102 reviews
Witchcraft and diabolic possession proceeded in astonishing terror images
This eerie film is set circa 1640 , when is earthed by a farmer (Barry Andrews) a weird human remains located in an British small village . Later on , a farming community is haunted by the demon himself . Children and adolescents being possessed by hairy demon and becoming them into a coven of witches practicing exorcisms and witchery . The teens led by a nasty young girl (Linda Hayden) are worshipping the devil , raping , and sacrificing other young people . Meantime , a judge (Patrick Wymark) investigates the rare events .
The film packs gruesome images , grisly killings , thriller and intense horror sequences . Magnificent detail period is perfectly set in 17th century . Somewhat nudism at times in charge of Lynda Hayden and pagans ceremonies . For its US release the nudity was censored, particularly in Linda Hayden's seduction scene , by darkening the footage to avoid an X rating . Enjoyable casting by Patrick Wymark (a role ¨Witchfinder general¨-alike) who died slowly after making the film , a gorgeous and erotic Linda Hayden (Taste of Dracula blood) , Barry Andrews (Dracula has risen from grave) , Michele Dotrice(who married to Edward Woodward) and Tamara Ustinov (daughter of Peter Ustinov and niece of Angela Lansbury) . It's produced by Tigon , usual in terror movies and richly atmospheric in Pinewood studios . The movie displays a weird and creepy score musical by Marc Williamson . Evocative and imaginative cinematography by Dick Bush , Hammer films ordinary (Twins of evil , Dracula 72 , When dinosaurs ruled earth). The motion picture was well directed by Piers Haggard (Venom , Quatermass conclusion) . The flick isn't for the faint-hearted , however to be liked for horror fans.
The film packs gruesome images , grisly killings , thriller and intense horror sequences . Magnificent detail period is perfectly set in 17th century . Somewhat nudism at times in charge of Lynda Hayden and pagans ceremonies . For its US release the nudity was censored, particularly in Linda Hayden's seduction scene , by darkening the footage to avoid an X rating . Enjoyable casting by Patrick Wymark (a role ¨Witchfinder general¨-alike) who died slowly after making the film , a gorgeous and erotic Linda Hayden (Taste of Dracula blood) , Barry Andrews (Dracula has risen from grave) , Michele Dotrice(who married to Edward Woodward) and Tamara Ustinov (daughter of Peter Ustinov and niece of Angela Lansbury) . It's produced by Tigon , usual in terror movies and richly atmospheric in Pinewood studios . The movie displays a weird and creepy score musical by Marc Williamson . Evocative and imaginative cinematography by Dick Bush , Hammer films ordinary (Twins of evil , Dracula 72 , When dinosaurs ruled earth). The motion picture was well directed by Piers Haggard (Venom , Quatermass conclusion) . The flick isn't for the faint-hearted , however to be liked for horror fans.
A Horror Film in the Classic Tradition
This 1970 British horror pic is just oozing with atmosphere. It takes place in England in the 1600s where life was harsh and the appearance of weird bones in a farmer's field sets off a chain of demonic activities when a group of farm children discover them. They then begin to worship a mysterious evil entity and start sacrificing other children to it. The music score is appropriate for the movie and there were some scenes that made my skin crawl (no pun intended). I would recommend this movie for connoisseurs of classic horror pictures where the characters don't act like total fools when confronted with evil. If you're squeamish, don't watch this in the dark.
- InvasionofPALs
- Dec 7, 2003
- Permalink
A folk horror staple
This film is just as bonkers as it sounds. Another Tigon production, it was massively influenced by Witchfinder General and is just as unflinching if not the depraved masterpiece that its predecessor is.
All the ingredients of a great 'folk horror' staple are here- witch trials, a country setting, Olde English magick and buxom wenches showing off their voluptuous delights.
Joe Dante says this is one of the best horror films of the 70's. I agree with him.
All the ingredients of a great 'folk horror' staple are here- witch trials, a country setting, Olde English magick and buxom wenches showing off their voluptuous delights.
Joe Dante says this is one of the best horror films of the 70's. I agree with him.
- meathookcinema
- Oct 3, 2018
- Permalink
Pure atmospheric horror
Weird and Cult Horror Film
In the XVIII Century, in the countryside of England, the landsman Ralph Gower (Barry Andrews) finds a skull with one eye and fur on the field. He summons the local judge (Patrick Wymark) to see his finding but it has disappeared. Meanwhile the local Peter Edmonton (Simon Williams) brings his fiancée Rosalind Barton (Tamara Ustinov) to his aunt's house to marry her on the next day. However during the night Rosalind becomes insane and in the morning she is sent to an asylum and Peter sees a claw that has replaced her hand. Then Peter wakes up with a claw attacking him and he cuts it out, but he finds that he has hacked down his own hand. The local children have a strange behavior under the command of Angel Blake (Linda Hayden) and they rape and kill others. In common, they have a strange fur on their skin. The judge returns from London and concludes that evil has possessed the children. What will he and his search party do?
