Bathory: Countess of Blood (2008) User Reviews

A visual experience that takes its time

[l-vrtis · 7/10 · 16 July 2008]

Fields stained with Turkish blood. Villages and witches burned. High castles and deep catacombs. Bleak life full of vivid imagination. Such is the world Bathory, The Bloody Lady of Cachtice.

Elizabeth Bathory lets you see the film through the eyes of a mother, lover and ruler rather than the legendary serial killer. Throughout the film she strives to protect her children, love and land while ignoring her tainted reputation. The intrigues escalate. Blood is spilled. And a false myth is born.

Although there is a complex epic plot, the film feels more like a series of still pictures. There is a lot of symbolism and the plot slows down so that you can fully enjoy it. Apart from the story, the Bathory also takes some time to explain how myths are created and abused to serve one’s needs. The acting is outstanding but does not stand out as much as the Hungarian costumes that make the film look fresh.

Unfortunately the movie is significantly flawed by repetitive comic relief in which two monks use various inventions to spy on the countess. They seem to have come from another movie and make you question the taste of the writers. Should there be a version without those comedians a 9/10 rating would be appropriate.

Believable acting and story

[endura-1 · 7/10 · 11 August 2009]

however the director obviously tried to clear countess's name. Elizabeth Bathory is portrayed as a victim to frantic witch huntings of those times and a evil doings of palatin Thurzo. This is the reason why film falls into "historical-fiction" category. If anyone is interested in objective account of life of "countess Dracula", may not ever find out the truth. Little is left of facts and the rest are testimonies, obtained by tortures, those aren't much reliable. I read a lot of reviews on IMDb of this film, rarely flattering. In my opinion it deserves better. "Bathory" (2008) is beautifully made into a sad, dreamlike tale. I was positively surprised how much attention was paid to costumes/scenography/objects accuracy. Thanks to that I felt more and could imagine better the spirit of 16th century. Much attention was paid to details, again costumes, carts and amazing locations. Film well worth seeing. The only fall back for me was the strange mix of English speech with heavy Hungarian accents. I just detest this kind of "universalization". Why not make a film in Hungarian with English subtitles? Much better.

A myth-buster with a "legend" all its own

[melvelvit-1 · 6/10 · 30 October 2010]

Lavish, romanticized account of the life and times of 16th century Hungarian countess Erzsébet Bathory, history's most prolific serial killer...

BATHORY, a would-be epic with nice period detail, aspires to myth-buster status by painting the "Bloody Countess of Čachtice" as a victim of political chicanery in a male-dominated society but all it accomplishes is a "legend" of its own by white-washing history, facts be damned. Here, as a wealthy woman who's vast holdings could turn the tide in a power struggle between Catholics and Protestants as they fight off a Muslim invasion, Countess Bathory is more sinned against than sinning and framed for crimes she never committed. Yeah, right. Valentine Penrose & Alexander Trocchi's well-researched "The Bloody Countess: Atrocities Of Erzsébet Bathory", offers a significantly different account based on historical records:

"Descended from one of the most ancient aristocratic families of Europe, Erzsébet Bathory bore the psychotic aberrations of centuries of intermarriage. From adolescence she indulged in sadistic lesbian fantasies where only the spilling of a woman's blood could satisfy her urges. By middle age she had regressed to a mirror-fixated state of pathological necro-sadism involving witchcraft, torture, blood-drinking, cannibalism and, inevitably, wholesale slaughter. These years, at the latter end of the 16th century, witnessed a reign of cruelty unsurpassed in the annals of mass murder with the Countess' depredations on the virgin girls of the Carpathians leading to some 650 deaths. Her many castles were equipped with chambers where she would hideously torture and mutilate her victims, becoming a murder factory where hundreds of girls were killed and processed for the ultimate youth-giving ritual: the bath of blood..."

