User reviews

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.

They've decided you're not welcome around here, so they've called for the Witchfinder to appear, to confirm that you're a witch, they will probe and make you twitch, before you're drowned, then tightly bound, to burn in fear. It's a great way for a psychopath to live, by taking lives, he feels he has so much to give, if you challenge him you're tried, but he'll never be denied, as he connives, concocts, contrives, but won't forgive.

The barbaric days of 17th century England, as the brutality of the Church is brought to bear on those deviating from expected norms, brilliantly executed by Vincent Price.

Matthew Hopkins was a self proclaimed Witchfinder who started his career in 1644 in Essex, England. In a three year career he is estimated to have killed between 200 and 400 "witches". The Witchfinder General (The Conqueror Worm) is a movie based on his success as a prosecutor of witches.

Witchfinder General is an interesting movie in that it is part horror, part melodrama, part historical epic. Vincent Price has one of his finest and most effective roles ever as Matthew Hopkins in this 1968 British Classic. The movie was renamed The Conqueror Worm for U.S. audiences to try and take advantage of Price's fame from Roger Corman's Edgar Allen Poe inspired series of movies. Except for reading part of the poem The Conqueror Worm during the ending credits, the movie has nothing to do with Poe.

The basic story is common enough for this sub-genre of horror movies: There is an abusive official who accuses and prosecutes alleged witches for his own personal gain and personal power trips. There are two other fine British films from this time period that deal with the same subject matter, The Devils by Kurt Russell and Mark of the Devil starring Herbert Lom. All three are well made and effective, but Witchfinder General is the darkest of the bunch. The tortures are all brutal and unnerving to watch and there is a lot of screaming in this movie. Price plays Hopkins as overbearing and cold bloodedly cruel. He allows a woman to submit to him sexually to prevent someone from being killed, then tortures and murders the guy anyway, and then later has her tortured and murdered for being a witch. What a guy!

The director of this movie was the young and upcoming Michael Reeves who unfortunately committed suicide in 1969, not long after this movie was released. There was a well known feud of sorts between Reeves and the star, Vincent Price. At one point Price is reputed to have said to the 25 year old director: "I have made over 70 films, what have you done?" with a reply from Reeves: "I have made three good ones". Perhaps the tension between director and star helped to make this the dark and humorless film that it is. Even 34 years after it's release, it still holds up as a beautifully made movie that hardly looks of feels dated at all. The period movies that Price was making with Roger Corman a few years before this film was made, while still excellent in many respects, are obviously a product of the 60's.

Unfortunately this movie has not been released in the U.S. on dvd. There is a British release that includes a documentary on Michael Reeves, but for now in America all we have is the MGM midnight movie video release. This film also appears on AMC now and again, and in fact, I just watched it on that channel yesterday.

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.

Without the use of monsters or other worldly apparitions Vincent Price in Witchfinder General created a fabulous portrayal with Matthew Hopkins. The demons that were within Hopkins are those we struggle with every day when others tell us how and what to think. And religious fundamentalism with the power of the state to enforce it is still a force to be reckoned with. Even here in the USA.

The setting is Great Britain of the civil war era with Roundheads and Cavaliers battling for control. The Roundheads being Puritans were the ones doing the inquisiting there and Price is only a person too glad to offer his services.

In fact in every society when one wants an orthodoxy enforced there are always people psychologically deranged enough for such work. Price works with a partner in Robert Russell who's a little bit more honest about the fact he's a sadist. He grates on Price a bit, but the two find a lot of mutual satisfaction.

A lot of the same themes can be found in the Tyrone Power classic Captain From Castile only it's the Catholics enforcing their doctrine in that one.

Here Price in his work debauches the girlfriend of Roundhead soldier Ian Ogilvy and when he finds out he becomes a man with a mission.

Witchfinder General is a study in sadism and with an eternal message about the mind of humankind being unshackled. Delivered with a really special performance by Vincent Price.

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.

