence in the cinema than we were forty years ago, but some of the scenes depicted here still retain their power to shock. That, of course, was Reeves's intention- to shock us into thinking about the roots of violence. Bennett, who can at times be a perceptive writer, seems to have been particularly obtuse about this film. The events it depicts are sadistic and morally rotten. That does not mean that the film itself is.

The film is today often claimed as a classic of the British cinema, although I often feel that this may have as much to do with the tragedy of Reeves's death from an overdose the following year as it does with its intrinsic merits. Much of the film's success is due to Vincent Price, and Reeves can take little credit for this. He wanted to cast Donald Pleasence as Hopkins, but was overruled by the film's American backers who wanted a more established star. Reeves and Price took a strong dislike to one another, and there are many stories about their clashes on set. Nevertheless, Price gives an excellent performance as a man who, like Hitler, is evil and yet nevertheless commanding, authoritative and charismatic. This film, despite its historic setting, can also be seen as a comment on the politics of the twentieth century, and still remains relevant in the twenty-first. 7/10

In the world of '60s British horror cinema, few films were as gritty, downbeat, disturbing or downright violent (not to mention mean-spirited) as this one. In fact, none were. WITCHFINDER GENERAL is a landmark in the history of cinema, and along with NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, it helped to usher in the new wave of ultra-violent '70s gore films where a happy ending could no longer be guaranteed. It's a brilliant film but also a depressing one to watch; nobody will come out of this with smiles on their faces (unless they're sociopaths), instead a feeling of cold sickness (your mileage may vary) similar to the gut punch of THE EXORCIST. I love this movie because of the way it paints the English countryside; an idyllic and beautiful rural landscape, packed with lush foliage and picturesque villages, accompanied by the famously lyrical 'Greensleeves' type music. Yet into this Eden comes death; painful, protracted death. It's a film which focuses on death. Death by drowning, burning, hanging. and many other varieties.

One of life's ironies is that director Michael Reeves himself died after the production of this, his last film. His career had been interesting but short-lived, but at least this and THE SORCERERS are worth seeing. Vincent Price dominates the cast as the cold-hearted Matthew Hopkins, a man you hate yet also one of his more human portrayals of a monster; there's no over-acting here, just a realistic persona of a man without a conscience and out for his own ends. Supporting him are the gleefully sadistic John (believed to be a woman in historical stories) who enjoys 'pricking witches' and Hilary Dwyer as the damsel-in-distress who undergoes rape and torture. Ian Ogilvy is surprisingly deep as the Roundhead who finds himself pushed over the edge by the murderous antics. There's just enough time for Patrick Wymark to show a convincing cameo as Cromwell himself and Rupert Davies to undergo sadism as a priest accused of conspiring with devils.

Comment has been made that the structure of this film is similar to the classic "revenge western", with Ogilvy riding through a rugged and wild landscape in search of his wife's abuser. That may be so, but the film is still unpredictable throughout, right down to the manic climax. It's an affecting piece of work that rewards close viewing and which still packs the same impact today as it did thirty years ago. Horror fans should buy immediately. Oh, and watch out for a cameo from Steptoe himself, Wilford Brambell!

Witchfinder General starts with a pair of gallows being built in a field, a woman (Gillian Aldam) accused of being a witch is dragged from a nearby village & hanged... It's 1645 & England is in the grip of a bloody civil war, on the one side there is the Royalist Party who fight for King Charles & on the other side there's the Roundheads who form Cromwell's Parlimentary Party. There is no law or order & the corrupt like Witchfinder Matthew Hopkins (Vincent Price) can hide behind the fear he commands, he takes advantage of his position & the god-fearing people he is supposed to protect & serve, Hopkins is paid for every witch he takes care of, in his own unique way, so all he does is have his equally corrupt assistant interrogator John Stearne (Robert Russell) torture a confession out of someone, pronounce them as a witch, execute them & then wait for the cash to come in. However Hopkins accuses & tortures a priest named John Lowes (Rupert Davies), his niece Sarah (Hilary Heath as Hilary Dwyer) pleads with Hopkins to spare her uncles life & even has sex with him. After Hopkins is finished with Sarah he kills her uncle anyway. Sarah's boyfriend, a Roundhead soldier named Richard Marshall (Ian Ogilvy), becomes aware of the events & sets off on a personal mission to put an end to Hopkins & his barbaric corrupt ways...