"The Blood on Satan's Claw" is a weird and cult British horror film. The plot is very strange and original but some scenes are sort of disconnected. The beauty of Linda Hayden tempting the reverend is worthwhile watching. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "O Estigma de Satanás" ("The Stigma of Satan")
Note: On 28 Sep 2019 I saw this film again.
"The Blood on Satan's Claw" is a weird and cult British horror film. The plot is very strange and original but some scenes are sort of disconnected. The beauty of Linda Hayden tempting the reverend is worthwhile watching. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "O Estigma de Satanás" ("The Stigma of Satan")
Note: On 28 Sep 2019 I saw this film again.
- claudio_carvalho
- May 31, 2016
- Permalink
A Cult Film That Deserves To Be Better Known
In 17th Century England a man ploughs a field and comes across the skeletal remains of something . Summoning a judge he tells him that the remains belonged to a fiend and takes the judge to the field only to find the remains have disappeared
This acquired a cult following in DOCTOR WHO fandom circa 1990 when the fan press revealed it contained a scene where Wendy Padbury ( 60s companion Zoe ) appeared topless in a scene . Knowing this no one bothered to ask about the rest of the film but the major problem was trying to track it down . It was a time before the internet and Britain was confined to four TV channels and despite Hammer horror movies being broadcast on a fairly regular basis BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW was made by an entirely different film company and no one could recall it being broadcast or released on video . In other words it became something of a cult film and a cult film no one had seen but it eventually turned up on Channel 4 a couple of times along with the occasional screening on satellite channels
It'd be all too easy to dismiss this a Hammer clone full of lowbrow thrills and historical hokum featuring witchcraft but this would be slightly unfair to the film whose central idea revolves around Satan trying to reassert himself on Earth by using a 17th Century English village as his bridgehead . Realistic ? Of course not but my disbelief was totally suspended for the entire running time . There's quite a few themes going on at the same time such as the abuse of authority , of scapegoating , sexual repression and sexual awakening and the hypnotic power of sexuality
Piers Haggard doesn't have a massive budget to work with but he does the absolute best with what he's got . Where he succeeds best is in the production design . This isn't the expensive looking interiors you'd find in a big budget historical movie but far more cramped and drab interiors befitting of the times which comes over as being totally realistic . The cast too are very good especially when you compare to these all too good looking and sassy teens we've seen over the decades in American horror movies . Their accents might be a bit too cod regional but this is a minor flaw . The ending itself might be a too silly for its own good where the supernatural comes to the fore but this is always the problem featuring the supernatural . Up until then the human aspects is enough to keep the story going in a horror film that remains something of a cult but perhaps deserves to be better regarded in horror circles
This acquired a cult following in DOCTOR WHO fandom circa 1990 when the fan press revealed it contained a scene where Wendy Padbury ( 60s companion Zoe ) appeared topless in a scene . Knowing this no one bothered to ask about the rest of the film but the major problem was trying to track it down . It was a time before the internet and Britain was confined to four TV channels and despite Hammer horror movies being broadcast on a fairly regular basis BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW was made by an entirely different film company and no one could recall it being broadcast or released on video . In other words it became something of a cult film and a cult film no one had seen but it eventually turned up on Channel 4 a couple of times along with the occasional screening on satellite channels
It'd be all too easy to dismiss this a Hammer clone full of lowbrow thrills and historical hokum featuring witchcraft but this would be slightly unfair to the film whose central idea revolves around Satan trying to reassert himself on Earth by using a 17th Century English village as his bridgehead . Realistic ? Of course not but my disbelief was totally suspended for the entire running time . There's quite a few themes going on at the same time such as the abuse of authority , of scapegoating , sexual repression and sexual awakening and the hypnotic power of sexuality
Piers Haggard doesn't have a massive budget to work with but he does the absolute best with what he's got . Where he succeeds best is in the production design . This isn't the expensive looking interiors you'd find in a big budget historical movie but far more cramped and drab interiors befitting of the times which comes over as being totally realistic . The cast too are very good especially when you compare to these all too good looking and sassy teens we've seen over the decades in American horror movies . Their accents might be a bit too cod regional but this is a minor flaw . The ending itself might be a too silly for its own good where the supernatural comes to the fore but this is always the problem featuring the supernatural . Up until then the human aspects is enough to keep the story going in a horror film that remains something of a cult but perhaps deserves to be better regarded in horror circles
- Theo Robertson
- Feb 25, 2014
- Permalink
The Demon's Patrons...