England, 1645: in the midst of civil war, opportunistic witch-finder Matthew Hopkins (Vincent Price) and his sadistic assistant John Stearne (Robert Russell) travel from village to village forcing confessions from suspected witches for both profit and personal gratification. After the pair torture and execute priest John Lowes (Rupert Davies), taking advantage of his beautiful niece Sara (the lovely Hilary Dwyer) in the process, roundhead soldier Richard (Ian Ogilvy), Sara's fiancé, swears an oath of revenge.

The last film from British horror director Michael Reeves, whose promising career was sadly cut short at the age of 25 by an accidental overdose, Witchfinder General is a brilliant account of the barbarous acts perpetrated against so-called witches during the 17th century, supposedly all in the name of God. Benefitting from Reeves' unflinching direction and a faultless performance by Price as a man who must surely qualify as one of cinema's most loathsome villains, the film is not only a thoroughly effective piece of sickeningly violent horror entertainment, but is also at turns a chilling lesson on one of the darkest periods in British history, a devastating indictment of human nature, a heart-warming love story, and a satisfyingly brutal revenge drama.

In the midst of England's bloodiest civil war and during Naseby battle (1645) between Royalists followers of King Charles I and Republican Roundheads commanded by Oliver Cromwell (Patrick Wymark) , there Evil ignites by means of a self-possessed , unscrupulous witch finder who looks for witches and people who allegedly practice witchery and necromancy . The much-feared Inquisitor , persecutor of witches Matthew Hopkins (Vincent Price) and his assistant John Stearne (Robert Russell) revelled in torture and murder all in the name of justice and while gaining sexual favors . Hopkins roams East Anglia accompanied by his sadistic helper condemning , torturing, and finally , executing all those who fail to survive his horrible and hateful trials by using violent torture and bloody means . When Hopkins tracks down a priest (Rupert Davies) , he incurs the vengeance and wrath of Richard Marshall (Ian Ogilvy) , who is engaged to the priest's niece (gorgeous Hilary Dwyer who recently died by Covid-19) . The Year's Most Violent Film!. A crawling shape intrude! .There's lots of screaming when there's this much at stake! A blood-red thing that writhes from out . The scenic solitude! It writhes! - it writhes! - with mortal pangs .The mimes become its food, And the angels sob at vermin fangs In human gore imbued. EDGAR ALLEN POE .The depraved must die... BEWARE the Witch Hunter!LEAVE THE CHILDREN HOME! ...and if YOU are SQUEAMISH STAY HOME WITH THEM!!!!!!! He'll hang, burn and mutilate you. He's the... Witchfinder General

This one deals with a graphic delineation of witch-hunting in England during the Cromwell period . This film has been framed of painting too violent and bloody a picture of the old times , but its power is remarkable and undeniable . Vincent Price gives a sterling acting , as usual . Here Vincent Price unleashes a reign of fire and fury , as he's totally convincing as a nasty witch finder .The production values is pretty good considering its short budget . The motion picture was well directed by talented young filmmaker Michael Reeves . The only made three films : The sorcerers , The She beast , and his third and last film : Witchfinder General . Michael Reeves took over the directing duties for the foreign horror film , "Castle of the Living Dead" . Most people agreed that Reeves' work improved the film . He was chosen to direct ¨The oblong box¨ (1969) , was also linked with the movie "Scream and Scream Again" but he died during the pre-production . Both films would end up being directed by Gordon Hessler . As he deceased soon after due to an accidental overdose at age 25 . Rating : 7/10 . A must-see for Vincent Price fans.

