Sorcière

Not very impressed with this.

A woman is accused of witchcraft while struggling in the aftermath of her husband committing suicide.

This story, setting and effects need some work. I assume this is a film that had a smaller budget but some of the small things that bugged me didn't seem like they would've been too much of an expense. Let's start with how incredibly clean this supposed plague infested town was. Sure, there were some corpses here and there and there were rats but the streets were clean, the establishments were clean and it just totally lacked realism. Where were the wagon and horse worn, muddy streets? Where was the hay, dirt and come to think of it why were the rats so clean? Why was our main actress's face always impeccable? I'm sorry but I just take issue with these things. On terms of all it lacked in this regard, it seemed more like I was watching a stage play.

The effects were CGI stuff and, well, you could tell it.

I wanted to like this so much more but it just fell really short of being worth a lot of investment. The only thing that makes me give it 3 Stars is the fact that I have seen worse.

This is an ok film, certainly not a 1/10! I really like Neil Marshall films, The Descent, Doomsday, Dog Soldiers, you can always feel the common directorial style.

It's not a patch on these but it's still reasonable and definitely worth a watch. Sean Pertwee as the witchfinder is terrific, let's face it he's always consistently good.

You could say this is a bit of a modern day reboot of The Witchfinder General with Vincent Price. The lead actress is pretty good, as is pretty much the whole cast. I won't say too much, just watch it and enjoy it.

Yup, this is a bad film, made worse because it clearly had a decent budget, films with a quarter of the budget are better. First our lead speaks as if she has just left RADA, her make-up and hair are all neatly done. The clothes she wears are all machine stitched, not to mention always clean, surprisingly difficult living on a farm in 1665.

It carries on like that throughout the film. The dialogue is appalling, so bad you wonder if a child wrote it. As for the story, well it's laughable bad. However it's the acting that is cringe worthy, Charlotte Kirk is rancid bad and is only in the role as her other-half is director Neil Marshall. If the name does ring-a-bell, Kirk is the 'actress' who had affairs with the CEO of Warner Bros and Vice-Chairman of NBCUniversal.

To think this is the same director who gave us Dog Soldiers, how times change.

Maybe it's because the majority of the cast are relatively unknown, that this film doesn't get the recognition it deserves...but this film is solid. I totally understand that we all perceive movies differently...but giving this movie a 1/10 is just bizarre!

It looks and sounds great...in fact, the score is amazing. Even the music for the closing credits is excellent! A strong female lead and a good supporting cast.

The only issue I have is that for a film set in the 1600's, sometimes the actors say things/behave in a way that's straight out of the 21st century! I won't spoil it and say what these things were, but they certainly seem out of place...and if you're really watching, you'll notice it too.

Overall I really enjoyed it. I'm not really a fan of films set in medieval times, but this and 'A Knight's Tale' are certainly mould breakers.

I truly don't understand the negativity on this film. Everything about it is 70's Hammer horror films! I loved it. It's fun and very gothic. The movie this one is shamelessly patterned after (witchfinder general wirh Vincent price) is essentially the same story only more graphic. Lol! I had fun, I don't care what anyone else says.