In Juraj Jakubisko's film, Erzsébet Bathory is depicted as an intelligent woman ahead of her time and a Protestant preyed upon by the Catholic Church as well as her late husband's covetous best friend although she still finds time for a passionate affair with the Italian painter Caravaggio (!) as her subjects try inventing spring-powered roller skates, phonographs, still photography, and primitive airplanes a la Leonardo Da Vinci. The tale, a de-fanged poison valentine to renaissance Hungary, is served up on a grand scale but twists the truth into a monumental mis-carriage of injustice that's recommended to revisionists only. What's next, JEFFREY DAHMER -THE MUSICAL?

Faulty but Anna Friel's Báthory is Perfect

[amesmonde · 9 April 2011]

This story follows the rise and fall of one of history's most prolific serial killers, Countess Báthory who supposedly bathed in virgins blood to stay youthful. 

This is a comprehensive fictionalised TV version directed and written by Juraj Jakubisko with mixed production values in both tone and atmosphere. The setting is fantastic and breathtaking, however, the exterior scenes lack the Gothic feel that the interiors have. 

As a TV film, in several parts, the Monks narration and involvement arguably fits, however, as a film it may have benefited from the omission of the character entirely. You'll also either love or hate the involvement of painter Caravaggio. Historical inaccuracies aside and the unnecessary humour injected usually by the monk, this incarnation of the legend is very interesting and adds food for thought to the tale of Báthory. In addition, it gives an interesting portrayal of politics, religion and royalty of the time.

Anna Friel is fantastic as the miss-judged Erzsébet Báthory and gives a wonderful performance, full of range and emotional depth. It's not all out horror, a possible nod to Ingrid Pitt in Countess Dracula (1970). Co-Star Karel Roden is on top form as Juraj Thurzo and  Vincent Regan is notable. The supporting cast do just that. The principle characters have strong motivations for their actions and the morale choices are at times shades of grey. 

It's not without its faults but there's a handful of interesting dream and hallucination sequences and enough twists on the tale to keep you watching. This coupled with some fine locations, costumes and performances makes Bathory worth your time.

Chess game with an open end

[ErasmusSpikher · 7/10 · 21 July 2008]

A viewer familiar with the name in the title of the movie will come into the theater expecting to look at -- and be horrified by -- the ugliest female murderer in history. During the first two thirds of the movie he or she will witness enough suspicious events to believe that their worst fears will eventually come true. The suspense is mounting and murders of innocent maids, baths in blood and occasional turning of the vile noblewoman into a black cat are just around the corner. At first glance, all we see is beautiful lady with an enormous hairdo (Anna Friel -- a truly nice performance!), who is wildly rich but unhappy in an arranged marriage. No wonder that when the unloved husband sends her a young painter (Hans Matheson) with an order to paint a portrait of her, faster than you pronounce "in the clothes I cannot distinguish the curves of your body'' she finds herself engaged into an emotional relationship with him. Short takes shot with artistic craftsmanship introduce us to permanently new situations that wear out at the moment the take is over, building up atmosphere rather than summing up into a coherent story. At a quick pace, we recognize that the lady likes to ride her husband shouting ''hajra'', meaning ''let's go'' in Hungarian; that she lost her baby after being raped by the husband when he appeared at home from the war against Turks; that he regrets what he has done, understanding that the war has made a beast from him; that her hairdo is fake; that the painter is Caravaggio; that the greedy neighbor who wishes to steal three lakes from her (Karel Roden) likes to play chess; that Caravaggio would wear a hat with burning candles when painting at night (yes, just like Forman's Goya), and so forth. While this is going on, every now and then there appears a remark or a situation that reminds us that the main character is THE Elizabeth Bathory. Finally we see her doing something which seems to confirm beyond all doubt her reputation -- only to find during the next take that she was under the influence of some hallucinogenic mushroom and did not know about herself. It is like chess game with an opponent having all forces ready for attack, but keeping to maneuver as if he was following some secret plan. *** SPOILER *** For me, the decisive evidence that I got the heroine wrong came shortly after the mushroom incident, with a certain finding -- let me put it in this way in order to soften the spoiler -- of two monks, a sophisticated old man and a boy, who were investigating the proceedings in the castle of Cachtice (just like the couple in The Name of the Rose was investigating the proceedings in the abbey -- but hey, how much of the Shakespeare's stuff was really original?). It was as late as that when I finally realized what the director, who is also the principal author of the script, has been telling us from the beginning: that countess Dracula was not Dracula at all. Many will charge the movie with a deliberate distortion of history, but its creator does not take notice of the battle cry of enemy combat orders and, like a knight of an old romance, carries on with his brave campaign to clean up the name of a noble lady. So far so good. But then again, why he confuses us for a better part of the movie making us think that the heroine is just as spoiled as the Guinness Book of World Records claims? When he postpones the revelation of the premise of the movie, he is putting himself at risk that the movie will produce massive disappointment in the audiences and attacks on the box office to get back the entrance fee. The more knightly is his deed, but anyway, what is the possible purpose to play with the viewer like that? Because he plays chess with US, not with the countess; and what appeared to be mysterious maneuvers on his part was in fact a row of subsequent sacrifices before the surprising final combination. However, the chess player who has lost the game can still enjoy the shear aesthetics of his defeat. The artist arranged the scene in such a realistic manner that the viewer is convinced it is meant to represent reality; and after the mistake becomes clear, an expiration of enchantment ensues. Like when Judith is just about to behead Holofernes, but after Caravaggio waves his hand, she puts down the knife and Holofernes stands up from the couch with a smile.

