Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

halkatla-77828 I mostly want to point out that despite some reviews claiming otherwise, some of the people in this documentary are not actors. The older woman who leads a witchcraft session with naked young ladies and the young woman getting married were both famous "real" witches back in the day. The husband as well. I've forgotten their names but if you watch the movie just go check online, there's lots of info about them. I had to research this since I was basically 50/50 for either believing it or not and a bit sad to see in the other reviews that it was all faked with actors. So good people, this stuff is real, basically the only things not completely provable are the Finnish ceremony and the black mass, but I'm personally quite sure that they were not made up. Why would they be? It was very easy to find stuff like this happening all over the world. I guess people were more open with their occult ceremonies at the time, but they're still happening, take for instance Marina Abramovitch and all the famous people and politicians who go to her ritual parties. Rappers and musicians are openly worshiping Lucifer etc.So sure, this looks a bit silly but the witchcraft was real.

d1684 OK, first, the one review above about "a lot of stuff being occult in 1970" doesn't even seem to be about this movie. I think he's confused it with something with a similar title/subject.There are two movies which use some of the same footage. The Italian version, "White Angels, Black Angels", is more like a Mondo documentary of the 1960's.The American version titled "Witchcraft '70" is a better version in my opinion. It's tone treats witchcraft with a more sinister view. It leaves out footage of Hare Krishnas that the Italian version has, and has a much more spookier theme. Plus it has a cool psychedelic opening, with low tech, but effective graphics.I'll focus on the American release (although for some reason it's harder to find. Try to find it, it's better. ). The first scene features some kind of Wicca/Crowley type cult. The High Priestess' name isn't given, nor the name of the cult/coven. The rituals appears Wiccan, but uses Crowley's "Hymn To Pan" (although it could still be Wiccan), and there's a challenge to the Judeo-Christian God in the movie by the buxom High Priestess, "if there be any power left in Heaven, let it transfix my breast". How charming. Wicca was born out of Crowleyism, so it's hard to say what the cult it exactly. Satanist? Wiccan? Thelema? Mix-and-match? Oh well. While Wiccans nowadays may whine about the movie lumping them together with Satanists, the truth is, the line was more blurry back then...even though they won't admit it.Next, we see Alex Sanders perform a Wiccan wedding. In the 70's Wicca was all about nudity and sex, unlike the very watered down version of Silver Ravenwolf.There's also scenes with Anton LaVey reading the destruction ritual from The Satanic Bible and the Invocation of Satan...different material from what is in "Satanis". If you want to see what a bunch of Yahoos LaVey and the original Church of Satan were, see that movie. Even so, you still get to see LaVey wearing goofy devil horns and pimping out his own wife as a nude altar. The Church of Satan ritual scene has less nudity than the Wiccan and Voodoo groups even though they're "more evil", oddly enough.There's a Brazilian Macumba purification ritual which shows prostitutes being chastised. It's seems to have been shot in 8mm, and the narrator says it's someone's vacation home movies...might have been.There's an LA voodoo ritual which supposedly was recorded with a hidden camera, but looks like it could have been staged.There's an Indonesian Hindu exorcism ritual with daggers, and for some reason, a scene of a Dutch Charismatic church singing hymns in church (proably to add little footage).There's also another UK Wiccan ritual in England, with a probably fake interview with a witch from said coven who for some reason was an American. They do the old fashioned "Eko Eko" chant in that scene. Wiccans were exhibitionists who wanted the spotlight back then (unlike now? lol!). They thought nothing of getting naked and selling out their "religion" for the cameras. Wiccans nowadays (with a few exceptions) will be rather disappointed in watching how the originals did it.There is a scene showing hippies in Devil's Canyon, were the Mansons hung out. The scene depicts the kind of made up witchcraft hippies practiced, resulting in one girl getting assaulted (although you really can't see what's going on). This could be another staged scene...or who knows, it could have been real. Real as reality TV. The Mansons stole some NBC TV camera equipment, so who knows, it might even be some of the long lost "Manson porn" you hear about...but I seriously doubt it.There is nudity in the film, but no actual penetration. It was an X rated film when it was released...would probably be considered an NC-17 today. Some people find the Witchcraft '70 version creepy, and even scary. I've had friends that had to get up and leave the room when I showed it. Seriously. If you know someone curious about the occult, this would probably nip it in the bud for them...unless they're truly weird. There's no mention of Jesus or the Bible or anything, it just shows the weirdos for what they are.Another good film in this genre if you can find it is "Journey Into The Beyond" (1975 or 76) narrated by John Carradine, although it would be considered more slanted in favor toward the occult.

