Mark of the Witch

"Mark of the Witch" is the prototype of a cheap and amateurish 70s exploitation/horror movie, and I can't possibly be too harsh on those. Yes, it's truly bad and becomes even worse when analyzing it more thoroughly, but the enthusiasm and goodwill of the people in front and behind the camera literally radiates from the screen. They can't help being utterly incompetent, right? This film has almost too many problems to list. For starters, even though the plot is nonexistent, it's still inaccurate, derivative and senseless! The story opens with the execution of a witch 300 years ago. Funny, I wasn't aware witches were hanged? And certainly not in Texas! Anyway, the vicious she-devil keeps ranting and ranting on before eventually putting the obligatory spell on the descendants of her prosecutor. Fast forward to present day on a Houston college campus, where the descendant - Mac Stuart - is a funky professor who throws occult seance parties for his class of dimwits. During such a seance, the innocent college cutie Jill becomes possessed by the spirit of the medieval witch! The biggest forte of "Mark of the Witch" is that they couldn't possibly had chosen a more saintly and purer actress than Anitra Walsh for the role of the supposedly evil witch. Walsh is looking so sweet and naive that the contrast with her vulgar talks and malevolent acts work surprisingly well! She causes for a parakeet to explode just to prove how evil she is, and then continues to seduce and murder her fellow students for no apparent reason. "Mark of the Witch" is so boring slow-paced that your thoughts too easily wander off. I, for instance, couldn't stop imagining that the film would work much better as an adult movie. Think about it! The male actors are ugly and sleazy enough to be vintage porn actors, especially Robert Elston, while the girls are ravishing and curvy. Given the subject matter, the clumsy production values and the lousy acting performances, nearly every sequence also fits perfectly into an erotic context. The satanic ritual dance, the naughty student seducing her professor, the lesbian encounter, etc. Alas we must settle for thick red 70s blood, laughable dialogues, weird camera angles and one brief but worthy topless moment provided by the lovely Anitra Walsh.

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.

Well, the story is not Going to beat Macbeth,, nor The craft nor The witches of Eastwick, But it does a lot with good acting, practical effects and interesting camera work. I enjoyed this film and I think you will too if you're not expecting top notch Hollywood.

Disestablishmentarianism Is a very long word which I need to finish this review which actually was finished after the first paragraph they're making me talk more so I am. Be there as it may. I still like this movie and I think you will as well. If you don't go in with Hollywood expectations you're not gonna see any great CGI incredible make up, but they worked pretty hard for what they got and I think I Got my money's worth. Tubi. Lol.

I don't know of that many time traveling horror movies like this from around it's time so the script was a bit daring. The acting is pretty normal for its time and once it gets going I found it pickings up. The acting and creative directing reminded me a lot of The Evil Dead (1981) actually so there's really little to complain about.

The excessive use of painful and distracting synth sounds and uneven volume through out the movie would have to be the low points. Apart from the underwhelming and substandard sound work on the movie I found it easy to follow, a little over-acted at the start but it unraveled consistently and was easy to follow. Definitely under-rated but it doesn't fall into the gem in the rough category, well not a highly valuable gem anyhow. It's okay, just don't expect The Exorcist.

I found it a little sad in way, as this movie to me depicts an end to a great era.

I got the opportunity to watch the recently unearthed R-rated version of this movie (the movie was cut for its original theatrical release in order to get a PG rating). So I was expecting the movie to be somewhat explicit in either gore or sexual material. But I was surprised. This original cut shouldn't have got an R rating back in 1970! The only sexual material is one (brief) scene of toplessness, and when it comes to violence there are only a few drops of blood and a couple of scenes of hangings directed in a restrained manner.

Still, despite this lack of exploitive material, the movie could still have been a decent supernatural shocker. But it isn't. It's very slow moving, and with a LOT of chitchat to pad things out. So I would say the PG version is the version to seek out if you really want to see this movie - because it's shorter and therefore easier to sit through.