NOTE IMDb
6,7/10
13 k
MA NOTE
Un jeune soldat cherche à mettre fin aux maux causés par un cruel chasseur de sorcières lorsque ce dernier terrorise sa fiancée et tue son oncle.Un jeune soldat cherche à mettre fin aux maux causés par un cruel chasseur de sorcières lorsque ce dernier terrorise sa fiancée et tue son oncle.Un jeune soldat cherche à mettre fin aux maux causés par un cruel chasseur de sorcières lorsque ce dernier terrorise sa fiancée et tue son oncle.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 victoire et 2 nominations au total
Hilary Heath
- Sara
- (as Hilary Dwyer)
John Trenaman
- Trooper Harcourt
- (as John Treneman)
Gillian Aldam
- Young Woman in Cell
- (as Gillian Aldham)
Avis à la une
A powerful and unsettling film which is definitely not for the weak - kneed. Not easy to watch in some parts. But the mid-17th century was a turbulent time in British history with a civil war raging and the foul menace of devil worship festering throughout the countrysyde.
All the players do a fine job. Although, Vincent Price is, of course, the stand-out performer. No other actor was able to portray genuine evil quite as effectively. There's no high camp fooling around in this one. What a brilliant talent he was.
The music in this picture also deserves a special mention, particularly the opening theme which magnificently recreates an appropriate 17th century mood. Michael Reeves sheer production skill overcame the limitations of what was obviously a tight budget.
I believe that the 1960s was the golden era of English cinema and television. Check the internet for extensive biographical information on the real Matthew Hopkins- WITCHFINDER.
All the players do a fine job. Although, Vincent Price is, of course, the stand-out performer. No other actor was able to portray genuine evil quite as effectively. There's no high camp fooling around in this one. What a brilliant talent he was.
The music in this picture also deserves a special mention, particularly the opening theme which magnificently recreates an appropriate 17th century mood. Michael Reeves sheer production skill overcame the limitations of what was obviously a tight budget.
I believe that the 1960s was the golden era of English cinema and television. Check the internet for extensive biographical information on the real Matthew Hopkins- WITCHFINDER.
With England in a civil war, Captain Richard Marshall is just one of many soldiers earning his money killing the Royalist rebels. Home from service briefly, Marshall stays with a priest and his wife-to-be Sarah Lowes but soon heads off. On his way out of the area he meets lawyer Matthew Hopkins, who has been called in by locals to help with some matters. Thinking nothing Marshall rides on having directed Hopkins correctly but only later he learns that Hopkins is more a witch-hunter than a lawyer and that the very "devil" that he has gone to town to unmask is none other than Lowes.
Although I was familiar with the title I had neither heard anything good or bad about this film or ever managed to see it myself. With a recent screening on late night television in the UK I decided to give it a twirl and found much to like from the very opening credits where a hung woman gives way to a title credits sequence of wonderfully captured faces in various states of pain and/or terror. The imaginative air to these visuals continues even as the film settles down to deliver the story and the whole affair has a great colour and hue to it, using some visual effects to improve some shots. Reeves (who, at 23, probably never expected this to be his last film) uses the English countryside to great effect and summons up a great sense of period as well as contrasting it powerfully with the fear and violence of Hopkins' deeds.
The plot threatens to be a poor device to show this history in gory detail but generally it works well enough because it makes the characters and the actions as important as the specific story involving Marshall. This moves along well but generally it is Hopkins and his quest that holds the interest because it is essentially evil and cruel factors that the film brings out very well while observing the slight touch of glee from Hopkins that accompanies the cruel deaths. This is greatly helped by a superbly cruel turn from Price who dominates the film and makes his scenes the best. Ogilvy has a lesser role but is still very good despite not having the material given to Price. Support from Russell, Heath and others is mostly good apart from one or two bum notes in small areas the victims are convincing which was important to make the horrors convincing.
Overall an impacting little film that has a basic plot but greatly benefits from the cruelty of the piece, strong direction and good performances led by a great Price. Dated a touch but still quite shocking, interesting and worth seeing.
Although I was familiar with the title I had neither heard anything good or bad about this film or ever managed to see it myself. With a recent screening on late night television in the UK I decided to give it a twirl and found much to like from the very opening credits where a hung woman gives way to a title credits sequence of wonderfully captured faces in various states of pain and/or terror. The imaginative air to these visuals continues even as the film settles down to deliver the story and the whole affair has a great colour and hue to it, using some visual effects to improve some shots. Reeves (who, at 23, probably never expected this to be his last film) uses the English countryside to great effect and summons up a great sense of period as well as contrasting it powerfully with the fear and violence of Hopkins' deeds.
