It's 1645 England. There's a civil war between the Royalists and the Parliamentarians. There is chaos and corruption. In East Anglia, Cromwell's men rule the area but there are always Royalist raiders. Trooper Richard Marshall saves his leader killing a Royalist. He is engaged to Sara, niece to village priest John Lowes. Witchfinder Matthew Hopkins (Vincent Price) and his torturer sidekick John Stearne go from village to village collecting a silver for every hanging and coercing sexual favors. They arrive to accuse John Lowes of witchcraft. Sara pretends to be his servant and tries to save him by bedding with Hopkins.This is a B-movie of limited production value. There is plenty of brutality especially with the uncut version. It has bloody violence that is closer to modern horrors. It is riding a wave of shocking horrors in that era. The acting is mostly good in the main roles. This is a notable minor horror from this time.

Alongside the later films The Bloody Judge (1970) and The Devils (1971), Witchfinder General was one of a small sub-set of movies that can perhaps best be described as historical horror films. These took a true historical setting or character and adapted it for the screen while ramping up the salacious content to the point that they partially fell under the horror genre as well. I guess they were a natural off-shoot from the plethora of 60's Gothic costume horrors which were so popular at the time. The central character in this one was the infamous lawyer Matthew Hopkins who committed hundreds of horrendous crimes during the chaos and lawlessness of Civil War England. He was essentially a sadistic opportunist who carried out his murders in the name of God. This agent of the Royalists ended up murdering hundreds of 'witches'. Watching this film again recently, it got me to thinking how hundreds of years later things haven't really changed all that much, with a disturbingly parallel scenario playing out in the Middle East right now, where the group known as ISIS have exploited the chaos of the Syrian Civil War to commit a multitude of violent killings all in the name of their religion. It seems that religion, opportunism and hypocrisy still result in horrific violence today as they did back in the 17th century.This was renamed Conqueror Worm in the USA, which was the name of a poem by Edgar Allen Poe. This was clearly an attempt to associate it with the earlier Roger Corman directed, period-set Poe adaptions which also starred Vincent Price. Aside from part of the poem being read in the closing credits, the film has nothing to do with it though. It was directed by Michael Reeves who died shortly after its release at the age of 25 from an accidental over-dose. He did not want Price in the lead role; it was forced upon him by the distributor. In the event, perhaps unsurprisingly, there were tensions between them on set, although this may have inadvertently helped the film's tone. Price eradicates his typical hammy style and puts in an impressively chillingly cold performance. Truthfully, it's some of the best acting he ever did and shows the range he was capable of. Aside from the central character, this one overall is a pretty humourless and bleak affair, yet because of this it holds up much better than most of its contemporaries. It is apt that it takes this approach; however, as Hopkins is an utterly vile character who subjects many people - mainly women – to various horrific tortures, but also coerces the younger women into having sex with him. Like many religious fundamentalists, he is a hypocrite and a sadist. It's to the film-makers great credit that they were bold enough to tell the story without holding back on these unpleasant aspects.The film benefits from on location shooting in East Anglia where the atrocities actually happened. The locales are sometimes quaint, yet other times vaguely sinister but always authentic feeling. The period detail in general is pretty good, with good costuming etc. Visually this is a nice-looking film. Aside from Price there is good support work too from Ian Ogilvy as the hero and Hilary Dwyer as his victimised fiancé. The story itself plays out to a very fictionalised conclusion, yet this is neither the first or last historical film to do that. In summary, this is a very impressive and distinctive film.

The ancient past sure is gruesome and evil and Witchfinder General shows a very accurate portrayal of the Witchcraft Trials, the law back then was very flawed and was exploited to the point of which anyone can be accused of witchcraft if one person didn't like the other person or in this case the Witchfinder earning big money just by accusing innocent people, torturing them and then finish them off by executing them. Vincent Price playing as the evil Witchfinder General Matthew Hopkins does a fantastic job as the central villain, he's absolutely ruthless and cunning as he is essentially above the law, a very lawful evil character.Although I was kind of expecting more like hundreds of people being burned alive considering that this is one of the many films my mother couldn't sit through watching as to how gruesome and near to the reality of the past it is. Never the less it's a pretty good horror film.

I've seen bits and pieces of this film before - vague memories of seeing it years ago. Tonight I was able to re-view the uncut version of the film... I have to say it is one of Vincent Prices best films - in fact, maybe for the entire cast! Richard and Sara's romance is the stuff fairy-tales are made of - the kind of romantic relationship I dream of having. Although the movie is not a romance film - Richard and Sara's relationship is one if the focuses of the movie.Price portrays Matthew Hopkins very well - he's vicious, wicked and down right nasty.The story is well written and easy to follow. Some of the scenes in the movie are hard to watch: realistic rape, torture and general brutality so well filmed that it's hard not to take your eyes off the screen.Impeccable costuming, settings and scenery. This is yet another movie I felt I was drawn back to medieval times.9.5/10