Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Console best movie i've ever seen.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Michael_Elliott Necromancy (1972)** (out of 4) Satan-worshiping cult leader Mr. Cato (Orson Welles) lures Lori Brandon (Pamela Franklin) and her husband to his small town so that he can use her special powers to bring his dead son back to life. It still blows my mind that Bert I. Gordon, the man behind countless giant insect movies, directed the one and only Orson Welles. This film is actually out there in a couple different versions and the one I watched was the 1981 re-edit under the title THE WITCHING. This version here includes a lot of extra nudity that was shot for the VHS release and it also features a new electronic score, which is downright awful. This film is pretty much just a rip-off of ROSEMARY'S BABY so with that in mind, I actually didn't think it was too bad. It's certainly much better than countless other witchcraft films that were released after the Roman Polanski film but there's still no question that it's somewhat of a wasted opportunity considering the cast. It's still hard to believe that Welles would appear in something like this but I'm sure whatever he made from the film went into THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND. His performance here certainly isn't anything special and while he doesn't exactly phone the performance in, it's still not something that would rank among his best work or even middle-tier work. Franklin, on the other hand, actually turns in a very good performance and makes you believe everything that her character is going through. I thought the actress did a very good job with the various emotions of the role and she even goes topless during a couple scenes, which add to the exploitation value. Again, it's impossible to fully judge the original version but considering 85% (or more) of this is original footage, it's easy to see that Gordon didn't manage to get much out of the story. At times it simply doesn't make too much sense and there's also the problem of it just not being that scary. Perhaps the original version works better without the new awful score so hopefully one day it will get released.

fedor8 Is it me or has Orson put a fake nose yet again for this movie? He did it at least once before, in "Touch of Evil" for example, so I wouldn't be surprised if he dood it again. Perhaps that was one of the conditions for appearing in this low-budget Bert I. Gordon nonsense. "Alright, I'll do it, but under several conditions, the first one being that I can use a fake nose." Pamela Franklin is in nearly every scene. This means that even if this were the dumbest supernatural thriller around, it would still be at the very least an easily watchable movie. Those eyes! The lines that come out of Pamela's beautiful mouth and her behaviour are a cross between goofy, ditsy, and absurd. She and her hubby Ontkean have a road accident, she witnesses the death of a woman in the other car, and yet they drive on as if nothing had happened. She even takes a "souvenir" from the crash-site, the dead woman's doll.Plenty of nudity here. On occasion "The Witching" feels like it'd been produced by Hugh Hefman, with the notable difference that all the breasts featured here are real. The movie looks like a 70s flick (which it is) but the occasionally synthesizer-orientated soundtrack is very much 80s. That is a little strange.The ending is just about as stupid – because totally devoid of ANY twist – as any that I'd ever seen. We had been told beforehand that Pamela has to become a witch in order to bring back to life Orson's dead son, after which she will take his place in the grave. We are told this 20-30 minutes before the end. And guess what happens? That's exactly what happens. I don't remember ever seeing a horror film with such a dead-end crappy ending without a point. If the writer is too lazy to come up with an end-twist (even if it's totally cliché) then he should at least not reveal everything that the viewer will ever find out, already a half-hour before the conclusion. Duh.Many idiotic things occur, such as a total lack of explanation as to why Franklin willingly became a witch. There was no indication at any point that she wanted any of this, and yet when the time came she took part in the ceremony without any hesitation. Duuuh. The ceremony was to take place only if she became a witch of her own accord. Well, why she accorded of her own accord to join the according chord, this is never accordingly accorded. But this IS a Bert I. Gordon flick, after all, so let's be grateful for little things."The other condition that I accept this role is that I win and Pamela loses. And that there is no surprise twist at all." Hmm, perhaps it's all Orson's fault.