It's a bit like Never Let Me Go, but instead of donating parts for others, it's Diablo's parts you grow, as you're young and quite untainted, the beast takes hold and gets acquainted, growing on you as you grow, the parts he needs to take a hold, having been ploughed up all broken, he's not much more than a token, but his powers of persuasion, quite soon leads to a pervasion, of youths rising up in rage, against traditions that have caged, all perpetually conditioned, brainwashed, pressured and conditioned. Alas, the patriarchy of middle aged men cannot allow this to take place and the rebellion is curtailed and quelled, sadly, but not for the first time and definitely not the last.
Better than I remember it
I remember renting this as a young man and being disappointed with it. In giving this a rewatch I can appreciate the eeire atmosphere and good cinematography. The acting is also pretty solid. The Blood Under Satan's Claw is a creepy folk horror film where in rural 16th century England the youth go wild and worship Satan. Taking cues from The Wicker Man with the cult ritual stuff, it sometimes pushes the boundaries of sex and violence for it's time. I would consider it tame by today's standards, but for the time this was shocking. Overall this was a slow burn, but was well done.
- dworldeater
- Nov 13, 2021
- Permalink
Almost lurid shocker
See this for Linda Hayden's sexually charged performance as Satan-loving teener Angel Blake, one of British Cinema's more memorable portrayals of pure evil in a petticoat.
Possessing a WITCHFINDER GENERAL-type atmosphere, helped immeasurably by Mark Wilkinson's truly beautiful score, this tale of superstition and a Satanic contagion that exhibits itself as an ugly, hairy patch on the skin (motivating alternate title SATAN'S SKIN) is evidence of solid horror-making afoot.
Patrick Wymark as the pseudo-Witchfinder anchors a mostly youthful cast who become victim to the spreading "disease".
The climax is a ballsy one for director Piers Haggard (who also helmed the taut VENOM) as he dares to portray Satan himself. It's always a risk serving up a visual absolute of a universal concept, but it works surprisingly well here because Haggard knows just how much to show.
As noted earlier, Linda Hayden is dynamite as the sexually provocative Angel and makes it easy to understand how many a fool would follow her to the depths of hell just for a taste of her own brand of heaven.
BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW, an evocative title if ever there was one, accomplishes everything it sets out to do.
It comes close to being delightfully lurid at times, and that's what gives it an edge.
Also worthy of applause is Dick Bush's striking, atmospheric cinematography.
Possessing a WITCHFINDER GENERAL-type atmosphere, helped immeasurably by Mark Wilkinson's truly beautiful score, this tale of superstition and a Satanic contagion that exhibits itself as an ugly, hairy patch on the skin (motivating alternate title SATAN'S SKIN) is evidence of solid horror-making afoot.
Patrick Wymark as the pseudo-Witchfinder anchors a mostly youthful cast who become victim to the spreading "disease".
The climax is a ballsy one for director Piers Haggard (who also helmed the taut VENOM) as he dares to portray Satan himself. It's always a risk serving up a visual absolute of a universal concept, but it works surprisingly well here because Haggard knows just how much to show.
As noted earlier, Linda Hayden is dynamite as the sexually provocative Angel and makes it easy to understand how many a fool would follow her to the depths of hell just for a taste of her own brand of heaven.
BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW, an evocative title if ever there was one, accomplishes everything it sets out to do.
It comes close to being delightfully lurid at times, and that's what gives it an edge.
Also worthy of applause is Dick Bush's striking, atmospheric cinematography.
- fertilecelluloid
- Dec 26, 2004
- Permalink
Quite good, but a tad too long....
I'm always saying that I'm not a true fan of horror movies but do appreciate a good shocker and that might let me off writing a decent review. But it doesn't, of course.
I saw this on The Horror Channel and I'm afraid, people, that it's not up there with 'The Wicker Man', which is a true classic, nor quite 'The Witchfinder General'. Both these others are often used as comparatives with 'Blood On...' and certainly they do have similarities; namely the folky witchcraft and devil worship deep in the quaint English (& Scottish) countryside.
Whilst The 'Wicker Man' is superbly paced and there is a real sense of menace throughout and features one of the greatest endings of all time and 'The Witchfinder...' has Vincent Price swooping around on horseback and quite a lot of juicy violence, these aspects aren't as prevalent in this film.
