The Hexer

2001 "Destiny is a double-edged sword"
3.8| 2h10m| en
Details

Adapted from a series of fantasy novels by the Polish author Andrzej Sapkowski, The Witcher tells the tale of Geralt, one of a few remaining "witchers" — traveling monster hunters for hire, gifted with unnatural powers.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Supelice Dreadfully Boring
ShangLuda Admirable film.
Claire Dunne One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.
Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.
altctrldel the movie is simply horrible (2/10). Although actors are trying their best (well sometimes that isn't much) special effects are ...let me put it this way it would be better if there weren't any.The script is based on Sapkowski's prose, so it should be the biggest advantage of this movie. Sadly it's the opposite. There is nothing left of the original atmosphere. And it's all very chaotic. Maybe they just had too much material to show in 2h time.Anyway if you would like to see this film I would recommend you to look for the TV series (same title, same actors, even the plot stays the same) that was made in the same time the movie did. It is so much better (9/10) and the story there actually make sense:)
lloth-1 Brodzki's creation is a great example of how NOT to make a movie. First there was a book written with a great humor. Book that has numerous fans who would be happy to supply help when producers for some reasons decided to employ people who hardly heard of the book in the first place. Then came a script as humorless and full of nonsense as possible. At the same time the script was written in a way to allow only those who actually had read the books to understand anything of the plot. Not that anything in this movie made much sense anyway(ex. "I'm like an ice shard. You can burn yourself" said Yennefer as a word of warning - warning that logic is something this movie seriously lacks). To add to that we have to mention that no matter the amount of money that was supposedly spent on the movie everything looks like an amateur production with two (2) computer effects one of which is a see-through dragon. Even the costumes look as if the were borrowed from a really poor theater. That is the better ones look this way. And to add to that we have a few 'naked scenes' put there only so they will be in the film because they have no explanation in what one may mercifully call plot. The movie has only one strength that can hardly make up for the rest - music is not bad. Though if I was to choose I'd prefer to have it separately. It sounds better if you don't have to look at this failure of super production.
stareko I don't understand why everybody says "the worst movie." I think these reactions are only from fanatic fans of A.Sapkovski. The movie tells us a DIFFERENT tale only based on the Sapkovski's novels and it's quite well. Actors are good too (exlude Yennefer). Yeah, special effects should be better but it's a TV movie with low budget. I like the movie.
JakubDemianczuk Yes, that's true. That movie is a horrible piece of... you know what. Almost all fans of Sapkowski's books in Poland think the same. The truth is that polish cinematography can not afford producing fantasy films. It's a shame when you compare "Wiedzmin" and "Conan the Barbarian" for example. I hope no one outside Poland will ever see this nightmare.