The picture was based on historical events about judge Matthew Hopkins and his assistant : The work of Hopkins and John Stearne was not necessarily to prove any of the accused had committed acts of maleficium, but to prove that they had made a covenant with the Devil. Prior to this point, any malicious acts on the part of witches were treated identically to those of other criminals, until it was seen that, according to the then-current beliefs about the structure of witchcraft, they owed their powers to a deliberate act of their choosing .The witch-hunts undertaken by Stearne and Hopkins mainly took place in East Anglia, in the counties of Suffolk, Essex, Norfolk , Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire, with a few in the counties of Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire.They extended throughout the area of strongest Puritan and Parliamentarian influences which formed the powerful and influential Eastern Association from 1644 to 1647, which was centred on Essex. Both Hopkins and Stearne would have required some form of letters of safe conduct to be able to travel throughout the counties. According to his book The Discovery of Witches, Hopkins began his career as a witch-finder after he overheard women discussing their meetings with the Devil in March 1644 in Manningtree. In fact, the first accusations were made by Stearne and Hopkins was appointed as his assistant. Twenty-three women were accused of witchcraft and were tried at Chelmsford in 1645. With the English Civil War under way, this trial was conducted not by justices of assize, but by justices of the peace presided over by the Earl of Warwick.Four died in prison and nineteen were convicted and hanged. During this period, excepting Middlesex and chartered towns, no records show any person charged of witchcraft being sentenced to death other than by the judges of the assizes .Hopkins and Stearne, accompanied by the women who performed the pricking, were soon travelling over eastern England, claiming to be officially commissioned by Parliament to uncover and prosecute witches. Together with their female assistants, they were well paid for their work, and it has been suggested that this was a motivation for his action.

I had been waiting several years to catch this, after reading the rave review it got in a book on cult movies, but have to say it was quite disappointing. It certainly isn't particularly frightening and contains few psychological insights. Reeves, the 25 year old director who killed himself shortly after this was made, is clearly in command of neither his craft or his material. Examples: Embarrassingly weak day-for-night photography, poor direction of minor characters (some of them just aren't believable at all) and most critically, he just does not do a good enough job of depicting Richard Marshall's rage and thirst for vengeance - it just doesn't come across until the final scene - all of a sudden he's screaming like a madman and it simply isn't a logical result of what's gone before.

Vincent Price is quite good, of course, and I'm not suggesting that Reeves doesn't show some flourishes at times but I think most viewers will find the whole enterprise ragtag and amateurish. If I had stumbled across it some night without all the hype, probably would've enjoyed it a little more.

A stunning low budget film that seems to transend it's limited budget. For once, Price doesn't ham it up and Ogilvy gets to go deeper with his old Etonian dashing hero persona. There is genuine horror from the first scene of a woman being burned, Hopkins' sidekick performing emergency surgery on himself and the feeling of a people opressed and cornered on all sides by war and religious panic. A special mention must go to a man who I think is the most underrated cinematographer in the movies: John Coquillon, who makes the scenery haunting yet beautiful like a Constable painting.

Well, that was disappointing... I learned about this movie through doom metal bands like Witchfinder General and Cathedral, so my expectations were somewhat different than what I saw. I don't really know what I expected (maybe something more in the lines of A Field in England), but in any case something far less conventional than what I saw. It surprises me that this movie was so heavily cut in censorship. Maybe I underestimated the conservative sentiments in 1960s Britain... In any case, apart from Vincent Price, nothing about Witchfinder General makes me feel like I'm watching a horror movie. Some imagery certainly gives away director Michael Reeves' sentiment to the genre, but I thought he would've added more of an occult sensation in the picture. If Reeves didn't die an unfortunate young death a few months after this was released, I don't think it would've become such a cult hit...

I have a copy of Witchfinder General from many years ago. Recently, whilst re-organising my collection, I happened upon it and watched it once more. This film still manages to induce general feelings of horror on account of its violence, even though it is not really a 'horror' film as such. Watch it for its superb cinematography which lends it an appearance of freshness that belies its 35 years. It still looks as if it could have been made yesterday. Some of the more violent scenes will make you squirm. The cruelty of the period portrayed can only be imagined and the cheapness of life comes across as truly shocking. Vincent Price is excellent as Hopkins (though maybe a bit 'mature' to portray him, since he was witchfinding in his late twenties and died in his early thirties). To think that this evil man really existed and operated unchecked for several years leaves one cold. A minor masterpiece that all lovers of the macabre should enjoy.

