A 300-year-old witch terrorizes a college town to get revenge on the descendant of the man who persecuted her.A 300-year-old witch terrorizes a college town to get revenge on the descendant of the man who persecuted her.A 300-year-old witch terrorizes a college town to get revenge on the descendant of the man who persecuted her.
Marie Santell
- The Witch
- (as Marie Santel)
Sande Drewes
- Marybeth
- (as Sande Drews)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured review
What I liked about this movie:
I don't know what film stock this was shot on, but it gives the movie a distinct look. Deep blacks and the colors haven't faded much, which is unusual for a 40-year-old movie. I assume it was done using the color process that preceded the one that was so prone to fading and that gave so many 70's movies their washed out look.
Some of the photography was quite nice, as when they're sitting around a table doing a ritual near the end.
The soundtrack, consisting of the ominous blips and drones of an analog synthesizer, was very effective, and the singsongy, a cappella piece done by Trella Hart over the opening credits was downright eerie.
The actress who played Jill (Anitra Walsh), even if I wasn't mesmerized by her performance, was a doll, which made her scenes a pleasure to watch.
On the down side, the acting was amateurish, going from the bad acting typical of low-budget movies to the two main female characters (Margery of Jourdemain and Jill) delivering overwrought monologues like they were in a stage play (good actors like Vincent Price can get away with that sort of thing in movies, but these two just came off like members of a high school drama club).
The woman who played Margery of Jourdemain (Marie Santel) was every bit as hideous as Anitra Walsh was gorgeous. With her botched nose job, she looked like Michael Jackson.
I found the story hard to follow at times and it seemed like there were holes in the plot (though maybe I missed something). I think the writers were trying to be clever by inserting unpredictable plot twists, but the execution was so poor that it just made the story incoherent. At times it seemed the filmmakers couldn't decide whether they were creating a horror movie or a comedy (a movie can be both, of course, but in this case the combination didn't work).
The movie was a mixed bag. It had good atmosphere but I had trouble getting into the story and characters. Overall, with a 5 out of 10 being the middle, I think this movie was more good than bad, so I'm giving it a 6 out of 10. I watch a lot of old horror movies and this one is more memorable than many, despite its flaws. Worth a look if it's running on TV or you see it for rent at a video store.
I don't know what film stock this was shot on, but it gives the movie a distinct look. Deep blacks and the colors haven't faded much, which is unusual for a 40-year-old movie. I assume it was done using the color process that preceded the one that was so prone to fading and that gave so many 70's movies their washed out look.
Some of the photography was quite nice, as when they're sitting around a table doing a ritual near the end.
The soundtrack, consisting of the ominous blips and drones of an analog synthesizer, was very effective, and the singsongy, a cappella piece done by Trella Hart over the opening credits was downright eerie.
The actress who played Jill (Anitra Walsh), even if I wasn't mesmerized by her performance, was a doll, which made her scenes a pleasure to watch.
On the down side, the acting was amateurish, going from the bad acting typical of low-budget movies to the two main female characters (Margery of Jourdemain and Jill) delivering overwrought monologues like they were in a stage play (good actors like Vincent Price can get away with that sort of thing in movies, but these two just came off like members of a high school drama club).
The woman who played Margery of Jourdemain (Marie Santel) was every bit as hideous as Anitra Walsh was gorgeous. With her botched nose job, she looked like Michael Jackson.
I found the story hard to follow at times and it seemed like there were holes in the plot (though maybe I missed something). I think the writers were trying to be clever by inserting unpredictable plot twists, but the execution was so poor that it just made the story incoherent. At times it seemed the filmmakers couldn't decide whether they were creating a horror movie or a comedy (a movie can be both, of course, but in this case the combination didn't work).
The movie was a mixed bag. It had good atmosphere but I had trouble getting into the story and characters. Overall, with a 5 out of 10 being the middle, I think this movie was more good than bad, so I'm giving it a 6 out of 10. I watch a lot of old horror movies and this one is more memorable than many, despite its flaws. Worth a look if it's running on TV or you see it for rent at a video store.
- le_chiffre-1
- Aug 31, 2009
- Permalink
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaWhen Alan is buying books, the cashier calls out the title "Diary of a Witch." This book by Sybil Leek was published in 1968 and is likely the title referred to.
- How long is Mark of the Witch?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime1 hour 18 minutes
- Aspect ratio
- 1.66 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content