El proceso de las brujas

Christopher Lee is tremendous as the pompous, perverse sadist, Judge George Jeffries. Lee and Director Jess Franco battled over the way in which Jeffries should be presented, with Lee wanting a more historically accurate approach, while Franco -of course!- wanted a more salacious portrayal. Well, they both won... sort of.

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...

This film is an unique thing. Being possibly the best of B-category Franco's movies, this one is very hard to find in Russia. And I guess only Franco's true fans and the lovers of the costume movies (like me)really have any reason to search for it.

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.

"The Bloody Judge" is unquestionably one of Jess Franco's finest accomplishments, and there are several elements that contributed to this. First of all, Christopher Lee depicts another unforgettably mean-spirited and frightening horror protagonist. This doesn't always guarantee a great movie, mind you, as Franco and Lee previously collaborated to make a couple of sequels in the Fu Manchu series, and they were dreadfully boring films. The character of medieval witch hunter Judge Jeffries clearly suits Lee a whole lot better than the oddly mustached oriental master-criminal and his performance confirms this. Secondly, for one of the few times during his entire career, Jess Franco could actually rely on a decent budget! There was enough money for fancy costumes and atmospheric scenery, and even the editing and cinematography were clearly handled professionally. Finally, you can hardly go wrong with the subject matter of medieval witch-hunting, political corruptness, vile torture footage and robust executions. Although clearly inspired by the popularity of "Witchfinder General" (starring Vincent Price), "The Bloody Judge" contains more than enough own ideas and ingenuity to be considered as a success in its own right. The film opens with the extended and compelling trial of a young girl accused of witchcraft, leading to her relentless execution burning at the stake. The long opening adequately introduces the character of Judge Jeffries, but the actual plot only unfolds after this. The executed girl's sister flees up the country and falls in love with the son of an eminent politician, who also happens to rebel against the corrupt English crown. The obsessive Judge Jeffries orders his followers to capture all the rebels and submit them to torture, but the army of William of Orange is slowly approaching England to conquer the crown. The amounts of graphic violence and – especially – gratuitous sleaze are admirably kept rather low, and this in favor of character development and tension building. Naturally, there are a handful of brutal sequences on display (notably the "interrogation" of poor Alicia) but "The Bloody Judge" is mainly story & atmosphere-driven. Franco regular Howard Vernon (Dr. Orloff!) has a small but terrific role as the sneering executioner Ketch. Like another reviewer already stated, Vernon here strangely resembles Marty Feldman when he played Igor in "Young Frankenstein". Maria Rohm is enticing and beautiful as ever playing Mary or "that wench" as people insist on referring to her. "The Bloody Judge" is a good film that easily deserves a spot in my Jess Franco top five, alongside "The Diabolical Dr. Z", "The Awful Dr. Orloff", "Faceless" and "Love Letters of a Portuguese Nun".

I saw this for the first time recently. Aint no fan of Franco's films but Lee's name was sufficient for one time viewing. The film is boring and apart from Lee's performance, there is only tons of unnecessary sadism n torture. The plot is about a judge who condemns women as witches and rebels as traitors on a regular basis. The film's lead actress Maria Rohm looks a bit similar to Rachel Weisz. Generous with a 4 only cos of Lee's presence n Howard Vernon's phantom outfit.

Along with Witchfinder General (1968), The Bloody Judge was part of a small subset of films from the late 60's / early 70's that can best be described as historical horror movies. In these we have a true historical subject which is played up in such a way that it crosses over into the territory of the horror film. Seeing as this was a point in time where there was a plethora of period set costume horror flicks anyway, I suppose it makes a lot of sense that these films were made too. Like a lot of continental offerings from the period, this one throws in a lot of sadistic torture, nudity and sleaze as well and so covers the erotic horror sub-genre too. This is hardly surprising when you take into account that its director was the legendary Jesus Franco who was something of an expert at this kind of thing.

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.