Beli Luk This is very funny stuff. It's not actually documentary, most of it is directed, but it has tendency to be seen as "real documentary". It's loaded with funny stuff-quotes like "Dionis, god of ecstatic intoxication", rite in Finland with "severed pig head painted in black (wtf?!?!), satanists in black mass that are afraid to show their vagina (shy satanists?!?!?), but funniest of all is part with voodoo rites, where narrator first mentions St. Hypnosis (?), and then there's some creepy footage of ritual with young girl sitting while some "priest" decapitates chickens and goat on her head. That's not directed (I hope), but the funniest thing is when narrator says that "they put feathers of dead birds on girl's head as the symbol that she may fly above unhappiness and poverty like these birds!" Hahaha, yeah right, they flew really high. There is also LaVey, who is funniest of all. But the creepiest thing is psychedelic flower music that's in background all the time, and no matter how ridiculous movie is, it was scary for me to look at some freaky voodoo cemetery ritual with psychedelic groove in the background. Seariously, it's obvious that this movie was supposed to have educational tone, witch maybe it had in 1970., but today it looks like poor Christian mockumentary on everything "blasphemous". This isn't movie that'll teach you anything about occult and supernatural; this is the movie you should watch with your friends and have really good laugh.P.S. Last part of the movie is about cryogenics. Guess that was occult in the 1970's.

Steve Nyland (Squonkamatic) This movie is hilarious, quite simply put. What's even funnier is that some people think it's real. It's a scripted faux "Mondo" style globe-hopping documentary on the worship of Satan, every bit of it dreamed up by a writer and performed by stock or non-actors who were following a screenplay, of sorts. Yes, Anton LeVay makes an appearance, but the Walrus was Paul etc: It's just nonsense, but great for the press to putter about, and LeVay agreed to be in the film (plus another he participated in, SATANIS: THE DEVIL'S MASS) as a publicity stunt for his Church of Satan nightclub.The narrator of the English language version is a treasure: It's actually frequent genre actor/star Edward Purdom, and the tip-off to what is going on should be his blasé description of an initiation ritual in which a young supplicant's slim, sexy body is ceremonially covered in blood from a severed boar's head -- shown from multiple, up-close tight angles. I am sure such a ritual actually exists, somewhere, but come on ... This could be a long Monty Python sketch about otherwise ordinary British twits (played by Italians) going about their lives as hen-sacrificing, orgy participating followers of Satan, only there's no punchline. It's all straight man material, poker faced in sincerity about pretending to show us the alleged pastimes of various satanists, and describing it all in the same way that a NOVA episode about Amazon rain forest tribespeople might be narrated.The film *IS* rather dated -- the surviving home video prints look very old, tired, washed out, and about five generations of dubbing old. There's a shorter version called WITCHCRAFT 70 that you can sometimes find online as prior rentals, then a super rare longer version called WHITE ANGELS, BLACK ANGELS that purports to be uncut. It probably is, but the print used was so shabby and over-used when transferred that it's hard to tell: splice damage is rampant, the film has a discontinuous narrative, it's more a collection of oddly staged little scenes cleverly edited together by someone with a very offbeat sense of humor.A lot of the hilarity seems inadvertent, but then again you never know. The whole idea of this school of film-making is a put-on, and if you aren't in on the joke you might actually think that some inventive film crew actually did get access to forbidden rituals & film events as they were really taking place. I think a better question would be, how accurate is the depiction of dark worship presented? I don't doubt for a minute that some of the participants actually are coven members re-enacting their little orgies or whatever, but the point of the film was to entertain, not educate, indoctrinate or even shed light on Satanic worship. It's almost pure exploitation, and only notorious because of the subject matter & amount of bare naked bodies. I will concede that it goes on for about a half hour longer than it really needed to: My attention started to wane at about the sixty minute mark, though I am sure that if you are into this kind of stuff it will all be riveting ... even the repeated night shots of a city skyline. Which must have looked pretty cool to the cameraman tripping on the hillside, but don't mean much on a small screen.Still, it's a priceless movie, especially with that hilarious narration. As Homer Simpson might put it, "It's funny because they seem to be so serious about something so stupid." Hilarious.7/10