Mark of the Devil

I first watched this movie in the theater, about 1969. I was given one of those famous "vomit bags." The movie was grotesque and bloody, but aside from that,there was an unknown something that made that movie stick with me for many years. I realized what it was 15 years later, when I began to study the Great Reformation. During that era, people were accused of heresy or witchcraft, imprisoned, tortured and violently murdered if they owned or read the Bible in their own language. Their property was often seized as well. While sold as "fiction," this movie accurately portrays historical events similar to those documented in Foxe's Book of Martyrs during the time of the Great Reformaton.The castle was authentic, and the props were mostly authentic as well. The extras, interviews with the actors, was quite revealing. They verified the antiquity of many of the props and the location.Who ever thought that a common Gore flick with a shallow plot would cross genre with the Bible and Christianity?

Ok... it starts with two nuns getting raped by highway robbers, and goes downhill from there.A good horror film is supposed to elicit an excited state of fear that proves to be entertaining -- like a rollercoaster or haunted house. This movie just elicits revulsion.It's just sexploitation and fetish S&M not so cleverly disguised as an historical period piece. If that's what you're looking for, enjoy.

This is a remarkable historical, fiction film. Certain scenes may be horrowful and gruesone for viewers but they depict factual and historical episodes in the most darkest period in history.For history lovers this is a superb film showing graphic scenes of what torture entailed and the falsehood of witch hunting which was nothing but supreme domain of some over those most vulnerable.The story is based on witch hunters claiming to protect the church from evil who turn into devils themselves by their brutal, atrocious and violent actions.Millions of people, mostly women suffered injustice and demand our attention.The film is full of thrilling emotions but gives us a concrete glimpse of the real episodes in history which we tend to dismiss in our modern era.A must see.

Written by a 25-year-old going on 16, with some arduous plot developments toward the end to show for it. The multiple-language filming environment means the entire thing is completely dubbed over, from sketchy English voice actors to shrill sound/foley effects, topped off with clunky, bizarre late-60s music cues. I listened to parts of the film in the German dub, which sometimes sounds better. Low point in both languages is the children-in-jail scene. Must have been 1 take.Bits of gorey & boob-showing torture (a la HGL) created a sensation in 1970, I guess.

I'm a big fan of horror and gore as a fun escape, as outlet of the "dark side" that everyone has. This movie has lots of horrible gore and dark injustice, but there's something evil about it that makes it the opposite of a fun escape. When it ended, I recalled the classic poem, Dante's Inferno, whereby a sign posted at the gates of Hell reads, "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."I wish I had never entered. I feel stained, corrupted, poisoned. I've never felt this way about a movie before.There is something horribly wrong about this movie. It seems to suggest we give up all hope for any decency among the human race.

Some people here say this movie is boring, with terrible acting, andhas lame "horror-gorror" effects. I disagree strongly. It's a reallycruel German exploitation flick about Austrian witchhunts around 1700,that victimized thousands of innocent people, organized by the Churchand State for profit and perverted religious reasons. Herbert Lom,an actor outstanding in drama AND comedy, is Lord Cumberland, self-called"Great Witchhunter." He especially hates beautiful, young women because theirsexiness mocks his crippling inadequacies as a man. Cumberland's wrath falls upon two attractive, unlucky young people. One is ayoung baron, without allies, whose late father's estate Cumberland wants tograb for himself. Another is a big-eyed novice nun accused of intercourse withSatan, when in fact the poor girl was raped by the local Lord Bishop. Cumberlandorders horrible tortures for each, to produce confessions, in scenes about asgraphic as called for in a horror movie. The girl, despite the worst they do,doesn't give up any names except the Lord Bishop, and the baron likewise won'tconfess to "possession by the devil, talking to the dead" and other trumped-uphypocritical nonsense. Doomed, with few options, they show real courage. The incredibly handsome and sea-green eyed Udo Kier, OK in his first film role,is another young baron who thinks Cumberland is a great, fearless fighter of evil.When Udo falls for barmaid Vanessa, whom wonderfully ugly Reggie Nalder accuses ofwitchcraft, he becomes trapped in an ethical dilemma. She asks Udo, "What if yourown mother was accused of witchcraft, what would you do?" Udo's baron looks greatbut isn't too bright. Like Hamlet, his hesitation brings bad fortune. Yes, there are aspects to this movie that are laughable, particularly the gooey,schlocky, anachronistic "love melody," and the very wishy-washy local villagerswho are instantly aroused to revolt by tempestuous, well-built Vanessa. ProducerAdrian Hoven took the part of an honest puppeteer, subjected to Chinese water torture,maybe because he didn't know any actor who could spin his eyes as crazily. Let memention for each beautiful young actress in "Mark of the Devil," these is a reallygrotesquely dog-ugly villain, in the pack of the despicable witch-hunters, who wantsto furiously ravish, torture, and roast her, in colorful close-ups.