Also known as The Conqueror Worm (I have no idea what this alternate title means although I think it was a marketing ploy to associate it with the Edgar Allen Poe poem of the same name) this British production was co-written & directed by Michael Reeves & is a solid historical horror that takes itself extremely seriously but I couldn't help but feel it's a little overrated. The script by Reeves, Tom Baker & Lewis M. Heywood is based upon the novel Matthew Hopkins: Witchfinder General by Ronald Bassett from 1966. The film has a decent storyline that entertains & is more than just a collection of torture scenes as it explores various other themes most notably corruption & the abuse of power. At it's most basic, like virtually all horror films, it's just a good vs. evil scenario with the expected results. The character's are well fleshed out, unfortunately the film can drag in places especially the middle.

Director Reeves committed suicide in 1969, the year after Witchfinder General was made. The opening is great as the woman is dragged through the street's to the newly built gallows, the noose swinging in the breeze & a priest reading the bible as she is mercilessly hanged all watched by Hopkins on horseback. The film never quite reaches these atmospheric heights again. The violence & gore is disappointing so don't go into Witchfinder General thinking it's stuffed with torture scenes as it most certainly isn't. A woman is beaten in a cell, there's some gunshot wounds & a bit of splattered blood but very little else. There is some brief nudity in the full uncut version but, again, not much.

Technically Witchfinder General is very polished, the nice English countryside locations, good cinematography, good looking sets & costumes while as a whole it's well made throughout. The acting is strong by all as Price gives probably his best performance, apparently director Reeves wanted to cast Donald Pleasence but American co-financier AIP insisted on Price.

Witchfinder General is a good solid horror film with a decent story, a dark atmosphere & passes an hour and a half painlessly enough. Just don't expect the best film ever & in fact I much prefer the similarly themed film Mark of the Devil (1970). Definitely worth a watch.

It's hard to describe how much better this film is on DVD than it was on video. The original score is restored and it greatly enhances the ambiguous mood of the film, perfectly complementing the stunning photography (also more impressive in widescreen). The music and the more lyrical lovemaking scenes and pastoral exterior shots serve to form a counterpoint to the brutal and harsh subject matter. One is continually being lead to question: "what kind of movie is this?" and "why am I reacting this way to what I'm seeing?" It's possible to dismiss the film as pure exploitation but that is not my belief. I think this is a great film, and if one surrenders to it I think it's disturbing and potentially life-altering. Yet even those who feel repulsed by the story and characters will find themselves questioning the film itself and pondering its dark message about society and individuals who take advantage of others with the sanction of society.

I think that as sadistic as the film's images might seem, it is not a sadistic film. However the film does cross into some dangerous territory by choosing relatively attractive objects for the torture sessions of Matthew Hopkins (Vincent Price) and his sadistic assistant Stearne (Robert Russell). No one can deny that this is a provocative movie. But the film-makers went out of their way to establish a contrast between Hopkins and Stearne -- the assistant clearly enjoys torturing women while Hopkins' situation is more complex from a certain point of view. While his friend is a sadist, in my interpretation Hopkins himself is a psychotic who has some kind of intense repressed experiences that are leading him to do what he does (this is implied in the scene he shares with the innkeeper later in the film). As for the protagonists, extra time and effort clearly went into their conception and for the most part our focus remains on them; this is very different from most of Price's AIP/Columbia films in which the young "lead" actors are simply window dressing, whose only purpose is to make Price seem more malignant by contrast. So I would argue that the dignity of Ogilvy and Dwyer's performances distinguishes this film from most horror/exploitation fare. I also think there's more depth than usual to the antagonists – Price's character and his accomplice are never shown in such a way as to make their behavior seem glamorous, but we do feel that there's enough realism here that we can even understand why, in a climate of fear, people listened to and obeyed them. The film goes out of its way to show us how society collaborated with and encouraged Hopkins in his deeds. For example, I watched this film with 2 different people on 2 different occasions and both were shocked to see the bar-keeper intervene on behalf of Hopkins' assistant when Richard (Oglivy) tries to kill him. So the film paints a very harsh picture of society but a convincingly optimistic picture of the individual who dares to stand up to a hypocritical culture.

