I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

I got the opportunity to watch the recently unearthed R-rated version of this movie (the movie was cut for its original theatrical release in order to get a PG rating). So I was expecting the movie to be somewhat explicit in either gore or sexual material. But I was surprised. This original cut shouldn't have got an R rating back in 1970! The only sexual material is one (brief) scene of toplessness, and when it comes to violence there are only a few drops of blood and a couple of scenes of hangings directed in a restrained manner.Still, despite this lack of exploitive material, the movie could still have been a decent supernatural shocker. But it isn't. It's very slow moving, and with a LOT of chitchat to pad things out. So I would say the PG version is the version to seek out if you really want to see this movie - because it's shorter and therefore easier to sit through.

I love old horror movies, especially when I know none of the people in them, and they are from an era before there were cell phones, iPods, and back when clichés were being made, rather than laughed at for their ridiculousness.The story is pretty basic- ancient curse of a doomed witch, jumping forward to the "present" (ha ha), where of course, the witch returns. The pacing is pretty good, with the story at least always moving forward. I didn't find it too predictable, which was good, and despite how dated the fashion and music were, it was interesting.Technically, it was a mixed bag for me. Grainy old film stock and imperfect sound actually make an old horror film better for me in some respects. Like one of the other reviewers, I found the spoken words over the opening titles a bit creepy, but most of the soundtrack is rather annoying.The acting is acceptable from some of the cast ("Alan" was pretty good), and the copy I watched was choppy and the film was scratched. Still, this brings back some fond memories of movie-watching to those of us old enough to have operated a "record player".While not a classic, I'd recommend this for anyone who loves old horror movies. Simple, fun, and not so burdened by huge effects sequences or big stars that you ever feel distracted from the story. Watch and enjoy!

What I liked about this movie: I don't know what film stock this was shot on, but it gives the movie a distinct look. Deep blacks and the colors haven't faded much, which is unusual for a 40-year-old movie. I assume it was done using the color process that preceded the one that was so prone to fading and that gave so many 70's movies their washed out look.Some of the photography was quite nice, as when they're sitting around a table doing a ritual near the end.The soundtrack, consisting of the ominous blips and drones of an analog synthesizer, was very effective, and the singsongy, a cappella piece done by Trella Hart over the opening credits was downright eerie.The actress who played Jill (Anitra Walsh), even if I wasn't mesmerized by her performance, was a doll, which made her scenes a pleasure to watch.On the down side, the acting was amateurish, going from the bad acting typical of low-budget movies to the two main female characters (Margery of Jourdemain and Jill) delivering overwrought monologues like they were in a stage play (good actors like Vincent Price can get away with that sort of thing in movies, but these two just came off like members of a high school drama club).The woman who played Margery of Jourdemain (Marie Santel) was every bit as hideous as Anitra Walsh was gorgeous. With her botched nose job, she looked like Michael Jackson.I found the story hard to follow at times and it seemed like there were holes in the plot (though maybe I missed something). I think the writers were trying to be clever by inserting unpredictable plot twists, but the execution was so poor that it just made the story incoherent. At times it seemed the filmmakers couldn't decide whether they were creating a horror movie or a comedy (a movie can be both, of course, but in this case the combination didn't work).The movie was a mixed bag. It had good atmosphere but I had trouble getting into the story and characters. Overall, with a 5 out of 10 being the middle, I think this movie was more good than bad, so I'm giving it a 6 out of 10. I watch a lot of old horror movies and this one is more memorable than many, despite its flaws. Worth a look if it's running on TV or you see it for rent at a video store.

This movie had potential in its storyline. Very enthralling basis about a witch who is summoned to the twentieth-century and wreaks havoc upon the descendent of the man who is her lover and persecutor centuries before. While this plot is fascinating, the film itself flounders with typical and hackneyed evil spells and tricks used by the witch, which make the true fiber of the story into a peripheral byline until the very end. I saw this movie in the early eighties and the fact that I can remember so much about the storyline is a testament to what this movie could have been. However, it is a big disappointment and you will kick yourself for having wasted your time to watch it.