It would be mostly fine if it only cared about itself.
In addition to writing, directing, and editing alongside Claude Alexander, Larry Buchanan also served as producer (and cinematographer) for this movie, distributed by "Alexander Enterprises." One man or the other - I assume Buchanan - was responsible for the decision to have the actual film preceded by a narrated prologue of almost eight and one-half minutes giving a(n incomplete) history of witches and witchcraft. Even generously recognizing that this was a low-budget B-movie made of, by, in, around, and for Texas, to fill nearly one-sixth of the runtime thusly is simply perplexing. Robert Short's continued pervasive voiceovers as the unnamed protagonist are hardly any less perplexing. For that matter, 'The naked witch' clearly takes most of its cues from movies and TV shows of another era, and the proceedings are sterilized in a way that will pointedly dampen most genuine meaning of the word "horror." The pacing is also astoundingly sluggish as it is longer still before any plot truly shows up; before you know it the feature is more than half over.
I won't say when the titular figure first makes an appearance in the active narrative, but suffice to say that it is later than you think. Whatever it is you think you're going to get out of a picture labeled as "horror," the quantity and quality you'll get out of 'The naked witch' are decidedly low. In fairness, extra abbreviated as the actual tale is, all the same the right parts are here: a witch, a return from the grave, murder, enchantment. Why, plentiful fare has been made with much the same narrative ingredients. The problem is that Buchanan and Alexander pad out as much of the small length as possible with anything but plot - the prologue, more exposition, gratuitous nudity, deliberately slothful or extended execution of scenes, long shots highlighting the admittedly beautiful landscapes, and more. If you're here for a familiar story, you'll get it, but one should perhaps just stick with other flicks with that familiar story, because the iteration here is wildly underrepresented, and just plain treated poorly. There are good ideas here, sure; only, they're relegated to a fraction of the runtime.
For what it's worth, the "effects" that are employed, though modest, are decent enough. The cast of inexperienced nonprofessionals aptly play their parts, with Libby Hall especially leaning into the chewing of scenery as the witch. Humble as it may present - all too little of these sixty minutes, and with some inclusions that raise a skeptical eyebrow - the tale is enjoyable in and of itself. So many of the choices that were made here, however, plainly reduce the lasting value of the production, and ultimately it's not even a question of tone (rather light), or how the genre elements are handled. (For the record, on a spectrum for horror that broadly ranges from "kid's gloves" to "See Everything," this is on the gentler and less impactful side.) It's just that the basic premise that one might use to describe the film pertains to so small a part of the whole. So there's that.
There are far worse ways to spend one hour of your time, but in 2023, the truth of the matter is that there's not much reason to spend time with 'The naked witch' in the first place. Alas.
I won't say when the titular figure first makes an appearance in the active narrative, but suffice to say that it is later than you think. Whatever it is you think you're going to get out of a picture labeled as "horror," the quantity and quality you'll get out of 'The naked witch' are decidedly low. In fairness, extra abbreviated as the actual tale is, all the same the right parts are here: a witch, a return from the grave, murder, enchantment. Why, plentiful fare has been made with much the same narrative ingredients. The problem is that Buchanan and Alexander pad out as much of the small length as possible with anything but plot - the prologue, more exposition, gratuitous nudity, deliberately slothful or extended execution of scenes, long shots highlighting the admittedly beautiful landscapes, and more. If you're here for a familiar story, you'll get it, but one should perhaps just stick with other flicks with that familiar story, because the iteration here is wildly underrepresented, and just plain treated poorly. There are good ideas here, sure; only, they're relegated to a fraction of the runtime.
For what it's worth, the "effects" that are employed, though modest, are decent enough. The cast of inexperienced nonprofessionals aptly play their parts, with Libby Hall especially leaning into the chewing of scenery as the witch. Humble as it may present - all too little of these sixty minutes, and with some inclusions that raise a skeptical eyebrow - the tale is enjoyable in and of itself. So many of the choices that were made here, however, plainly reduce the lasting value of the production, and ultimately it's not even a question of tone (rather light), or how the genre elements are handled. (For the record, on a spectrum for horror that broadly ranges from "kid's gloves" to "See Everything," this is on the gentler and less impactful side.) It's just that the basic premise that one might use to describe the film pertains to so small a part of the whole. So there's that.
There are far worse ways to spend one hour of your time, but in 2023, the truth of the matter is that there's not much reason to spend time with 'The naked witch' in the first place. Alas.
- I_Ailurophile
- Sep 4, 2023