ScoobyWell Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Seraherrera The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

begob Good for a few laughs, but it's a weak effort even allowing for its vintage.The opening sequence fails to show what we're looking at in the ploughed earth so we have to be told. The direction of the actor breaking in to the attic to save his fiancée is terrible.The judge is well played, but there's confusion over who the hero is. A mother who's just lost her two children isn't allowed to play out any grief. Several scenes get lost in a thicket of Thee and Thou, and a few characters disappear or are irrelevant to the ending - no idea why the vicar wasn't central to the de-demonising.The score is far too chipper in the first half. Some of the continuity jumps are incompetent. And the monster is ... undescribabubble. That paw coming up from the floorboards? Fcuk me. And the final sequence? My sainted trousers.Can't understand why it's rated so high. Guess it's the headbangers - no distinction between bad and laughable.

Andrew Wakely Filled with cheesy acting and obligatorily campy dialog, this British horror staple is a winner.A tale of wicked children from a rural village transforming into beastly devil worshipers in 17th century England, and the religious fervor it spawns, it almost sounds like it could have been a true story. Authentic landscapes, excellent costuming and the generally gloomy atmosphere further adds to the sense of realism. filled with ignorant peasants, bewigged judges, spooky children and icy, hatched-faced vicars, this classic is definitely worth viewing, whether you are a fan of cult films, camp, or horror in general.

Adam Peters (55%) Hard to believe that not that far back in 1970's Britain one could quite legally watch, and even make/distribute movies with completely nude 16 year old girls in them, and yet porno (both hard and soft) featuring over 18's was pretty much illegal everywhere besides a few "private clubs", and even then the bobbies still could raid at any time they felt like. But I digress. This well made devil based period horror flick that in all honesty highlights how shoddy Hammer movies had become once the 70's came round. The direction and production is pretty damn good, it's just a shame the movie is a little dry and pointless. For fans of classic British horror this is a must watch, but it's hardly anything fantastic for a general audience.

AaronCapenBanner When a young farmer(played by Barry Andrews) unearths the satanic-looking remains of an unknown creature, he gets the local judge(played by Patrick Wymark) to view them, but then a mysterious and deadly chain of events begins as the bones somehow regrow themselves into a furry claw that attacks a man in an attic. Meanwhile, local children led by Angel Blake(the beautiful Lynda Hayden) start practicing evil rites meant to fully resurrect the demonic being. Can the judge and townsfolk stop this threat in time? Though atmospherically directed by Piers Haggard, with a fine cast(including past and future "Doctor Who" actors Wendy Padbury, and Anthony Ainley) this is an otherwise most disjointed and unpleasant film, with gaping narrative holes, such as how this thing got started in the first place, and spread so quickly. The ending also feels truncated. Still, there are some effective sequences here and a spooky score, it's just a pity the script is so muddled.