Dark and relentlessly violent, "Witchfinder General" (or "The Conqueror Worm") follows Matthew Hopkins--a soldier in the employ of Oliver Cromwell during one of the bloodiest periods in England's history--as he scours a lawless countryside in search of witches, warlocks, and satanists, rounding them up in order to torture, imprison, or kill them (and sometimes all three). Price, more sadistic than ever, is fine as Hopkins (all the actors are top-of-the-line) but the real star of the film is its magnificent look, with its rolling fields, dense forests, and dank, creepy dungeons. This is not a movie for the faint of heart, as the promotional posters available at the time made abundantly clear; don't let your kids anywhere near this, they warned audiences, and if you're a little squeamish yourself, you shouldn't see it, either. The film's final image--a chilling freeze-frame--is memorable, too. Based on Poe's "The Conqueror Worm", and an unforgettable example of what genuine, over-the-top horror looks like. Definitely worth seeing--if you have the nerve.

A film that turned out very differently from that envisaged by it's ill-fated young director, who had wanted Donald Pleasance for the title role but was saddled with Vincent Price as the price - if you'll pardon the pun - of obtaining funding from American International Pictures. The atmosphere on the set was toxic - Reeves' hostility partly motivated by indignation that Price had made a pass at him - but that probably aided the film; and after the film was completed Price had come to a grudging appreciation of the temperamental young pipsqueak he had found such a trial to work with.

The film also marked Price's return to East Anglia three years after the film that had finished Roger Corman's Poe Cycle of the early sixties on a high note, 'The Tomb of Ligeia'. Nearly sixty years later Corman is a vigorous 94, while it's unlikely that Reeves would have flourished in the cesspit that was British cinema of the seventies.

By the time cameraman John Coquillon arrived in Cornwall three years later to make another tale of ultra-violence amid rural surroundings [Peckinpah's 'Straw Dogs'] such blood-letting was, alas, already proving commonplace.

The infamous witch-finding exploits of Matthew Hopkins in Eastern England circa 1646 are chronicled based on Ronald Bassett's 1966 novel. Hopkins (Vincent Price) and his colleague John Stearne travel from village to village brutally torturing "confessions" out of suspected witches and charging the local magistrates for the "work" they carry out.

"Witchfinder General" (1968) is a Tigon production, a minor rival of Hammer Films, retitled "Conqueror Worm" in America with the addition of opening/closing quotes from the Poe poem by Price merely to link the movie to Corman's Poe-inspired flicks and, theoretically, sell more tickets.

Some call this "the original torture porn" and I suppose the torture scenes were pretty radical in 1968, but the film always struck as a British Western with a simple rape/murder/vengeance plot: A soldier's beautiful fiancé is raped and her uncle tortured & murdered for supposedly being a witch. When the soldier (Ian Ogilvy) finds out, he vows revenge.

In short, it's like a Western transplanted to 17th century England more so than a torture/horror film, although there is that element. The one death that I found particularly unsettling was where a woman is burned to death by being lowered into a bonfire. It definitely has a lasting impact.

The writer/director was Michael Reeves, a promising young filmmaker. Unfortunately he died of an accidental barbiturate overdose less than nine months after the film was released at the premature age of 25. The dosage was too marginal to suggest suicide; besides, he was already busy working on another film project.

Reeves and star Vincent Price reportedly didn't get along. The director was banking on Donald Pleasence for the title role but, when AIP got involved, they forced Price on him and he had to revise the script accordingly with his cowriter. Reeves mainly objected to Price's somewhat hammy acting style and did everything he could to get Price to play it straight. He would say things like, "Please, Vincent, try to say it without rolling your eyes." At one point Price pointed out to Reeves, "I've made 87 films, what have you done?" The director responded, "Made three good ones."

After viewing the finished product, Vincent admitted that he saw what Reeves was trying to do and wrote him a 10-page letter praising the movie. After Reeves' death Price stated: "I (finally) realized what he wanted was a low-key, very laid-back, menacing performance. He did get it, but I was fighting him almost every step of the way. Had I known what he wanted I would have cooperated."

The film is only partially accurate as far as history goes, although the gist is true. The real Matthew Hopkins was in his mid-20s when he committed his atrocities, not almost 60 as was the case with Price. Also, Hopkins & Stearne were reportedly accompanied by female assistants. As far as Hopkins' death goes, tradition tells us that disgruntled villagers caught him and subjected him to his own "swimming test," but there's no actual evidence to support this; most historians believe he died of tuberculosis at home shortly after his torturous escapades in 1647, only 27 years-old.