Any horror or Udo Kier fans will want to own this movie for their collections. This was the first movie to receive a rating of "V" for violence back in the day. Supposedly when you went to see the movie, the ticket came with a barf bag because it was supposed to be so graphic, not so by today's standards. It is a period piece and although it's a little dated, it's kind of camp and a lot of fun. Udo Kier never looked better. It has a decent plot, the scenery is beautiful and the acting is okay.

It in another language, but I like thank you,

Buen sonido buena imagen muy entretenida y masoca

En av dom elakaste häxjakts filmer jag sett. Bra atmosfär och spänning. Bilden hade lite repor och smuts i början av filmen men blir bättre efter förtexten. Bild och ljud 3 av 5.

Die gerne aufgestellte Behauptung, in Deutschland könnte man keine Genre-Filme drehen, straft dieser Film Lügen. Zumindest damals.Gedreht 1969 hat mich dieser Film mit seiner stimmigen Atmosphäre, stimmigen Darstellerleistungen und halbwegs nachvollziehbaren Geschichte überzeugt, was für einen "Splatterfilm" damals wie heute ja nicht selbstverständlich ist.Sicherlich, an Blut-Effekten, wie man sie aus HOSTEL oder SAW kennt, kommt dieser Film bei weitem nicht ran. Aber sicherlich hat der Szenen, die einem Horror-Anfänger durchaus schockieren können, besonders die Folterszenen haben es in sich. Vor allem wurden - entgegen den eher unrealistischen Folterszenen in SAW oder HOSTEL - original Folterinstrumente, zumindest identische Nachbauten eingesetzt. 1969 galten halt noch andere Maßstäbe, können aber sicherlich auch heute ekeln und schockieren.Das süße Heimatfilm-Klischee der 50er und 60er wird völlig über den Haufen geworfen, nichts ist heimelig oder "heile Welt" und die Kritik an der Kirche ist überdeutlich.Ein nostalgischer Gänsehautfilm, noch auf dem Index stehend, aber - wie gesagt - kein Vergleich zu heutigem Torture Porn

Film ist eine Erinnerung an meine jungen Jahre. Da lief so was in den Kinos und war ganz kultig.Es hat mich gefreut, das es jetzt nach ständiger Zensur und Beschneidung des Filmmaterials den Film in guter Filmqualität und Länge mal wieder gegeben hat.Ansonsten: Preis ok., schnell versandt, gut verpackt.

In 18th century Austria a group of witch hunters torture and kill townsfolk for there money and possessions until they start to turn on themselves and the townspeople discover what they are doing.Michael Armstrong's 1970 graphic but fascinating film isn't any easy watch. Despite not being liked apparently by any of his German crew Armstrong has managed to create a very intriguing and fairly damning (it was all done in the name of the religious state) supposed true story. The director wanted the violence to be very strong and unflinching and in this was successful, tongues are ripped out, women burned alive, men beaten to within an inch of there lives and much more, the torture scenes are graphic and bloody and many have an air of cruelty around them however this is not a negative, the picture needed these scenes as they create an atmosphere of dread and to tell its story of just what "good people" do. The writing, also done by Armstrong is excellent with the story unravelling at all the right times leading to a good mass revenge sequence, the performances are another strong point, Herbert Lom as the head of state witch hunter is excellent and the striking Reggie Nalder is very convincing, but the entire cast do a great job in their roles, apart really from Udo Kier who gives quite a blank distant performance. The gorgeous Austrian countryside gives this grim tale a much softer setting and the real torture equipment takes the violent scenes to another level. The final scenes of the townsfolk marching to their revenge is brilliant and infuriating because of what happens to certain people but is none the less effective and thrilling.Yes this is a very strong, brutal film but it most certainly is not a disgustingly nasty or unwatchable one, in fact despite the violence you may find that it's far more interesting and compulsively watchable than you thought. Luckily this was only put onto the Section 3 list here in Britain as it could've easily been a full DPP Video Nasty.