It's still good, of course, though the lack of star names require the actors to work a bit harder for our approval and enjoyment. Patrick Wymark and Linda Hayden are fine and play their roles with gusto and I noticed Mrs Frank Spencer (Michelle Dotrice) had a good and meaty role.
When the sinister acts do occur, they are definitely worth waiting for, with just the right amount of nudity and carnal lust, mixed in with violence and chilling ritual. If I have a gripe, it's as I said, that the pretty landscapes dominate the picture too much and the nitty-gritty take too long to come. The ending and a scene of ritualised rape in the middle were very well done and the final scene unfolded most dramatically.
All in all, a good, but not outstanding chiller, even though horror aficionados may say otherwise. I don't doubt their choice, in their eyes and it does remain one of British cinema's better horror flicks, from an admittedly chequered catalogue.
I saw this on The Horror Channel and I'm afraid, people, that it's not up there with 'The Wicker Man', which is a true classic, nor quite 'The Witchfinder General'. Both these others are often used as comparatives with 'Blood On...' and certainly they do have similarities; namely the folky witchcraft and devil worship deep in the quaint English (& Scottish) countryside.
Whilst The 'Wicker Man' is superbly paced and there is a real sense of menace throughout and features one of the greatest endings of all time and 'The Witchfinder...' has Vincent Price swooping around on horseback and quite a lot of juicy violence, these aspects aren't as prevalent in this film.
It's still good, of course, though the lack of star names require the actors to work a bit harder for our approval and enjoyment. Patrick Wymark and Linda Hayden are fine and play their roles with gusto and I noticed Mrs Frank Spencer (Michelle Dotrice) had a good and meaty role.
When the sinister acts do occur, they are definitely worth waiting for, with just the right amount of nudity and carnal lust, mixed in with violence and chilling ritual. If I have a gripe, it's as I said, that the pretty landscapes dominate the picture too much and the nitty-gritty take too long to come. The ending and a scene of ritualised rape in the middle were very well done and the final scene unfolded most dramatically.
All in all, a good, but not outstanding chiller, even though horror aficionados may say otherwise. I don't doubt their choice, in their eyes and it does remain one of British cinema's better horror flicks, from an admittedly chequered catalogue.
- tim-764-291856
- Apr 28, 2012
- Permalink
Lurid Horror Story.
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.
- AaronCapenBanner
- Oct 2, 2013
- Permalink
Curse the day the devil came to town.
Set in a small English country town in the 17th Century a farmer unearths inhuman remains that are covered with fur. So he gets the judge of the town to view it, but the evidence has strangely disappeared. After the discovery about the skull and fuss about, weird and horrific occurrences start developing with the appearance of the devil's claw. Also some of the children of the village led by Angel are committing unspeakable terror and performing satanic rituals in a desecrated church in the woods to restore their master.
Atmospheric brilliance on director Piers Haggard's part! Jeez, it was hard to shake off the powerfully foreboding and frantic awe that pierced the air. Mood is a very big key to this film's success in pulling you in with its pervasively chilling and subtle imprint. Visually, Haggard manages to create a beautifully staged period horror by capturing the times and making the most of it's brooding countryside and quiet rural life. What gave it such an embracing atmosphere was that it was mostly shot on location. The beautiful backdrop works rather well with the contrast to the devilishly acts occurring in the peaceful valley. Another thing that hit me and added more to building upon the feel, was the strikingly effective, fine tuned camera-work and the robust score that generates momentum with its unsteady vibe. Also the faintly placed sound effects really do scratch away and cause sudden chills! The classy performances are all strong from the British cast with some richly developed characters. But it's Linda Hayden (Taste the blood of Dracula) luminous performance as Angel Bleak the manipulative evil prowess who stands by the devil's right hand doing his work that makes the film very memorable. Also Patrick Wymark is exceptional as the Judge, the highly placed leader and hero of the town's folk. Maybe the film could have done with a star actor to give it an added boost, but those involved were more then perfect anyway. These provocative aspects took shape and simply completed the film.
The immensely original plot manages to incorporate a whole lot things ranging from folklore tales of witchcraft and Satanism practice to sexuality involving temptation, seduction and lust. This is all done with a serious face. I wouldn't call the plot flawless, as there are many unexplained and meaningless events associated within the material, but it does inject many unexpected turns. It plays around with idea that some sort of curse has hit the town with the devil's presence sinisterly lurking beneath the cracks. Although, it's not terribly all about the devil, but on the innocence of the children, to how the devil has preyed upon them to do his bidding and that's what makes this rather eerie to the bone. Since this is kind of sexually charged in a semi-way, it does provide nudity, but it's not overly graphic when it came to the violence. The gore is low. Though, saying that it does provide some disturbing, raw and perverse images that have the force to stun. It's terrifyingly unpleasant and malevolent in small patches. Like the intense ferocity of the rape scene. Now onto the make-up. Well, the devil design stays mostly hidden in a black cloak, well that's up until the end were we get a clear shot. It's not so bad for the budget. Like so many have pointed out - the only real disappointment in my eyes was the under-whelming conclusion, after being squeezed real tight with tension it just fizzles out without a bang.