Messy Screenplay, Fine Art Direction

[claudio_carvalho · 4/10 · 10 April 2010]

"Bathory" is a long film divided in three Parts (Ferenc, Darvulia and Thurzo) based on the story and legend of an Hungarian Countess Elizabeth Bathory that lived in the Upper Hungary Sixteenth Century in the period of the Turkish invasion and got the fame of bathing in blood of virgin maids to keep her beauty.

The art direction and the music score are classy and wonderful and the lead actress is very beautiful despite the weird wig she wears. Unfortunately after 141 minutes running time I am not sure whether she was an innocent victim of a conspiracy, bathing on herbs to remain beautiful; or whether she was a criminal logged in the Guinness Book as the remark in the very end since the messy and never clear screenplay shows her as an ambiguous character. In some moments she seems to be sadistic and in other moments she seems to be very pure. The subplots with the Italian painter and the two spy-monks are quite unnecessary and ridiculous.

In the end, director Juraj Jakubisko wastes a great budget and a story with a good potential with a confused tale of greed and treason. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Condessa de Sangue" ("Countess of Blood")

Entertaining, mostly excellent work with some things to ignore

[wewilsons · 7/10 · 22 August 2012]

The period history is exceptionally done. The amount of effort it took to portray the often brutal, calculating undercurrent and intrigue of the time was an excellent work. Visuals and acting is also mostly excellent. I was surprised how enthralled I became watching the very difficult and cruel life they lived. Costumes are excellent. Sets are excellent. Props and carriages and towns are excellently done.

What are a little odd for me are Elsebeths dreams. Even though I now recognize the coloration changes indicating her dreamstate it was sometimes hard to determine when she was dreaming and when not. This may have been intended as she had the same difficulty. The thing that did not belong at all in this movie was a very minor comic relief (yes comic relief) from the 2 monks who for some crazy reason had rollerskates, key wound power shoes and other technology that had no bearing on this movie at all. While the film is Czech and possibly "different" ,whomever had the idea to do this did not belong.

What was done nicely was the wrap up at the end of that Elsebeth was likely framed by the Hapsburgs. That to me is the most believable explanation of what she was accused of. To have killed 650 or even 50 maidens and bathed in their blood while everyone feared Gods wrath at every corner and everyone in the town would have know is a pretty ludicrous idea. It is more likely she was innocent and framed for her wealth and power. Worth watching for any history buff, but be forewarned, it is a long ride.

So much potential, but a crushing disappointment

[rick-463 · 4/10 · 1 July 2009]

If you are a fan of the Bathory legend, Gothic period films or Anna Friel, this is worth a watch, mostly for Anna Friel's performance and the high quality technical aspects of the film (the cinematography, set design and costume design are fantastic and help the film come off as quite epic at times). I also really liked the twist on the Bathory tale, which I wont describe here to avoid spoilers but I will say it may be the best thing to come from the film. There were times I truly enjoyed watching Bathory and was enthralled by the story.

