Watch Witchfinder General For Free

Pretty Good

Best movie ever!

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

The ancient past sure is gruesome and evil and Witchfinder General shows a very accurate portrayal of the Witchcraft Trials, the law back then was very flawed and was exploited to the point of which anyone can be accused of witchcraft if one person didn't like the other person or in this case the Witchfinder earning big money just by accusing innocent people, torturing them and then finish them off by executing them. Vincent Price playing as the evil Witchfinder General Matthew Hopkins does a fantastic job as the central villain, he's absolutely ruthless and cunning as he is essentially above the law, a very lawful evil character.Although I was kind of expecting more like hundreds of people being burned alive considering that this is one of the many films my mother couldn't sit through watching as to how gruesome and near to the reality of the past it is. Never the less it's a pretty good horror film.

Little is known of the real Matthew Hopkins, although when he died August 12, 1647 he was not yet thirty, less than half the age of the actor chosen to play him here, but Vincent Price built his career on horror films in which he played bad guys as well as good ones. Price was at his peak when this film was made, and such was his screen presence that his age was no more a barrier than his faintly discernible American accent. Although this film was of course made as a commercial venture, it was clearly intended to make a social point, one that appears to have been ignored dismally in view of the witch-hunts we have seen since its release: Cleveland, Rochdale and latterly "Operation Yewtree" on this side of the Atlantic; McMartin and Bakersfield on the other side. Among others.Undoubtedly "Witchfinder General" includes a fair amount of poetic licence; the real Matthew Hopkins died a natural death after writing a book about his dark profession. It is also unlikely he used his position to trade the sexual favours of comely wenches, but if you ever had any doubts as to how low a human being can sink in the service of the state, this film is as good a reminder as any.

Remembered now for the fact that it was helmed by Michael Reeves - who was only 24 at the time, and would later kill himself of a drug overdose, thereby curtailing a promising career - THE WITCHFINDER GENERAL is a low-budget Gothic movie notable for a scene-chewing performance by Vincent Price in the title role. Shot in the flat wastelands of Bury St. Edmunds in the east of England, the film is notable for its use of atmospherics - the stark branches of the trees shot against a uniformly gray sky, the wan sunsets of a winter's day signaling the onset of night. Cinematically speaking, Reeves makes considerable use of the zoom for dramatic effect; together with Paul Ferris' otherworldly music, it helps to create a world in which concepts of 'right' and 'wrong,' 'piety' and 'blasphemy' have been overturned. Everyone must try to fend for themselves, and only the fittest - in this case Matthew Hopkins (Price) survive.The film's historical setting - during the darkest days of the English Civil War - is merely a pretext for Reeves to conduct a searching analysis of the latent violence lurking beneath any so- called 'civilized' society. Taking advantage of the relaxed censorship environment prevailing in the late Sixties, he includes some gruesome moments - as, for example, at the beginning, when a limb of a hanging victim is shown being roasted over an open fire. This is a LORD OF THE FLIES-type world in which human beings have been reduced to savages under the cloak of religious zeal; despite his apparently civilized exterior, the Witchfinder-General is perhaps the most extreme example of this. Although vanquished in the end - and Price handles his demise with all the élan characteristic of his earlier horror film roles, notably in the Corman/Poe cycle during the early Sixties - his legacy lives on; the world is not restored to 'normality.'Although produced during an era of significant social change, THE WITCHFINDER GENERAL is actually a misogynist piece. Women are either represented as virgins or whores, to be protected - or more commonly abused - by men. The opening sequence sets the tone, as an innocent victim (Ann Tirard) is pulled along the ground, screaming all the while, and brutally hanged Thereafter women are shown in sexually provocative positions, or else framed in close-up trying to assume a position of sexual attraction in order to gull Matthew. This is a strategy used by Sara (Hilary Dwyer) later on.THE WITCHFINDER GENERAL is an entertaining piece - anything with Price in the leading role is bound to have its attractive features - but it is very much of its time, a product of the so-called 'Swinging Sixties.'

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