So much for the controversy surrounding the film's motives – people will never agree anyway and Reeves isn't here to speak for himself. I want to talk about Vincent Price's acclaimed performance. It's fascinating for me to read so many comments that refer to this as his "greatest" performance and to consider the stories that would have us believe he and Reeves did not see eye-to-eye on the style appropriate to the character. First of all, I can easily imagine that this film probably felt somewhat cheaper and more exploitative when it was being filmed than it appears when all the elements are put together. This is far from an excellent production like what Price was probably used to, but it's a case where the director had a clear concept that becomes very powerful after editing is complete. Price had appeared in quite a few exploitation films and by "hamming it up" Price managed to make such material more palatable for the audience and, one imagines, himself. But Price had never worked with Reeves before, and if Reeves truly had simply been making an exploitation/torture film (i.e. "Olga's Girls", "Ilsa the She-Wolf of the SS", etc.) then performing the role in a straightforward way would be an unmitigated disaster, and an embarrassing one. For a performance like Price's in this film to work, the director must balance all the other performers' energy to complement it as a whole -- and Reeves has indeed accomplished that here.

So was it his "greatest" performance? I would argue that it's not nearly as difficult to pull off such a straight role as it is to really nail "camp humor," as Price did in films like "The Tingler" and "The Raven," because to do that one must basically give 2 performances (humorous and scary) at the same time. Now that's not to say that just anybody could do what Price did in "Witchfinder," but for an actor of his experience and style it was relatively easy and probably relatively dull to play (which might be part of the reason he argued with Reeves). But within the context of the complete film, one could easily argue that it's a more powerful, disturbing, and effective performance than anything he accomplished in those less serious films. So while I don't feel that his performance is on a "higher level" than his previous and subsequent work, I can't deny its strength and dignity which really distinguish it from much of his work.

The whole picture has a unique look and an integrity of concept and execution which makes it a masterpiece. Its conclusion has more despair and tragedy than a film noir. The audience probably cheers as Richard attacks Hopkins but the cheering dies down to an awkward moment of horror and reflection when he just keeps hacking... and hacking…. Truly one of the most disturbing conclusions in film history.

It took me 35 years to track down a good print of this film. I saw it on the Friday night horror show when I was about 10 years old in the 70's and many of the scenes were so shocking that I was just about traumatized for life. After all this time, the movie still possesses the power to hold the viewer in a state of uncomfortable, almost nauseous horror.

The horror is not just over individual instances of cruelty and bloodshed, but of the endless injustice and lust for violence that seems bred into the human race. This, I feel, is how young director Michael Reeves really saw the world...this is the despair that he felt, given life on the screen. Is it any wonder he overdosed on sleeping pills shortly after the movie's release?

His death was certainly a tragedy, because "Conqueror Worm" is the work of a master director, whose control of image, dialog and nuance were clearly visible and just starting to come into bloom. Despite the total bleakness of the movie, there is still a beauty to it...the English countryside has rarely looked more appealing. In the midst of this pastoral vista unfolds a tale of hellish corruption and utter madness.

The film grips you from the opening scene of a witch being hung. It is portrayed with no sentiment, no sign of Hollywood fiction...it is a scene of utter brutality. The screams of the condemned witch are chilling and perhaps it can be said that no movie revolves around the agonized screams and groans of people in torment more than "The Conqueror Worm". This stark, almost cinema verite portrayal of physical violence and evil gives the movie unbelievable power and force. When John Stearne(Robert Russell, terrific as a completely barbaric thug) thrusts needles into the backs of his victims, the camera neither shrinks back or zooms in on the wounds. When Stearne himself digs a musket ball from his arm with a knife, his own scream is one of the movie's most chilling.