But having said all these nice things and recommending a watch for certain people, I cannot emphasize enough how dreadful this film was. The dialog was horrible, many of the actors in important roles come off as amateur at best, and the worst crime here is the addition of the monks as poorly conceived vehicles for exposition and totally unnecessary comic relief. This element of the film is so terribly bad and inappropriate that whoever introduced it into this film needs to never, ever be involved in making another movie again because they are clearly incompetent. That may sound over the top, but I cannot stress enough how much it hurt this film. I saw the need for exposition, but it could have been done in a myriad of more appropriate ways, and the comic aspects were so completely out of place here it killed any mood the film created. It truly helped ruin what could have been a fantastic movie.

That is the most obvious example of what makes Bathory so disappointing - seeing the potential of what could have been great constantly squandered by bad film making. They made a world class epic film with excellent technical work, a great re-imagining of the Bathory legend and a good performance by Ms. Friel, but regularly sabotaged it. The entire time I watched it the thought running through my mind was "It could have been so good!", so it was quite a frustrating experience.

I gave Bathory a 4 which I think is fair. To explain - on one hand it may deserve a bit higher rating, but on the other hand I was originally going to give it a 2 or 3 simply because when the film was at it's best you see it could have been an 8 - 10 but they just kept ruining it. I went higher because I felt a score that low wouldn't give enough credit to the people who did a very good job in an otherwise bad film but anything over a 4 would be rewarding the incompetence as well.

What a missed opportunity.

Highly enjoyable and Mesmerising

[midnightsilvered-rose · 10/10 · 9 June 2011]

The great thing about this film is it's unique style, which has great flair, very like the best of Ken Russell. It doesn't try to be blandly mainstream, the director is too talented for that, he has too much vision to fit in with the prosaic , boring and anodyne rot usually filling our screens. This film entertains with gusto, flair, beauty and horror. One may quibble with any film and look for faults, but this film is fascinating and compelling, suitable for anyone interested in the drama of the life of Erzsebet Bathory. One soon comes to see through the eyes of the lead characters, their brutal and beautiful world lives and breathes again, shockingly, before our eyes.

Erzsabet's story is told in a such a colourful, dynamic and thoroughly gripping way, that certainly had me looking forward to seeing more, like asking for a second helping of a surprisingly delicious pudding, I relished what I found to be so enjoyable after having heard such bad reviews. Erzsabet's life and times were brutal and this is shown graphically but not too eye wateringly. The performances are highly entertaining and extremely powerful especially the characters of Erzsabet, Caravaggio and Thurzo. Some have quibbled about the English accents of the actors but actually I thought Ezsabet's Hungarian accent rather convincing, the chill of steel to the edge of her voice. It is a very accessible story, so who would be so daft as to require the actors to speak Hungarian and so lose half the audience, who are either too dense or lazy to read subtitles. Frankly a ridiculous quibble, one does not notice anything but how fine the performances truly are.

Visually stunning and beautiful, the script gives us a thumpingly good story and altogether it is a mesmerising piece of cinema. It is so powerful that twenty four hours after watching, it still haunts me and I look forward to seeing more from this director and creative team. I feel I've discovered, at last, a piece of English language cinema that isn't formulaic, that isn't dull and predictable, that isn't the same old same old, that isn't like every other pleasant enough but unimaginative 'product,' here is something unique and artistically brave and exciting.

Altogether I think one would have to be in a very sour and unforgiving mood to find fault. If you want to be entertained and why else watch, everyone should enjoy this unfairly maligned but unusually fascinating film.

Damn you, Redbox!

[JoeB131 · 3/10 · 5 September 2012]

Redbox got rights to this 2008 reject from Czech TV, and melted it down into a 3 hour movie that they tried to pass off with a horror sub-title, "Countess of Blood".

Instead, what you get is a Hungarian History lesson that is about as clear as Goolash. They take the notorious Blood Countess of Hungary, Erzabet Bathory, who was one of the influences for Dracula, and actually try to spin her in a positive light (Namely, that if she was brutal at all, she was brutal for the time she lived in.) A tighter, shorter movie would have worked better, without the unneeded characters like the two monks who come up with wacky steam-punk inventions.

