The Conqueror Worm

1968

Biography / Drama / Horror / War

The Conqueror Worm (1968) download yts

Synopsis


Added By: Kaiac
Downloaded 43,543 times
July 23, 2016 at 8:44 AM

Director

Cast

Vincent Price as Matthew Hopkins
Ian Ogilvy as Richard Marshall
Rupert Davies as John Lowes
Hilary Dwyer as Sarah Lowes
720p 1080p
1.05 GB
1280*720
UNRATED
23.976 fps
1hr 26 min
P/S Unknown
1.66 GB
1920*1080
UNRATED
23.976 fps
1hr 26 min
P/S Unknown

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Bruce Corneil 7 / 10

Vincent Price - what a brilliant talent

A powerful and unsettling film which is definitely not for the weak - kneed. Not easy to watch in some parts. But the mid-17th century was a turbulent time in British history with a civil war raging and the foul menace of devil worship festering throughout the countrysyde.

All the players do a fine job. Although, Vincent Price is, of course, the stand-out performer. No other actor was able to portray genuine evil quite as effectively. There's no high camp fooling around in this one. What a brilliant talent he was.

The music in this picture also deserves a special mention, particularly the opening theme which magnificently recreates an appropriate 17th century mood. Michael Reeves sheer production skill overcame the limitations of what was obviously a tight budget.

I personally believe that the 1960s was the golden era of English cinema and television. Check the internet for extensive biographical information on the real Matthew Hopkins- WITCHFINDER.

Reviewed by Lee Eisenberg 7 / 10

witch hunts

Like "The Devils", "Witchfinder General" (also called "The Conqueror Worm") is likely to disturb a lot of people through it's portrayals of witch hunts. This one portrays England during its civil war in the 1640s. With the people paranoid enough to accept anyone, puritan Matthew Hopkins (Vincent Price) goes around coercing witchcraft confessions out of women, and summarily executing them in the most vicious ways possible.

Things get ugly when Hopkins targets priest John Lowes (Rupert Davies). You see, Lowes' niece Sarah (Hilary Dwyer) is engaged to Cromwell soldier Richard Marshall (Ian Ogilvy). And Marshall may have a heart of gold, but he will go to any length to protect his beloved. And I mean ANY LENGTH.

Vincent Price was always a trustworthy horror star, and this movie doesn't disappoint. It's certainly worth seeing, but you might want to avoid it if you have a weak stomach.

Reviewed by James Hitchcock 7 / 10

The Charismatic Face of Evil

The Witchfinder-General of the title is Matthew Hopkins, a real-life individual who, during the English Civil War of the 1640s, was responsible for around twenty people being hanged as witches. Most had been forced to confess under torture. Although Hopkins was not, as he claimed, officially appointed to that position by Parliament, it is no coincidence that his activities took place in East Anglia, the most firmly Parliamentarian area of England. It is one of the ironies of history that the supposedly modern, democratic Parliamentarians were more likely to have a superstitious belief in witchcraft than were the supposedly more reactionary Royalists.

The film presents a fictionalised account of Hopkins's career, and takes some liberties with historical accuracy. The real Hopkins was only in his twenties at the time of these events, much younger than the middle-aged character portrayed by Vincent Price. He did not meet a violent end, but died of natural causes. His victims were all hanged; contrary to what is shown here death by burning was not used as a punishment for witchcraft in England. Apart from Hopkins the main character is Richard Marshall, an officer in Cromwell's army. He becomes involved when Hopkins arrests John Lowes, the vicar of Brandeston, Suffolk, and the uncle of Marshall's sweetheart Sara. Lowes is tortured to make him confess, but Hopkins promises to spare his life in exchange for sexual favours from Sara. Having obtained what he wants, Hopkins continues to torture Lowes and eventually has him executed. Marshall vows revenge on Hopkins and his sadistic assistant John Stearne. (Lowes and Stearne were both historical figures; Marshall and Sara are fictitious).

When the film was released in America, it was renamed "The Conqueror Worm" after the poem by Edgar Allen Poe. Although it has very little to do with that poem, this was done in order to suggest a connection with Roger Corman's cycle of films based on Poe's works, most of which also starred Price. Although "Witchfinder-General" does not form part of that cycle, it does have something in common with Corman's last Poe film, "The Tomb of Ligeia". Both films were shot on location in East Anglia and both make effective contrast between gloomy indoor scenes and shots of verdant English countryside. In "Witchfinder-General" the indoor scenes have a chiaroscuro feel, with dramatic contrasts of light and shadow. The outdoor scenes were shot in autumn, and although beautiful the autumnal colours add to the film's melancholy air.

There are also similarities with two films from the early seventies, Ken Russell's "The Devils" and Robin Hardy's "The Wicker Man". Russell is said to have disliked "Witchfinder-General", so there was presumably no conscious influence, but it is noteworthy that both films have a seventeenth-century setting, both were controversial because of graphic depictions of torture and execution and both are about the misuse of religion for political or personal ends. The real Hopkins may have been a fanatic who sincerely believed in the reality of witchcraft. The character portrayed by Price is a hypocrite who has taken up a career in witchfinding out of financial and sexual motives; he is well-paid for his services, and his position gives him numerous opportunities for blackmailing women.

Many horror films (such as the majority of entries in the Hammer series) ask the viewer to accept that evil supernatural forces are real. "Witchfinder-General" and "The Wicker Man" have many differences (the latter, for instance, has a contemporary setting), but both reject this position. In Michael Reeves's film, as in Hardy's, what is to be feared is not the supernatural but superstition, not witches, ghosts or demons but irrational beliefs which lead people to commit violent acts. The two films have been bracketed together as "the only two intelligent British horror films"; they are certainly the two most prominent rationalist British horror films.

"Witchfinder-General" was one of a number of British films from this period which could treat violent themes in a more explicit way, thanks to the gradual relaxation of censorship in the sixties, but this trend was not universally welcomed and the film aroused much controversy when it first came out. Some hailed it as a masterpiece which confirmed the promise Reeves had shown with his previous film, "The Sorcerers". Others, most notably Alan Bennett in "The Listener" ("the most persistently sadistic and morally rotten film I have seen"), condemned it for what they saw as excessive, even offensive, levels of violence. Today, we are more used to violence in the cinema than we were forty years ago, but some of the scenes depicted here still retain their power to shock. That, of course, was Reeves's intention- to shock us into thinking about the roots of violence. Bennett, who can at times be a perceptive writer, seems to have been particularly obtuse about this film. The events it depicts are sadistic and morally rotten. That does not mean that the film itself is.

The film is today often claimed as a classic of the British cinema, although I often feel that this may have as much to do with the tragedy of Reeves's death from an overdose the following year as it does with its intrinsic merits. Much of the film's success is due to Vincent Price, and Reeves can take little credit for this. He wanted to cast Donald Pleasence as Hopkins, but was overruled by the film's American backers who wanted a more established star. Reeves and Price took a strong dislike to one another, and there are many stories about their clashes on set. Nevertheless, Price gives an excellent performance as a man who, like Hitler, is evil and yet nevertheless commanding, authoritative and charismatic. This film, despite its historic setting, can also be seen as a comment on the politics of the twentieth century, and still remains relevant in the twenty-first. 7/10

Read more IMDb reviews

0 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment