El proceso de las brujas

First of all, "Night Of The Blood Monster", is a stupid and misleading title. "Bloody Judge" is exactly what the excellent Christopher Lee portraits in this big budget (yeah, Jess Franco with money!?!) witch hunting flick. The plot is almost the same as "Mark Of The Devil" and "Witchfinder General", also from that period. It's beautifully shot and filled with impressive battle scenes and lots of politics (based on a true story!). If you see the uncut LBX version you'll get a sleaze-o-rama of torture, nudity, whipping etc. Franco regular Howard Vernon is over-the-top as the chief torturer (made me think of Marty Feldman in "Young Frankenstein"!). Franco and Lee should be proud of this film, think of that when you're watching Franco-bombs like "Golden Temple Amazons" and "Man Hunter". Vintage Euro-horror at it's best!

This is actually one of Jess Franco's better films; a relatively high budget goes a long way in creating some authentic locations and costumes in this historical drama. The film is also refreshingly free (well, not totally) of the pointless zoom shots of which Franco was so proud. The original title was NIGHT OF THE BLOOD MONSTER, but as there are no monsters involved, it seems to bear little relation to the film and THE BLOODY JUDGE is indeed far more apt. Christopher Lee plays the cruel judge who has blood on his hands as he finds all suspected witches guilty and sends them to be burnt alive.

The film is very similar storyline to WITCHFINDER GENERAL, an obvious influence, as well as MARK OF THE DEVIL. The film has a lot going in its favour, but ultimately it fails to be a masterpiece due to the confusing editing and disjointed feel to the whole thing. While the threadbare plot is nothing new, it gives ample opportunity for Franco to delight in what he likes best: naked women, and plenty of torture scenes, including a woman being whipped and (the most wince-inducing) a bloodied woman stretched on the rack.

Christopher Lee gives a tour-de-force performance in the title role and he's perfectly cast as the cruel, tyrannical lawman. His portrayal of the corrupt and seemingly powerful leader who is plagued by inner demons is an insightful one. Lee is surrounded by some top Euro crumpet, indeed Franco fills out the cast with lots of beautiful women who get variously tortured and murdered. Franco favourite Howard Vernon enjoys himself as an executioner.

Those who enjoyed the aforementioned classic with Vincent Price will be sure to delight in this very similar film. Attention to detail is surprisingly thorough, and the costumes and sets are brilliant. Without the grisly torture sequences the film would be an interesting, engaging historical story of a barbaric time in Britain, but with them, it becomes an accurate portrayal of the violent and perverse state that the country was in. Worth seeing for Lee's memorable performance alone, this may not be a very good film, but it's definitely better than you might have come to expect from exploitation king Franco.

This film is an unique thing. Being possibly the best of B-category Franco's movies, this one is very hard to find in Russia. And I guess only Franco's true fans and the lovers of the costume movies (like me)really have any reason to search for it.

Nevertheless, this film could be worse if not Christopher Lee. The man destined to play fantastic villains all his life now was playing a real historic villain (was the real Judge Jeffreys a villain? I think not but Jess Franco used another version). But Lee was ready to play in a HISTORIC movie, and instead of it he was to perform a horror show. Although his performance in this role was a very good one, he was disappointed and detested and told later he doesn't want any credits for this film.

There are some very rough mistakes (or special changes) in the movie: 1) The date is missed. The year 1685 was the real time of Monmouth rebellion, but the events destroying James II' and Jeffreys' power, has happened only 4 years later, in 1688-89, and called "Glorious Revolution". 2) Sir George Jeffreys really has died in the Tower of London - but of stone, not of a heart-attack as it's shown. 3) Jeffreys, how good or bad he was, has never been neither womanizer nor witch-hunter. Moreover he did all he could to prevent death sentences to alleged witches. And there was nothing to suggest that he had a mistress or used the arrested women for his lust. It is nothing but a profanation. 4) There were NO witch hunt in later 1680's in England. Even the few who was charged were mostly acquitted. The horrible things shown in film as Ketch's work were used normally in Scotland, not England.

Christopher Lee is tremendous as the pompous, perverse sadist, Judge George Jeffries. Lee and Director Jess Franco battled over the way in which Jeffries should be presented, with Lee wanting a more historically accurate approach, while Franco -of course!- wanted a more salacious portrayal. Well, they both won... sort of.

Lee played his part fairly straight, unaware of the lurid, gory, and demented stuff that Franco added later! So, the finished product is a historical drama with nudity, blood, and graphic torture.

Mr. Lee refused to watch it, not being a fan of anything graphic or gratuitous. Franco followers know what to expect, but those expecting a typical period piece or costume drama are in for a shock! Special mention must be made of the breathtaking Maria Rohm, who is the object of THE BLOODY JUDGE's carnal desires. Also, watch for Franco regular, Howard Vernon as Jack Ketch, the torturer in-chief...

Christopher Lee plays Welsh Judge Jeffries (who was in fact a real judge back in the 17th Century in England) in this Jesus Franco directed horror-biography from 1970. He was known as "The Hanging Judge" and would convict with a heavy strike from his gavel. Lee does quite a fine job in the lead role and almost all on his own leans me toward recommending this one, but alas it is close, but no cigar on this one. As I mentioned earlier directed by the late Jesus Franco and over his career I would commend him on the amount of work he ended up directed and writing, even though at the time of writing this review I have seen 3 of his pictures and none of them I really liked or would recommend to anyone. This one was the best as his I have seen to date. The personal problem I had with this movie was at times (always happens when Lee was not on screen) I would get bored. It became too talky and not enough action for me. Although to me the 3rd act was the best and does pick up, but wasn't enough for me.