I think the movie looks great and puts you in that time period pretty well... and it quickly touches on the politics of feudal Austria-Hungary. But it's really just too long and unfocused.

About the monks

[legersky-randy · 8/10 · 20 August 2012]

Many reviews here find the monks' humor out of place, inappropriate, or they just didn't see the purpose of it. It's my opinion that if you didn't find it amusing, then its most likely more of a cultural difference than a matter of taste. This type of humor is very common in Slovakia and Romania. I'm saying this as a Slovak-American, someone married to a Romanian, and who lived in Romania for five years.

I also agree with the reviewers who point out this is a post-modernist historical fiction. It's more of a fantasy than either a horror tale or historical biography.

Yes, there are some flaws with the point-of-view at the beginning. The first part was disjointed because it kept switching plot lines and character focus, but the second and third parts worked magically. I'm sure it also seemed complex or confusing if you are not familiar with the inner struggles and politics of the Hungarians, Slovaks, and Romanians at that time. But, I find it interesting and even amusing that the conflicts still continue within these reviews about whose version of history is right (or best) -- the Hungarian Catholics, the Lutherans, the Slovaks, the Romanians in Transylvania, etc. That's basically the point of the movie! We'll never know the "truth" unless we could have had some spies there writing it all down in a record that also verified the other evidence. Every noble family and religion in that space has always had political power motives in presenting their own versions of history. It gets so crazy and sad at a point that all you can do is make a joke (like the monks) and try to laugh so you don't go crazy too.

Unhistorical history

[janbathory · 1/10 · 7 December 2009]

Bathory is a very boring and dull movie. The dialogues are awful, the characters are weak and the political situation depicted is so simple and primitive as if it was made up by pupils of a Slovakian primary school.

The battle of Esztergom (the city is Hungary's first and main archdiocesan centre), one of the 12 most important battles against Turkish occupation, is fought in this film among a dozen tents.

Caravaggio (who never went to Upper Hungary) is an important character of this film. Represented as a bisexual having sexual relationship with Erzsébet Báthory, he escapes from custody through some secret dungeons nobody knew but him. Ridiculous.

The monks in the movie invent some kind of photo-taking camera, a parachute, a stethoscope-like monitoring bug and roller skating with hairspring shoes that automatically climb mountains.

The makers of the movie suggest that the first Hungarian library was founded in the early 17. century. In reality there was a library in my homeland as early as the year 1000. Have they heard about the Corvinas?

The audience is also told that in the 16. century 13 languages were spoken in Hungary, (which did not exist as a whole, as one third was occupied by the Habsburg Empire, one third by the Turkish Empire). I would say, there had to be even more different languages in a chaos like that, not just thirteen. People watching the movie are not told either that Hungary was torn to three pieces at that time and that a considerable population of Hungarians died in the 150 years of fighting against Turkish invaders.

The main language spoken in the film was English/Slovakian with a few sentences in Hungarian, German and Italian. The whole movie should have been filmed in Hungarian or better in Latin, since those were the tongues the noblemen talked in. Thus the film is upside down, since only some of the supporting actors have only a few sentences in Hungarian. (The ones that should be in Slovakian.) That's why one might conclude that Hungarians could say only things like "f*ck you", "you b*tch", "the rotten dogs sh*t their pants", "oh, my God", etc.

There is also a very lame performance of János Szappanyos of Debreczen's poem (Militaris congratulatio comitatus Bihariensis) which, by the way, was dedicated to István Bocskai, not to Nádasdy.

The distorted character of György Thurzó is really pathetic as he plays the role of the main villain, responsible for nearly all the miseries of Erzsébet Báthory, even for the death of her relative, the distant Gábor Báthory, Prince of Transylvania.

In general Hungarian noblemen are depicted as stupid, uneducated and aggressive. In actual fact, the court of Ferenc Nádasdy was a splendid example of fine renaissance art. He even had a printing-house in Sárvár.

