This is not as bad as it seems, but it could have been a lot better. The story is intriguing and could have been made something interesting out of, but as it is, the insufficient acting and script get muddled up in a confused cinematography that puts more effort on effects, sex and bloody gore than on making the story and its characters understandable. The film lacks clarity and gets lost in its efforts to express the inexpressible in a manner not to activate censorship. The only real actor here is Michael Gough, who appeared in many films like this, mostly absurd ones, and always made a more comical impression than what his characters was supposed to be, as if he as an evil inhuman freak rather actually should have been a clown.

Every once in a while I discover an obscure Gem that reminds me of what film is about.This is one of those Gems. I procured a copy of this through a gorehouse collection which consists of 12 other equally obscure films and this is amongst the best of the collection.Sure it contains 'aspects' of sexploitation, but nothing really extreme, and very tastefully done I might add. The way the film portrays the female body, even in the scenes of sadism, is as an art form, a vehicle of expression, not an object to be manipulated, at least not by the viewer. The story of a girl who is about to turn "the proper age" to assist in a necromancy ritual is portrayed quite naturally. I also find the acting exquisite and very theatrical, which the British are well known for. The female actresses come across as majestic and feminine, but with a soft, inner resilience as well. I really love this about these British actresses.The hallucination scenes are intimate and sensually sadistic. In them we get a hint of the potential fate of Catherine and we get to look through her beautiful eyes as she unravels her own possible outcome.The only thing slightly holding this great film experience back is the fact that it could use a clean up and decent digital transfer to capture all its atmospheric beauty. But this is an incidental problem and not necessarily a problem of the filmmakers themselves. Which is why I still give it a full 10. I cannot blame the old film transfer problems on the filmmaker or the actors. This is a great jewel of a film and I really love it a lot. Highly recommended.

Enjoyable British horror garbage about a girl who is to be use as a vessel for the return of an evil witch by a band of satanists that are lead by her uncle and cousin.Violent in a very graphic way (one character has a nasty thing happen to his eye) this is the sort of British horror film that seemed to be popping up on double feature bills in the late 70's before turning around and having a occasional screenings on late night TV. They were violent and uncomfortable affairs that made you squirm at the unpleasant things going on (the cousin is a sadist who abuses women). They were a bit more intelligent than many American horror films and got you in the head as well as in the viscera. Here the film is constantly disorienting you since we are like our heroine not sure of what is and what isn't real, though to be honest we do have a good sense that all is not well.I've seen this film a couple of times over the years and I've enjoyed it for the most part though its not something I've ever really sought to see the second third or fourth time, it was just something that happened. To be honest one one memory of the film is Michael Grough's mustache which is this big fluff affair and every time I see the film again I remember I saw it because of facial hair. Not a ringing endorsement I know but I should add that I do end up watching the film to the end.Worth a look

The works of Norman J Warren and David McGillivray can be likened to the little girl with the little curl - when they're good (FRIGHTMARE, TERROR) they're very very good, and when they're bad, they're horrid. SATAN'S SLAVE completely lacks the edgy, tense, paranoid atmosphere of foreboding doom that marked Warren's later work (including the unfairly maligned INSEMINOID) and the gleeful nastiness that made McGillivray's collaborations with Pete Walker memorable, and the result is a tedious experience indeed, with a sub-standard Michael Gough performance, several sequences that make little sense (though the version I saw was probably hacked to pieces by the sensitive souls at the BBC - good of them to leave the eyeball gouging intact though!) and a central premise that just seems corny to our modern sensibilities. The opening credits should give you your first warning that something's amiss, because no fewer than FIVE directors of photography are credited, which is probably why the overall look of the film is so muddled - for every sequence that musters a degree of low-budget atmosphere, there are several that have the over-lit, barrel-scraping feel of a cheap public information film. Warren seemed remarkably unconcerned about coaxing decent performances from the cast at this stage, and the number of alternate versions suggests he wasn't too bothered about creating a definitive director's cut either. In all, a sad disappointment and a missed opportunity - I much prefer Warren as an unsubtle misanthropist to his mantle here as a bargain basement Roman Polanski.One other thing - the ident at the beginning for the film's distributors Brent Walker is pretty good, with a great synthesizer fanfare, like the old Cannon movies ident from the eighties, only cheap-looking. Catch it if you can!