Obviously there was profound talent involved, they put their heart into this low-budget production and it all came together perfectly to be highly regarded by those who've seen it. I for one agree. Highly recommended.
By the way I love the original movie poster artwork for this flick. It's damn creepy!
Atmospheric brilliance on director Piers Haggard's part! Jeez, it was hard to shake off the powerfully foreboding and frantic awe that pierced the air. Mood is a very big key to this film's success in pulling you in with its pervasively chilling and subtle imprint. Visually, Haggard manages to create a beautifully staged period horror by capturing the times and making the most of it's brooding countryside and quiet rural life. What gave it such an embracing atmosphere was that it was mostly shot on location. The beautiful backdrop works rather well with the contrast to the devilishly acts occurring in the peaceful valley. Another thing that hit me and added more to building upon the feel, was the strikingly effective, fine tuned camera-work and the robust score that generates momentum with its unsteady vibe. Also the faintly placed sound effects really do scratch away and cause sudden chills! The classy performances are all strong from the British cast with some richly developed characters. But it's Linda Hayden (Taste the blood of Dracula) luminous performance as Angel Bleak the manipulative evil prowess who stands by the devil's right hand doing his work that makes the film very memorable. Also Patrick Wymark is exceptional as the Judge, the highly placed leader and hero of the town's folk. Maybe the film could have done with a star actor to give it an added boost, but those involved were more then perfect anyway. These provocative aspects took shape and simply completed the film.
The immensely original plot manages to incorporate a whole lot things ranging from folklore tales of witchcraft and Satanism practice to sexuality involving temptation, seduction and lust. This is all done with a serious face. I wouldn't call the plot flawless, as there are many unexplained and meaningless events associated within the material, but it does inject many unexpected turns. It plays around with idea that some sort of curse has hit the town with the devil's presence sinisterly lurking beneath the cracks. Although, it's not terribly all about the devil, but on the innocence of the children, to how the devil has preyed upon them to do his bidding and that's what makes this rather eerie to the bone. Since this is kind of sexually charged in a semi-way, it does provide nudity, but it's not overly graphic when it came to the violence. The gore is low. Though, saying that it does provide some disturbing, raw and perverse images that have the force to stun. It's terrifyingly unpleasant and malevolent in small patches. Like the intense ferocity of the rape scene. Now onto the make-up. Well, the devil design stays mostly hidden in a black cloak, well that's up until the end were we get a clear shot. It's not so bad for the budget. Like so many have pointed out - the only real disappointment in my eyes was the under-whelming conclusion, after being squeezed real tight with tension it just fizzles out without a bang.
Obviously there was profound talent involved, they put their heart into this low-budget production and it all came together perfectly to be highly regarded by those who've seen it. I for one agree. Highly recommended.
By the way I love the original movie poster artwork for this flick. It's damn creepy!
- lost-in-limbo
- Feb 28, 2006
- Permalink
Not bad
For a very low budget film, this one is pretty good and delivers on some excellent chills. A peasant in 17th century England uncovers what he thinks is a dead creature while plowing--little did he suspect he actually unleashed a demon that would destroy much of the village. That's because somehow or other, this demon created a bizarre cult of mostly sexually charged teens who would kill or even gratuitously take off their clothes to serve their master! The plot is pretty interesting and bloody, though the ending did seem a bit too easy--as the demon was in fact a real wimp.
It's a decent time-passer, but parents should be forewarned--in addition to a bit of violence, the movie also features some full-frontal nudity and isn't exactly kids' fare. I was actually rather surprised this was shown on Turner Classic Movies, as most R-rated films don't show this much skin and TCM doesn't normally show movies like this.
Interesting and not nearly as schlocky as its very limited budget might suggest.
It's a decent time-passer, but parents should be forewarned--in addition to a bit of violence, the movie also features some full-frontal nudity and isn't exactly kids' fare. I was actually rather surprised this was shown on Turner Classic Movies, as most R-rated films don't show this much skin and TCM doesn't normally show movies like this.
Interesting and not nearly as schlocky as its very limited budget might suggest.