I am a Hungarian historian, I wrote my thesis from XVI. century and I feel a bit funny about how Slovaks make a derogatory film about Hungarian history with British actors. Tünde Lengyel, the historian who helped the development of this film proved to be really professional when creating the background by costumes and scenery. It's a shame she could not alter the stupidity of the whole movie.

A disappointment

[aremeny · 3/10 · 24 February 2012]

I'm not going to write a traditional review about Bathory, I'll just name a few pros and contras.

Pros: - Erzsébet Báthory isn't shown as a blood bathing demoness, rather as a protestant mistress of high nobility trying to survive in the 16-17th century, in the Kingdom of Hungary and someone who is loved by the peasants throughout her lands.

• The names are correct and the locations as well, even though they are mentioned by their Slovakian names, and not their original Hungarian names.

• Clothes, dresses and makeups are fairly authentic contrary to the ones seen in the other movie about Erzsébet Báthory: The Countess.

• Anna Friel the actress who portrays Erzsébet Báthory is charming and talented, a bit more grace would have helped though.

Cons: - The movie did quite a good job portraying locations and names, but tried too much by showing battle scenes (which are quite pathetic) that do not belong to the story. It's true that Erzsébet Báthory had fought a lot against the Turks (not personally of course), but these scenes don't have anything to do with the plot. They could have made 1 grand battle scene with lots of men and with a better design. Sometimes less is more.

• English language is good, sure the film can get to a larger audience this way but authenticity should have required Hungarian. I mean we are talking about a Slovakian-Czech production here, Hungary is not on the other end of the world and there are more than half-million Hungarians living in Slovakia. Funny thing is, Hungarian language can be heard throughout the movie – usually when cussing or shouting – but it's pretty pointless, just like the use of Slovak. Just to remain at historical facts: nobility spoke either in Hungarian, German or Latin, peasants and servants spoke Slovakian in the upper parts of the Kingdom of Hungary. Staying at the dialogues: they were awfully simple, the scriptwriter must have been either very young or had some difficulties with English.

• Relating to the previous point the filmmakers completely left out Hungary of the creation of the movie, and – therefore - the movie seemingly suffers from historical inaccuracy. I may sound a bit bitter here, but you don't go on making a movie about Africa for example without actually going to Africa and without the advices of real Africans. Oh well, maybe next time.

• There are scenes which are simply laughable: the best one was when Hungarian soldiers are attacking and raping Turkish women (!). Yep, you heard it right: Turks are invading the Kingdom of Hungary and they bring along their women into a war zone… right.

The movie is watchable but I was expecting a lot-lot more, since Erzsébet Báthory lived in the territory of modern day Slovakia (back then it was the Kingdom of Hungary). A major disappointment for me.

A waste of time

[lindahlin · 2/10 · 16 July 2009]

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen (and I've seen "Freddy got fingered"). I found myself cringing over the acting but mostly over the horrible dialogue. Why oh why are they speaking English (or rather, trying to)?! The weird dream and fantasy sequences did not help either. Yes, the scenery and the costumes are very good, but it doesn't help. A turd is a turd even when coated in silk.

The most stupid part, though, had to be the monks sent to spy on the countess. They turn this story into a parody of itself.

It could have been good. I WANTED it to be good, to be a notable reply in the stories, true or untrue, surrounding the countess Bathory, but no matter how hard I try I cannot in good faith recommend anyone to spend two hours on this movie. If you want to know more about Erzsebet Bathory, this is not the movie for you.

I do not have much to complain about

[pearlyglass · 9/10 · 8 January 2010]

I honestly do not see while people are bashing this movie. Some of their reasons are because they do not understand it and it's more like a series of pictures or that it's not like the "actual Elizabeth Bathory". When honestly... if they had somewhat of a more open mind.. they would have got it. As well.. if they had read the description of the movie.. it clearly says this is the story of opposing the thought of her being an actual serial killer a.k.a Historical Fiction film.

Anyways....The flashbacks or dreams or whatever... were showing you the mind of Elizabeth and what she wanted despite the fact she was going crazy and could not tell between reality and dreams. The "green dreams" most of them were showing the future and the moment it happened it showed you again to be reminded. As for the acting... I saw nothing wrong with it at all. It was not B-Rated at all.. and I can tell you this..