The plot threatens to be a poor device to show this history in gory detail but generally it works well enough because it makes the characters and the actions as important as the specific story involving Marshall. This moves along well but generally it is Hopkins and his quest that holds the interest because it is essentially evil and cruel factors that the film brings out very well while observing the slight touch of glee from Hopkins that accompanies the cruel deaths. This is greatly helped by a superbly cruel turn from Price who dominates the film and makes his scenes the best. Ogilvy has a lesser role but is still very good despite not having the material given to Price. Support from Russell, Heath and others is mostly good apart from one or two bum notes in small areas the victims are convincing which was important to make the horrors convincing.
Overall an impacting little film that has a basic plot but greatly benefits from the cruelty of the piece, strong direction and good performances led by a great Price. Dated a touch but still quite shocking, interesting and worth seeing.
England, the 1600s. The country is torn apart by civil war, and bloodshed has become commonplace. Matthew Hopkins (Vincent Price) rides from village to village, torturing accused witches until they confess. In a medieval era of warring armies and naive peasants, Hopkins makes a lucrative living from others' misery. His judicial system is particularly gruesome: the accused are dropped in the river – if they drown, they are innocent; if they float, then they are witches and must be hanged. At first, it is difficult to accept that such barbarism could exist in human society, but even more frightening is the realisation that civilisation hasn't really progressed all that much since then: consider the African-American lynchings in the American South, which continued well into the 1960s. Michael Reeves' 'Witchfinder General (1968)' is a horror film of the highest order, stripped of titillating thrills and left to wallow in the vulgarity of human nature. For U.S. release, the film was retitled "The Conqueror Worm" to capitalise on Price's fruitful association with Roger Corman's Poe adaptations.
'Witchfinder General (1968)' was gleefully advertised as "The Year's Most Violent Film!," and that doesn't seem far off the mark. However, despite depicting in gruelling detail the torture and execution of innocent victims, the film isn't exploitative – Reeves does not revel in bloodshed, as does the sadistic thug John Stearne (Robert Russell), but damningly condemns it. On its original release, many critics were disgusted with the film's content, much as they had been years earlier by Michael Powell's lurid psycho-thriller 'Peeping Tom (1960).' Fortunately, the film does boast the ever-reliable presence of horror maestro Vincent Price, who manages to keep the film feeling respectable. Proving his versatility as an actor, Price's performance is surprisingly understated; perhaps he felt that the subject matter was already macabre enough, without the need for his own unique vocal flourishes. Indeed, far from being frightening, Matthew Hopkins comes across as little more than a methodical businessman, his moral quandaries not necessarily absent, but merely set aside to make room for his wages.
Perhaps the critics' rejection of 'Witchfinder General' has something to do with the accusatory manner in which Reeves frames the violence, capturing the executions, not from a moral high-horse, but as one of the curious spectators who circles around to gawk at the morbid spectacle of murder. Reeves focuses on the faces of the on-lookers, which boast an uncomfortable mingling of sadness and fascination. Matthew Hopkins is an opportunist making a living, but these are the people who allow, and even facilitate, the brutal torture of their neighbours. In this way, 'Witchfinder General' describes a crucial facet of human behaviour, how war and conflict can erode the morals of society. Hopkins' career as a witch-hunter thrived during the English Civil War (1641-1651), which saw the Parliamentarians and Royalists grapple for ruling power, and left citizens with tattered notions of moral rectitude. It's telling that, above all the scenes of bloodied violence, the film's most harrowing moment, for me, was when a villager witnesses a woman being raped, and simply turns his back.
'Witchfinder General (1968)' was gleefully advertised as "The Year's Most Violent Film!," and that doesn't seem far off the mark. However, despite depicting in gruelling detail the torture and execution of innocent victims, the film isn't exploitative – Reeves does not revel in bloodshed, as does the sadistic thug John Stearne (Robert Russell), but damningly condemns it. On its original release, many critics were disgusted with the film's content, much as they had been years earlier by Michael Powell's lurid psycho-thriller 'Peeping Tom (1960).' Fortunately, the film does boast the ever-reliable presence of horror maestro Vincent Price, who manages to keep the film feeling respectable. Proving his versatility as an actor, Price's performance is surprisingly understated; perhaps he felt that the subject matter was already macabre enough, without the need for his own unique vocal flourishes. Indeed, far from being frightening, Matthew Hopkins comes across as little more than a methodical businessman, his moral quandaries not necessarily absent, but merely set aside to make room for his wages.
