अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंIn 1685 England, an overzealous Lord Chancellor condemns various rebels and "witches" to satisfy his political and sexual whims, ignorant of the true consequences of his actions.In 1685 England, an overzealous Lord Chancellor condemns various rebels and "witches" to satisfy his political and sexual whims, ignorant of the true consequences of his actions.In 1685 England, an overzealous Lord Chancellor condemns various rebels and "witches" to satisfy his political and sexual whims, ignorant of the true consequences of his actions.
- Harry Selton
- (as Hans Hass)
- Inquisitor Matt
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
- Sally Gaunt
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
- Steven Truro
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
- Palafox
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
- Chief Prosecutor
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
- Jonathan Dickens
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
The Bloody Judge came out at a point when Franco was enjoying the most high profile time of his career and so this one like a few others he made at the time is pretty high budgeted by his subsequent standards. It has good locations and a fine cast and benefits from professional editing and photography as well. It was also one of several collaborations Franco had with horror stalwart Christopher Lee too. Unlike their earlier Fu Manchu collaborations, the role of the infamous Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys – aka 'The Hanging Judge' – was much better suited to Lee. He is very good as this cold central character, although he seemingly was not best pleased at all when he saw the finished film, presumably as a result of the salacious content Franco is famed for. The cast is good beyond Lee too; we have the beautiful Maria Rohm, the fine character actor Leo Genn and last but not least Franco regular Howard Vernon in a great over the top turn as a torturer/executioner.
Like Witchfinder General before it and several others too, this one is set in witch hunting times. It's a period in history peculiarly well suited to horror movies. Most costume horrors tend to be set in the later Victorian period but when we go back further into the far scarier, unenlightened years of the 1600's we are squarely in a historical period where many very horrible things occurred and it is very well suited, therefore, to horror stories. Like most historical films, this one also takes considerable liberties with the actual history to be honest. But let's be fair, lots of critically acclaimed big budget historical movies do exactly the same – Braveheart for instance – and if they can then why bother complaining if these far smaller films do a similar thing.
For my money this is one of the better Franco films out there. I think the story and central character are good ones for the treatment and the production value is good enough to pull it off. The smattering of salacious content throughout didn't do it any harm and simply added to the entertainment factor to be perfectly honest. This maybe isn't of the level of the more personal delirious Franco efforts such as Vampyros Lesbos but it's definitely one of his most well made. I enjoyed it a fair bit.
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...
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाDennis Price was originally cast as Lord Wessex, but withdrew at the last moment (he was replaced by Leo Genn). Some posters and advertising material from the time credit Price as appearing in the movie.
- गूफ़Where does one begin? There is no "County of Wessex" and the uniforms are inaccurate. The coat of arms in the court must have been drawn by a child.
- भाव
Lord George Jeffreys: You are all condemned, for crimes against king and kingdom, to hang... to dangle until you are but dead, to be then cut down still alive, to have your entrails drawn out and thrust into your own mouths, to be further hanged, then quartered like the carcasses of beef you are. You number five hundred, but even if you were five thousand, the execution of this sentence would be just before God Almighty... and may He have mercy upon your souls.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Son of Svengoolie: Night of the Blood Monster (1980)
टॉप पसंद
- How long is Night of the Blood Monster?Alexa द्वारा संचालित