Anna did one heck of a job compared to some very "famous" actresses like Megan fox who cannot act at all. I do agree some of the comedy with the monks in there was out of place.. but there was a reason behind it I am sure. Other than that... this movie was NOT a waste of time and I'd watch it over and over again.

So I rate this 9/10. It is worth a watch... unless your one of those people who always fell asleep during history class and do not know the true story of Elizabeth Bathory. and again this is Historic FICTION film.

ANIMAL ABUSE

[fleurdeli-hn · 1/10 · 13 April 2023]

Crows are seen eating live rats for no reason, it's such a short shot why would they allow the rats to be harmed for that. It's not CGI. Its not a prop. It's live animals being abused, and it's not necessary at all. There's also a dog's body shown, and I find it hard to believe that they were able to train a dog to "not breathe" for an entire scene, and that body is also very much NOT a stuffed animal. I have no respect for any production that puts animals in harms way for the gratification of feeling obscenely and pretentiously artsy. I have no respect for the PEOPLE that allowed this to happen.

charming

[blcat_5 · 7 October 2010]

I saw the film yesterday and it charmed me. It is a very attractive version of the life of countess Elizabeth Bathory, one in which she is not a murderer but a victim of a plot carried out in order to spoil her of her fortune in the medieval Hungary. Anna Friel made a great role. She a stunning beauty as the countess Bathory, in front of our eyes seems to be the real countess who somehow managed to come in the present times. The passionately love story with the painter Caravaggio is very catching. If I would have lived in the 16th century and I would have seen Anna Friel as the countess Bathory I had fallen in love with her for sure. The rest of the actors and the director did a good job. Apart of Anna Friel I liked Hans Matheson especially, who played Caravaggio.

The Whole Point

[saikens82 · 9/10 · 3 September 2012]

The review that I just read was pretty accurate...I do not think they quite understood what I took as the meaning as the movie. The confusion in the movie was the entire point in my opinion. She was never tried and proved guilty...everything was confusing during that time whether she was guilty of anything at all. She lost her temper and killed a couple of people...when someone was sneaking mushrooms into her drinks. IF they were wanting to go about it in a actual historically accurate method...which they did...she was possibly the victim of a political/religious conspiracy with the church wanting her land and all. Look up Elizabeth Bathory on Wikipedia. It goes through a thorough synopsis of her entire life...the accusations and also the conspiracy theory. Nothing was ever confirmed...so unless the people who made the movie wanted to give their opinion, which I do not believe they intended to do...they would have to leave it just as confusing and surrounded by myth as the entire story was. I kind of thought it was a good little effect on how much myth there was when they had her burn the castle she was imprisoned in...when in all reality nobody knows how she died or when she died. There were several days of uneaten food when they found her. Speculation was the point and the "spies" were there because they were there in real life. I have not found any information regarding an affair with the artist so that might have just been to show that she was possibly a normal wanting love kind of woman....we all have a romantic side even us torturers in the world.

A pack of lies.

[dmacewen · 2/10 · 27 September 2013]

It's true that a myth has been built around Elisabeth Bathory. But that myth is not her reputation as a monster: that is wholly deserved and borne out by historical fact. The myth is that of Bathory as vain, beauty-obsessed blood-bather. While there might be some genuine basis for this -- serial killers, after all, have been obsessed with stranger notions than the ones legend has attributed to Bathory -- the bottom line is that this lesbian murderess was a sadistic fiend who extracted intense sexual pleasure from the torture and murder of young girls. The revised version was manufactured in the Victorian era, because people couldn't bear to acknowledge that the "gentler sex" could be as bloodthirsty as men. This was, after all, the era of John Ruskin, "separate spheres," and the notion of woman as civilizing influence. Thus, Elisabeth Bathory was turned into a supernatural fiend whose story mainly served to warn women of the evils of "female vanity."

Apparently, we have not come very far from the mentality of the nineteenth century, for we still live in a culture that cannot or will not view women as anything other than wholesome pillars of moral rectitude. Thus, Karla Homolka's depredations were whitewashed in a loathsome and factually corrupt straight-to-video movie. Aileen Wuornos is turned into some kind of culture hero. And gender feminists refer to the likes of Homolka and others as "classic examples of female victims of male sadism."