As Matthew Hopkins, Vincent Price is brilliantly cast. His sinister intellect and commanding presence shine through in every scene. Price knew when he could "camp up" a role...here he wisely decides to deliver a cold, measured performance. Hopkins is a reptile, a two-legged snake. He's one of those vile opportunists who takes advantage of ignorance and moral chaos to satisfy his own desires. His kind has plagued mankind since the beginning...and will continue to do so until the end of time.

Where does the real horror come from in "The Conqueror Worm"? I believe it comes from the way that the best and most decent characters are destroyed by the evil roaming Reformation England. The kind Catholic priest John Lowes, the one true Christian character of the movie who detests violence and war, is tortured, humiliated and hung by the neck. The handsome and proud soldier Richard Marshall (very well played by Ian Ogilvy)is reduced to a raging maniac by the unchecked malevolence of everything he has seen. The final scene of the film is his wife Sarah's scream of complete despair. She screams not because of her own torture or the bloody carnage around her, but because she knows Richard is now a ruined man totally unlike the one she fell in love with. That is the real triumph of evil, even though Hopkins and Stearne lie dying on the dungeon floor.

Is there any decency at all in the world of "The Conqueror Worm"? Not much, but Marshall's soldier friend Robert shows that he has not lost compassion. As Hopkins lies hacked to pieces and writhing on the floor, Robert deliver mercy to the Witchfinder by putting him out of his misery. Which only leads to more horror, as the crazed Marshall yells "You took him from me!"

Don't look for humor, hope or relief here. This is the darkest of films, transcending the horror genre and yet encapsulating everything that makes it compelling at the same time. This is one of the strongest films that you will ever see.

In 1645, against a backdrop of bloody civil war, Matthew Hopkins is a self-appointed lawyer bringing trumped-up cases against those accused of witchcraft, and pocketing hefty commissions for his so-called work. Can anybody stop this cruel murderer hiding under the pretence of law ?

Watching Witchfinder General is not a pleasant experience, but it is a very good film. As a straight depiction of the ignorance, brutality and debauchery of the late Middle Ages it is a powerful statement. As a bloody horror film it has dozens of scary and disturbing scenes. At the same time, it's strangely beautiful; Paul Ferris' lovely score counterpoints the horrible moments, and John Coquillon's exceptional photography recalls the period paintings of Rembrandt or Vermeer. Reeves eschews any comic moments or unrealistic moralising, focusing purely on trying to recreate the period accurately in his effective hybrid of revenger's tragedy and historical drama. Everyone is bad; the authorities are all corrupt, the common people are stupid sheep, women are chattels to be abused at will and merely staying alive is the only goal in life. Price is magnificently horrible and sinister in one of his most effective performances. Because of its tone and relentless violence, the film suffered greatly at the hands of the UK censor; had it been made just a few years later it would probably have survived better, although the TV print I just watched is a lovingly restored widescreen cut with all the vicious scenes tenderly spliced back in. The most astonishing thing about the movie however is that the talented Reeves was only twenty-four when he made it, an unheard of feat in the British film industry at the time. It was his third film (the other two are La Sorella Di Satana / The Sister Of Satan and The Sorcerers, both also starring Ogilvy) and tragically he died of a (probably accidental) barbiturate overdose in 1969. What could this great young filmmaker have achieved had he lived ? Based on a historical novel by Ronald Bassett (Hopkins and Stearne were both real people who wrote accounts of their work) and retitled The Conqueror Worm in the US (an odd reference to a poem which appears in Edgar Allan Poe's short story Ligeia) presumably to try and link it to the Corman/Price Poe series. A great first date movie, and good to watch as a double bill history lesson with The Elephant Man.