- planktonrules
- Mar 28, 2008
- Permalink
Is this closer to "The Crucible" or "Godspell"?
- mark.waltz
- Sep 19, 2019
- Permalink
One of the best British horror movies of the early 70s, and no, it's NOT Hammer.
The British horror boom of the 60s and 70s was dominated by Hammer, but a couple of other studios, Amicus and Tigon, tried their best to make their mark. Amicus are probably the better remembered of the two, with a few well loved anthologies to their credit (e.g. 'Asylum'), but Tigon actually made the better movies, especially the now classic 'Witchfinder General', directed by doomed cult figure Michael Reeves, as well as 'The Creeping Flesh', and 'The Blood On Satan's Claw', which is what 'Satan's Skin' is best known as. This movie frequently gets compared to 'Witchfinder General', but apart from being set in a similar era, and even having one actor in common (Patrick Wymark who plays The Judge here had a small cameo as Oliver Cromwell in 'Witchfinder General') they are quite different in approach and execution. Piers Haggard is no Michael Reeves but he's had an interesting career which has included the underrated final 'Quatermass' series (which starred Sir John Mills) and the entertaining Oliver Reed/Klaus Kinski exploitation thriller 'Venom', as well as working with Dennis Potter on 'Pennies From Heaven'. I still don't think 'Blood On Satan's Claw' is as good as 'Witchfinder General', but it's an excellent chiller nevertheless, and one of the most underrated British horror movies of all time. Like Reeves Haggard knows how to make the most of a small budget, and he manages to create an unsettling and creepy atmosphere. Also like Reeves he makes brilliant use of the English countryside. Patrick Wymark sadly died shortly after completing this movie, but it's a good testament to his talent. He gives a terrific performance. Also look out for his work in 'Repulsion' and 'Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun'. Seventies sex siren Linda Hayden ('Baby Doll', 'Madhouse', 'House On Straw Hill') is also memorable as Angel Blake, the leader of a Satanic group of young villagers. She looks absolutely stunning, and has one unforgettable nude scene. The supporting cast includes a few familiar faces, most notably Michelle Dotrice ('Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em') who plays Margaret, and Wendy Padbury (Zoe from 'Dr Who') who plays Cathy. The only thing I can really fault with this movie is the ending, which is a bit rushed and anti-climactic, but apart from that it's one of the best British horror movies of the early 70s, and highly recommended viewing.
One for classic British horror fans only
(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.
- adamscastlevania2
- Sep 14, 2014
- Permalink
A lurid, atmospheric, well shot and convincingly acted folk horror
A chilling low budget British horror film made by Tony Tenser's Tigon Productions, who often gave Hammer Films a run for their money with Gothic horrors like this one, it is very atmospheric, well shot, convincingly acted and confidently directed by Piers Haggard with some nice attention to period detail.
Similar to Tigon's Witchfinder General (1968) the story deals with naive villagers rooting out witches in 17th century England. When a local farmer unearths a skull belonging to an unidentified fiend the locals start developing signs of madness. While doctors try to treat patients who develop 'Devil's skin' the village soon becomes a coven of Devil worshippers led by teenager Linda Hayden and it is up to a more enlightened local Judge, played by Peter Wymark, to cast out the evil.
There's plenty of flesh on show as witches get sacrificed with some gory moments and plenty of unrelenting bleakness. Featuring a young Michelle Dotrice, who would go on to find fame as Betty in Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em (1973) on TV, the film was mostly shot on location in the English countryside and this provides an authentic backdrop which is both familiar and unsettling.
One of the better so called folk horror sub genre of horror films, The Blood on Satan's Claw is a lurid slow burner that holds the attention and one of the best horror films Hammer never made.
Similar to Tigon's Witchfinder General (1968) the story deals with naive villagers rooting out witches in 17th century England. When a local farmer unearths a skull belonging to an unidentified fiend the locals start developing signs of madness. While doctors try to treat patients who develop 'Devil's skin' the village soon becomes a coven of Devil worshippers led by teenager Linda Hayden and it is up to a more enlightened local Judge, played by Peter Wymark, to cast out the evil.
There's plenty of flesh on show as witches get sacrificed with some gory moments and plenty of unrelenting bleakness. Featuring a young Michelle Dotrice, who would go on to find fame as Betty in Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em (1973) on TV, the film was mostly shot on location in the English countryside and this provides an authentic backdrop which is both familiar and unsettling.
