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
4.7695
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Featured reviews
Very good effort for 1970
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.
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.
Dull and boring
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.
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.
Very cheesy
During some sort of witchcraft party, a group of young adults all decide to have a séance. They summon the witch using a chant they found in some book, but it seems like nothing happens. But something did happen. The main character is possessed by the witch and goes on a murderous killing spree! Of course, since this was a low-budget film made in the early seventies, all the lines are incredibly cheesy and bad. Lines like "I like girls dumb, but you're pushing it!" and stupid things of that nature are said.
I saw this movie because the guy that played Harry was my drama teacher.
I saw this movie because the guy that played Harry was my drama teacher.
Marks the end 60's horror.
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.
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.
interesting regional rarity
This film, while not a classic, avoids being a schlockfest for several reasons. The script, about a 17th century English witch being summoned back from the dead by a spell and inhabiting the body of a college co-ed, is a cut above. It's all opinion, but the acting is uniformly good, considering the usual stock of talent that populates these films. The filmmakers must have raided the best of the local collegiate theater majors and community theater talent, because the actors all give competent performances. The low budget enhances the film in some ways. The prologue, showing the hanging of the titular witch, is an effective montage of tight shots of the witch's and executioners' feet walking through muddy sludge to the gallows and the aforementioned characters' faces as the execution transpires. The film then cuts to the opening titles, shown over silent footage of windy autumnal Dallas streets as a singer performs a witch's "rune" acapella. It's an unsettling performance that creates some much-needed atmosphere and, hopefully, gives one an inkling of what will follow. I'm not a filmmaker, but the style exhibited in these opening moments made me hope that what I was about to watch would be, at least, competent and, at most, a great lost film. MARK OF THE WITCH is not a lost classic, but it is an effectively made little horror flick, made on the cheap by people who show not a little raw talent. Some will be disappointed that it's not a train wreck of bad acting and threadbare production values, while others will rue the fact that the movie isn't packed with blood and gore. What MARK OF THE WITCH is is a movie that moves toward it's ending methodically at a pace more in keeping with early 70s TV movies than modern slashers. But that's a good thing. Just train yourself to wait for the payoff.
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
- Runtime
- 1h 18m(78 min)
- Aspect ratio
- 1.66 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content