One of the film's highlights for me is Hilary Dwyer, who plays the soldier's fiancé/wife. She's just a uniquely beautiful woman and a pleasure to behold.

Another strong point is the ending which a man mad with rage hacking someone to death while a just-tortured woman screams and screams. The evil inflicted upon them has brought them to this point of maniacal frenzy. They were venting and it smacks of reality. Despite the downbeat climax I've always viewed it as somehow uplifting for obvious reasons. There's no reason we shouldn't assume that they moved on to live a happy life.

While "Witchfinder General" is not a Hammer film, it is a British movie made at the time when Hammer was in its prime; it therefore has that Hammer vibe, which is why some mistake it for a Hammer picture. Needless to say, if you like Hammer you'll appreciate this. Yet "Witchfinder General" stands apart; it has its own uniqueness, no doubt due to Reeves' burgeoning genius. As such, the flick is special. Some of the photography is hauntingly beautiful; the protagonists - the noble soldier and winsome Sara - are exceptional; the villains dastardly; and the ending innovative.

So why not a higher rating? Because, as special as this movie is, it's not the most compelling saga, despite lots of action. Artistically, it's gets an 'A' as a low-budget cult flick from that era but, story-wise, there's room for improvement.

The film runs a short-but-sweet 1 hour, 27 minutes, and was shot in Suffolk & Norfolk, England, both a 1-2 hour drive northeast of London.

GRADE: B+

Matthew Hopkins existed and called himself 'Witchfinder General'. He used sleep deprivation to get confessions - torture was not legal in England for witchcraft investigation. In England convicted witches were always hung, never burnt. The entire scene of burning is a total invention. The real Matthew Hopkins was soon discredited, although belief in witches lasted much longer. A decent film could have been made about the real events. This isn't it. I can't see anything except a pretext for a rather gruesome film that misses the point of what the witch-craze was about. Things similar to the film did happen in other countries, but the attempt to make it more real by setting it in our own country is not honest.

It's impossible to comment on Michael Reeves movie WITCHFINDER GENERAL without mentioning the outright condemnation it received from critics on its initial release , or rather the condemnation of the " sickening and cruel violence " . Watching it today I'm slightly puzzled as to what peoples problems were at the time but then I thought about it . In 1968 no one had seen the gory video nasties from the 1980s and Vincent Price was best known for starring in rather camp horror B movies , so I guess you'd have to live in the context of 1968 to understand the controversy

There's another thing and that is it's always billed as a "horror film" when broadcast on television but was WITCHFINDER GENERAL originally marketed as a horror film in 1968 ? Stylewise it is similar to a Hammer horror - The cast are composed of familiar television faces , there's day for night filming , the budget is rather similar to a Hammer movie at the time etc but is it meant to be a bio pic ? was it originally intended as a historical drama ? Unfortunately this where the movie fails because there's not much in the way of historical truth , Matthew Hopkins did indeed exist , he wasn't a mythical figure he was a cynical murdering mercenary who condemned people as witches in order to make a load of money but he didn't meet his fate as shown here . It's believed he emigrated to America when the resentment in England got too much for him and carried on torturing suspects

There are a couple of good aspects to the movie . First of all Vincent Price gives what is regarded as his best performance and it is fairly impressive though he could have played the role in an even more cynical manner and parts of the script do pick up on the ridiculous trials of the time such as if a suspect is thrown into a river and drowns they're not a witch ! But even if you watch the restored version ( That's the version where the picture quality drops during violent scenes ) you still find yourself asking why it was so controversial in 1968

This film reveals nothing about the persecution of supposed witches that any 12 year old couldn't tell you. The vapid characters are entirely two-dimensional and the script shockingly dull and riddled with cliches. The director seems to be of the 'if all else fails we can always bung in a woman screaming' school of moribund horror.

The 'torture' scenes are laughable in their repetition - if I had to watch Hopkins' worthless side-kick give one more half-hearted cuff to a victim's cheek while uttering the word "Confess!" I would have happily confessed myself just to end the mind-numbing tedium and shut the idiot up.

Utterly uninspired and less disturbing than an episode of Dick Turpin.