Cebalord Very best movie i ever watch

Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

dmlucifer While the setting and the historical source of the movie is that of the late 17th century, don't be fooled, this is a movie about communism. More accurately, about the wretched logic the communist justice system has used to imprison and kill hundreds of people in the Czechoslovakian 50s. The forced confessions, self-accusal, torture and naming of innocent accomplices were all part of communist processes in which such as Milada Horáková perished.There are plenty of analogies in the movie which I don't intend to spoil. The atmosphere is crafted masterfully, giving the film a bleak and dark look and amplifying the effects of its story. The performances are very good, however I don't know how well does the original czech translate into the subtitles. What keeps this from being a 10 out of 10 is the pacing. In a certain point of the movie, the end becomes obvious and the rest is just a hammer that drives the nail of absolute despair into your brain.

gizmomogwai Arthur Miller may have written his knockout play The Crucible condemning witch hunts in 1952, but that doesn't mean the Czechs should be denied the opportunity to take a shot at capturing the subject matter. Coming from the other side of the Iron Curtain, Witches' Hammer achieves basically the same thing, highlighting the inherent injustice in torturing innocent people into confessing witchcraft, and then brutally executing them. What we have here is evil disguised as good, and when a priest points that out, he becomes a target in the hunt as well.The movie starts with a heavy indication of the misogyny found in witch trials. A man says woman is sin. This is juxtaposed against women bathing, and while you may call that gratuitous nudity, it is basically a contrasting view of women not as evil beings, but just women.After this, the movie simply shows us the process of witch trials, which the modern day audience will recognize as backwards. But were audiences also supposed to recognize it as something else? If Miller was attacking McCarthyism, could this movie in fact be attacking the Communist regime of Czechoslovakia? I'm not so sure. Nothing seems overly communist about the inquisitors. On the contrary, they're driven by a warped form of religion rather than an atheist leftist doctrine. Of course, tyranny can look much the same no matter what ideology is being used to justify it.Ultimately, Witches' Hammer may not be quite as great as Miller's play, but it is better than the 1996 film adaptation of Miller's play. A savage view of Europe's past, it is a film worth seeing.

Scarecrow-88 Inquisition film, from Czechoslovakia. You know the drill. Innocent women are unjustly accused of witchcraft and tortured by sadistic inquisitioners into admitting they committed acts at the command of Satan. Religious persecution and sadism towards imprisoned women, particularly those that won't cooperate. Boblig, the inquisitioner, is an obvious fraud who was "retired" and since granted power by Her Grace to "rid her castle of the Devil", he more than happily inhabits his former role, not in any hurry to return to a life as a poor innkeeper. When you have the finest clothes, sleeping quarters, and food, provided courtesy of Her Majesty, one can see why a cruel fiend(and his clerk) might not wish to scurry home to an insignificant existence.Before you know it, all the village women are fair game, with the men worrying that their beloved girls will be next on his checklist. When he's not fattening himself with beef or drinking himself into a near stooper, Boblig is having women round up for trials, his clerk always scribbling edicts of his choosing("Put that down in the protocol"). Deacon Lautner, the only crusader for the people that seems to have any courage, appeals to the "His Emminence" for support, but Boblig, for whatever reason, had curried favor with Her Majesty(and, in particular, "the Church") and there's no going back. Boblig becomes tyrannical and unstoppable, a pathetic waste of a human being who used some sort of reputation from his past to supplement his future, to torture and terrorize with Her Majesty's blessing(we see that she's easily manipulated and ignorant, fodder for Boblig to use at his advantage). When Lautner is accused of sorcery(clearly as a means to remove an obstacle which stands in his way for ultimate power), Boblig will have free reign to do as he so wishes without resistance, succeeding in having his rival imprisoned for his advocacy of "heretics" and housing a young woman(a cook who was given a his mother). This movie is grim and bleak in the tradition of other Inquisition movies such as WITCHFINDER GENERAL & MARK OF THE DEVIL. There are narrative interludes by some woman-hating religiously fanatical monk with rotting teeth, going on and on about how the female sex is the root of all evil, worthy of extermination..he's pretty foul and as obnoxious(purposely so, of course)as these loons typically are. These are the kind that need to get laid and snap out of their insane fervor. Like many of these movies, we see things spiral out of control as one man gains a position to inflict harm on others, while enjoying the luxuries and benefits that come with it. "I'm not a theologist. I'm a jurist," that's Boblig's flimsy excuse for sending innocent women to the stake to burn by fire. Thumb-screws. Leg vices. Bodies stretched by a machine(called "the rack") that pulls on the body, rope for extra pain. Lautner's cook, Susan, tortured, stripped naked, and forced to confess against the man she loves. This film can be unpleasant.As expected, these pious hypocrites with their fancy garments use God as a way to partake in their atrocious acts, when it's actually about securing property and wealth..Satan is the perfect tool in order to achieve this as Boblig goes from inquisitor to Bishop to Master, with fellow clergymen behind him also passing judgment. Deacon Lautner is a martyr who Boblig wishes to yield to acts of carnal lust in the name of Satan, for which he stands strong, with integrity, but how long can anyone last when put through the rigors of torture over a period of time? Elo Romancik's face is angelic, appropriate since his Lautner is to be put on trial and falsely accused by Boblig for ridiculous crimes he didn't commit. Vladimir Smeral is well cast as the cold-hearted Boblig, and I imagine the closing information written on screen will be sure to infuriate many viewers who, I imagine, were hoping he'd have a more gruesome fate as those he sent to death(all thirty something of them, mostly women and their husbands who confessed after enormous torture).

Daniel Hayes This film claims historical accuracy, but it seems to be more allegorical than similar films which don't make that claim. I'm still trying to decide how exaggerated some of the "confessions" were, but then again this is a period of history I know little about. The Christ figure was interesting, and the parallel was loose enough to be interesting, but it was made too explicit at times to be considered very clever. Explicitly calling one of his "friends" a Judas is a little too much. Huxley created a more interesting Christ-figure in "Devil's of Loudon," voluptuous, yet gifted and filled with a righteous aim.What was most interesting to me was how the hypocrisy of those on high was related to the camera. Not in an exaggerated way, but in a way where we are given insight into the decisions being made, and witness the final hypocritical decision. The Queen anxiously touches her neck when she hears that one of the "witches" has been strangled, only to gracefully gaze at her complexion in the mirror and fix her makeup. A beautiful symbol of priorities, and how a minor amount of sympathy is trumped by pride. Another scene placed the Inquisitor in a large chair sipping on a snifter of wine, dictating to his secretary a letter describing the trial, asking him to underline how "horrified" they were at what they discovered, when of course, he hardly seems horrified anymore.Throughout the film is the battle between what to implicitly express visually, and what to explicitly allude to, and they don't often work well together. Still, there are enough scenes which focus on the former to overshadow the latter.3 out of 5 - Some strong elements