Perhaps the critics' rejection of 'Witchfinder General' has something to do with the accusatory manner in which Reeves frames the violence, capturing the executions, not from a moral high-horse, but as one of the curious spectators who circles around to gawk at the morbid spectacle of murder. Reeves focuses on the faces of the on-lookers, which boast an uncomfortable mingling of sadness and fascination. Matthew Hopkins is an opportunist making a living, but these are the people who allow, and even facilitate, the brutal torture of their neighbours. In this way, 'Witchfinder General' describes a crucial facet of human behaviour, how war and conflict can erode the morals of society. Hopkins' career as a witch-hunter thrived during the English Civil War (1641-1651), which saw the Parliamentarians and Royalists grapple for ruling power, and left citizens with tattered notions of moral rectitude. It's telling that, above all the scenes of bloodied violence, the film's most harrowing moment, for me, was when a villager witnesses a woman being raped, and simply turns his back.
I had been wanting to see 'Witchfinder General' for years, and I must say it almost lives up to its reputation. The version I watched was the restored uncut one, and while I thought the film had one or two slight flaws (mainly with the script), it is very, very good. This was the third and final movie directed by Michael Reeves, who sadly died of a drug overdose a year after it was released while still in his mid twenties. 'Witchfinder General' certainly shows a lot of promise, and is very well made on what I imagine was a fairly modest budget. Many describe it as a horror movie, but I think thriller is a more apt term. While it has some brutal and violent moments, and it does concern witches, there is no supernatural theme. It is similar in many ways to the underrated 'Mark Of The Devil' and Jess Franco's disappointing 'The Bloody Judge', two movies released after this one, and undoubtedly influenced by it. Horror legend Vincent Price clashed with Reeves on set with the latter telling him not to ham it up. Price took offence at this but obviously heeded the advice, and his performance here is arguably the best of his career. Price is brilliant throughout, and the supporting cast are all pretty good, especially Reeves regular Ian Ogilvy, and Robert Russell as Price's surly assistant, and there's a good cameo from Patrick Wymark ('Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun') as Cromwell. 'Witchfinder General' is a very good film which deserves to be seen by a wider audience, and Michael Reeves death is a tragedy for all movie lovers.
Like "The Devils", "Witchfinder General" (also called "The Conqueror Worm") is likely to disturb a lot of people through it's portrayals of witch hunts. This one portrays England during its civil war in the 1640s. With the people paranoid enough to accept anyone, puritan Matthew Hopkins (Vincent Price) goes around coercing witchcraft confessions out of women, and summarily executing them in the most vicious ways possible.
Things get ugly when Hopkins targets priest John Lowes (Rupert Davies). You see, Lowes' niece Sarah (Hilary Dwyer) is engaged to Cromwell soldier Richard Marshall (Ian Ogilvy). And Marshall may have a heart of gold, but he will go to any length to protect his beloved. And I mean ANY LENGTH.
Vincent Price was always a trustworthy horror star, and this movie doesn't disappoint. It's certainly worth seeing, but you might want to avoid it if you have a weak stomach.
Things get ugly when Hopkins targets priest John Lowes (Rupert Davies). You see, Lowes' niece Sarah (Hilary Dwyer) is engaged to Cromwell soldier Richard Marshall (Ian Ogilvy). And Marshall may have a heart of gold, but he will go to any length to protect his beloved. And I mean ANY LENGTH.
Vincent Price was always a trustworthy horror star, and this movie doesn't disappoint. It's certainly worth seeing, but you might want to avoid it if you have a weak stomach.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesVincent Price regarded his performance here as the finest of his horror movie career.
- GaffesThere are several references to the value of payments in 'guineas'. However, the gold coin of that name was not minted until 1663, eighteen years after the film was set.
- Citations
Matthew Hopkins: Men sometimes have strange motives for the things they do.
- Versions alternativesAll British versions prior to 1996 were cut by 1 min 26 secs by the UK censor on original release. The Redemption Video release restores this material from a U.S laserdisc.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Nightwatch Presents Edgar Allan Poe: The Conqueror Worm (1973)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Witchfinder General
- Lieux de tournage
- Kentwell Hall, Long Melford, Suffolk, Angleterre, Royaume-Uni(The trial of the witches/John Lowes is hung)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 83 000 £GB (estimé)
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Le Grand Inquisiteur (1968) officially released in India in English?
Répondre