One of the better so called folk horror sub genre of horror films, The Blood on Satan's Claw is a lurid slow burner that holds the attention and one of the best horror films Hammer never made.
those dark ages
I hunted the world down to catch me a copy of this UK flick. So it had to come all the way from Australia to see the restored uncut and uncensored version. And what did I see, another witch hunt movie typical for the 70's. But this one has something special, it's also a bit of a Gothictale. Imaginary vision that you see the Devil, and dismembering yourself thinking you are possessed. Well done, only in Britain they can film such things and this isn't even a Hammermovie, that's why it is a bit hard to track it down. It is situated in the 17th century but still the peasants are believing in witches. So a town becomes obsessed of the underworld. It's all weird to explain this movie but it's really nice filmed, that I can tell and Linda Hayden gives a great performance. A time when everybody could be accused of witchcraft or rape. Just conclude that this flick is about witch hunts (noticed how they tested if you are a witch, it was really that why), satanism, mutilation, torture and rape. A really nice piece of history but not that well-known as Witchfinder General due the less known actors/actresses. Cheap to find this version in Australia but worth every cent.
Creepy, unsettling, unconventional, realistic and artistic, but also tedious
In the early 1700s, devil worship rears its sinister head in a village in England. Barry Andrews (who looks like Roger Daltrey) plays the young man who initially acquires evidence of the deviltry while Patrick Wymark plays the investigator and Anthony Ainley the minister. The young females include Tamara Ustinov (Rosalind), Linda Hayden (Angela), Wendy Padbury (Cathy) and Michele Dotrice (Margaret).
When you think of 60s-70s British horror you automatically think of Hammer Films, but Tigon's "The Blood on Satan's Claw" (1971) doesn't have that Hammer or Amicus vibe; or even American International. It's avant-garde, inventive and lifelike with a harrowing pervasive dread. Unfortunately, it's also tedious, particularly the first half.
One sequence is especially unsettling and remains controversial to this day. However, it was preceded by non-horror films with scenes that were even more unsettling and controversial, like Roger Corman's "The Wild Angels" from five years earlier, which showed a bike gang beating up the kindly minister who performed the funeral of their fallen comrade, as well as totally trashing his sanctuary (!). Then two of the bikers cruelly rape their dead comrade's girlfriend (!). To top it off, they outrageously abuse his corpse at the funeral party (!!). "Last Summer" (1969) is another example, masquerading as a teen beach drama. So, while a certain scene in "Blood on Satan's Claw" is effectively unsettling, other movies outside the horror genre had already paved the way.
The film runs 1 hour, 37 minutes, and was shot just west of London at Pinewood Studios, Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire, and places nearby, like Oxfordshire.
GRADE: B-
When you think of 60s-70s British horror you automatically think of Hammer Films, but Tigon's "The Blood on Satan's Claw" (1971) doesn't have that Hammer or Amicus vibe; or even American International. It's avant-garde, inventive and lifelike with a harrowing pervasive dread. Unfortunately, it's also tedious, particularly the first half.
One sequence is especially unsettling and remains controversial to this day. However, it was preceded by non-horror films with scenes that were even more unsettling and controversial, like Roger Corman's "The Wild Angels" from five years earlier, which showed a bike gang beating up the kindly minister who performed the funeral of their fallen comrade, as well as totally trashing his sanctuary (!). Then two of the bikers cruelly rape their dead comrade's girlfriend (!). To top it off, they outrageously abuse his corpse at the funeral party (!!). "Last Summer" (1969) is another example, masquerading as a teen beach drama. So, while a certain scene in "Blood on Satan's Claw" is effectively unsettling, other movies outside the horror genre had already paved the way.
The film runs 1 hour, 37 minutes, and was shot just west of London at Pinewood Studios, Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire, and places nearby, like Oxfordshire.
GRADE: B-
Unforgettably creepy period horror film
Set in 17th century Britain, this severely under-rated horror yarn fairly drips with a thick, creepy atmosphere that is hard to shake. The incredibly sexy Linda Hayden (here sporting bizarre, wicked eyebrows) stars as the sluttish leader of a group of children who discover, then worship, the remnants of what appears to be a demon in a farmer's field; they soon begin to perform sacrifices of other children to it. Patrick Wymark, in a fine, subtle performance, plays a Matthew Hopkins-type who puts a stop to the group's murderous shenanigans. The plot is presented in a somewhat disjointed, vague manner, especially during the disappointingly incoherent, anti-climactic finale. But the film's great strength is its amazingly real sense of place and time. Set during a remarkably superstitious period, the vividly presented characters (the acting is uniformly excellent) are in constant fear of an evil presence that palpably lurks everywhere; the film is so extremely well made that the viewer comes to share their constant dread. The end result is a stylish horror movie that is very uncomfortable to watch.
