Mark of the Witch

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.

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.

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 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.