Quag7 I've given up trying to figure out what version of this I'm watching. The copyright at the end indicates 1983. And though this is not the important bit of my objection to this film, I will say that watching a film obviously made in the Aquarian Age (including long haired hippie chicks and odious station wagons) but with a 1980s synth soundtrack is unsettling. Extremely unsettling.My main objection here is HOW DARE THE FILMMAKERS BURY CUTE-AS-A-BUTTON PAMELA FRANKLIN ALIVE. HOW DARE THEY.Seriously she's all like adorable and stuff but in the two movies I've seen her in - this crapfest and the otherwise excellent Legend of Hell House - they kill her off.I would like to put the film industry on notice. Pamela Franklin has apparently retired from the business but if she ever decides to do another film and some blasted cur of a director attempts to kill her off I SHALL ASK HIM TO STEP OUTSIDE.NO ONE BEATS UP ON PAMELA FRANKLIN AND GETS AWAY WITH IT. I AM QUITE CROSS. THE FURY HAS BEEN UNLEASHED.For B-movie fans seeking out a crapfest, you could do much worse than this. On the plus side, this is not a film which involves Satanism in a peripheral and circumspect way - this movie is a hardcore satanic film.Wall-to-wall satanic ceremonies, baphomets, hallucinations, a ludicrous rat attack - what else could you ask for.This excellent stuff is quite nearly ruined by the baffling grafted-on 1980s synth soundtrack, which is about as mismatched to a film as it is possible to be. The soundtrack reminded me of something you'd hear on The Equalizer. It's really bad.Also, they made Pamela Franklin squash her charming English accent, which was also quite rude, if not a cruel atrocity (against the viewer) such as you might find covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I say that we have a right to hear Pamela Franklin speak in her own voice. Who's with me? I could forgive everything else about this film if they didn't abuse Pamela Franklin. And so I throw the gauntlet down, sirs -- ANYONE WHO MESSES WITH PAMELA FRANKLIN MESSES WITH ME.EVEN IN A FICTIONAL CONTEXT.GOOD DAY, SIRS.

MARIO GAUCI The only previous Gordon film I had watched was the kiddie adventure THE MAGIC SWORD (1962), though I followed this soon after with EMPIRE OF THE ANTS (1977); he seems to be best remembered, however, for his sci-fi work of the 1950s.Anyway, I happened upon this one in a DVD rental shop: hadn't I noticed Orson Welles' unmistakable figure on the sleeve, I probably wouldn't even have bothered with it – since I know the film under its original title, NECROMANCY! I'd seen a still from it on an old horror tome of my father's: the actor's presence in a film about diabolism seemed like a great idea which couldn't possibly miss, but the end result – particularly in this bastardized edition – is a disaster! I honestly felt sorry for Welles who looks bored and, rather than in his deep and commanding voice, he mutters the inane demonic invocations almost in whispers!! The plot is, basically, yet another retread of ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968): a couple is invited to a remote community under false pretenses and soon discover themselves to be surrounded by diabolists. The girl, played by Pamela Franklin, ostensibly has supernatural powers (passed on from her mother, who appears intermittently throughout to warn her – though, as delivered in an intense manner through clenched teeth, the latter's speeches end up being largely incoherent and the fount of immense hilarity every time she appears!) and is expected to revive Welles' deceased young son from the dead!! For what it's worth, Franklin – a genre regular, right down from her debut performance in THE INNOCENTS (1961) – isn't bad in her role (which requires some nudity and experiences several semi-eerie hallucinations during the course of the film); hubby Michael Ontkean, however, isn't up to the challenge of his John Cassavetes-like character. Some of the other girls look good as well – notably Lee Purcell, whose belated decision to help Franklin in escaping from town eventually proves her undoing.Events come to a head in an incredibly muddled climax, which sees the Satanists ultimately turning on Franklin and have her take the revived boy's place in the coffin (that's gratitude for you!). While the added scenes do stick out (the hilarious opening ceremony and other would-be erotic embellishments), the overall quality of the film would have still been poor without them; then again, this particular version is further sunk by the tacked-on electronic score – which is wholly inappropriate, and cheesy in the extreme!