Evil and wonderful
- BandSAboutMovies
- Jan 18, 2020
- Permalink
British folk-horror from the 70s
- jfgibson73
- Nov 21, 2021
- Permalink
Haunting Gothic thriller
Criminally Underseen
- bensonmum2
- Feb 10, 2005
- Permalink
A Mockfest Opportunity
"The Blood on Satan's Claw" (1971) was one of the films that the Army and Air Force Exchange Service saw fit to inflict on troops stationed in places where the post theater was the only form of non-chemical entertainment. Your average early 1970's GI in these situations would see 250-300 films a year, making him/her a pretty fair judge of world cinema, at least during the period that coincided with their tour of duty.
I mention this because this film vied with "Puzzle of a Downfall Child" (1970) for the distinction of the worst film ever to grace our base theater. And whereas the Faye Dunaway classic was simply ill conceived and awful, "The Blood on Satan's Claw was a genuine mock fest candidate. The small group who held out for the "entire" screening would share a bond for the rest of their enlistment. It was a St. Crispin's type of thing.
As I recall the seductive trailer with its many shots of Linda Hayden promised much than the film itself delivered. And the production design (in both the trailer and the feature itself) was first class and atmospheric.
Unfortunately the sequencing was so bad that audiences failed to get into the story or to identify with any of the characters. And since the premise was rather simple, and the characters exhibited every 17th century/medieval/devil-worship cliché and stereotype, the producers had plenty of time in which they could have built suspense and tension. Instead they just built boredom.
Watching it now I suspect that the producers changed direction after shooting and tried to turn realism into expressionism during the post-production process (how else to account for the silly music and the slow-mo ending). The result serves as an example of why this is rarely a good idea.
The story takes place in an isolated little 17th century English village (sort of "Cromwell" meets "The Crucible" with a bit of the group rape from "The Wild Angels"). There is an exploitation element to the production, revolving around young Angel Drake (Hayden) and a group of village children (actually a bunch of aging actors trying-somewhat pathetically to pass as teenagers). But none of this except a brief bit of frontal nudity (Hayden) lives up the titillation promised in the trailer.
The plot is not that complex, but may appear murky because the pacing makes it difficult to give the thing your full attention, and the sequencing is so poorly done that confusion may occur. Basically, some evil entity is at work around the village. Assorted body parts are turning up or getting hacked off; and once enough of these are assembled the evil creature is expected to take form. Meanwhile the overage teens, led by Angel (note the heavy symbolism), have formed into a devil-worshiping cult that is a danger to itself and others. And in some cases the furry mark of the beast is upon them. It's nonstop boredom and frame after frame of screamingly dull pretension.
I mention this because this film vied with "Puzzle of a Downfall Child" (1970) for the distinction of the worst film ever to grace our base theater. And whereas the Faye Dunaway classic was simply ill conceived and awful, "The Blood on Satan's Claw was a genuine mock fest candidate. The small group who held out for the "entire" screening would share a bond for the rest of their enlistment. It was a St. Crispin's type of thing.
As I recall the seductive trailer with its many shots of Linda Hayden promised much than the film itself delivered. And the production design (in both the trailer and the feature itself) was first class and atmospheric.
Unfortunately the sequencing was so bad that audiences failed to get into the story or to identify with any of the characters. And since the premise was rather simple, and the characters exhibited every 17th century/medieval/devil-worship cliché and stereotype, the producers had plenty of time in which they could have built suspense and tension. Instead they just built boredom.
Watching it now I suspect that the producers changed direction after shooting and tried to turn realism into expressionism during the post-production process (how else to account for the silly music and the slow-mo ending). The result serves as an example of why this is rarely a good idea.
The story takes place in an isolated little 17th century English village (sort of "Cromwell" meets "The Crucible" with a bit of the group rape from "The Wild Angels"). There is an exploitation element to the production, revolving around young Angel Drake (Hayden) and a group of village children (actually a bunch of aging actors trying-somewhat pathetically to pass as teenagers). But none of this except a brief bit of frontal nudity (Hayden) lives up the titillation promised in the trailer.
The plot is not that complex, but may appear murky because the pacing makes it difficult to give the thing your full attention, and the sequencing is so poorly done that confusion may occur. Basically, some evil entity is at work around the village. Assorted body parts are turning up or getting hacked off; and once enough of these are assembled the evil creature is expected to take form. Meanwhile the overage teens, led by Angel (note the heavy symbolism), have formed into a devil-worshiping cult that is a danger to itself and others. And in some cases the furry mark of the beast is upon them. It's nonstop boredom and frame after frame of screamingly dull pretension.
- aimless-46
- Mar 28, 2008
- Permalink