Now we have this pack of lies, in which Bathory is victimized by power hungry men while she valiantly strives to protect her children. Yes, the old standby, folks: when you want to make excuses for evil women, just portray them as nurturing and self-sacrificing, willingly shouldering the burden of undeserved ignominy for the sake of their children. The kind of characterization which has nauseated feminists and gelded Marxist males for generations, but which they never fail to exploit when it suits their purposes.

I'm a huge fan of the beautiful and talented Anna Friel. Her presence and performance are the only reasons I give this piece of dreck two stars. May everyone else involved with its production rot in hell.

Nice scenery & costumes, but historically inaccurate

[mercersk · 2/10 · 22 May 2014]

I was very disappointed in this movie. I won't give away the plot, so I won't comment on the actual content of the movie except to say that it was a completely false portrayal of this terrible woman.

The truth is that Elizabeth Bathory was a sadistic, psychopathic murderer who tortured and killed hundreds of young girls, so many in fact that the surrounding towns literally ran out of young women. It was only when she kidnapped and killed the daughter of a nobleman that she was finally stopped. I think the producers did a great injustice to everyone in making this movie. It is little more than a collection of fancy costumes and poor acting that contains virtually no historical fact.

The story has so much potential, the film is crap

[maliksigns · 3/10 · 26 August 2011]

Bathory tells the interesting story of Bathory, which they say, she killed young women for her own health and youth. The story has so so much potential, to make a good film of it, but they really ruined it.

What comes in my mind, when I think about the way, they made the film? MTV! First you see how Bathory is promised CUT suddenly you are on her marriage - CUT you are on a battlefield - CUT, CUT, CUT.

No scene really gives you a deeper seek into the story. You just hop from here to here, there to there and back again. SO you really cannot identify someone with yourself or feel with someone from the film. It is really a crappy MTV style.

The story is interesting although. SO, please someone, who knows to make good films should read in the old tellings of the story and make a good film of it. Bathory really deserves that.

In my mind, the film was a big waste of time.

Literally unwatchable dialogue writing and delivery

[random-70778 · 25 March 2019]

1. The dialogue writing and delivery are absolute cringe-worthy the entire duration of the film. 2. The film has a glaring anachronism in every scene. 3. I am not myself obsessed with plot holes, but when there are so many and they are so obvious it makes a viewer certain the writers assume their audience is mentally challenged.

starsTHE PAINTING IS A POEM FOR THE EYES

[nogodnomasters · 8/10 · 12 April 2019]

This is not a story about a vampire who stays young by bathing in the blood of virgins. This is an embellished version of historical events.

This is the story of Elizabeth Bathory (Anna Friel) who lived during a time of conflict between the east and west and Catholic and Protestant religions. She was able to survive one, but not the other. This tale depicts the countess as slightly mentally unstable suffering from a disease of the blood. There are scenes which blend reality with dreams in a surreal fashion. It worked rather well for me, but there wasn't a lot of it. Bathory was ruthless and beautiful. In an effort to gain her wealth, her enemies accused her of heinous crimes, at least some of which were true.

What you will first notice is the costumes. They went to great length and expense in this aspect reminding me of Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon." Some of the background is CG, such as the castle with its constant full moon and some of the fires. The monk and his assistant made inventions which made this account seem fictional. Indeed, both of them and the Italian artist appear to be Hollywood creations. Anna Darvulia is historical, but her exact influence is unknown. The film is long: 2 hours and 20 minutes. It moves at a slow and steady pace. You do feel the time. This movie is a not for everybody. It is artsy and based on a true story. It can get boring building background.

Parental Guide: Sex and Nudity.

A bloody mess

[ewiep · 3/10 · 15 August 2014]

A long, rambling, shambling, doddering, staggering chaos of a film, blighted by (amongst other things): (1) impenetrable Middle European accents, most of them genuine but three put on ~ by Miss Friel, her husband, and her lover; (2) a narrative style that was very much like listening to a boring drunk recounting a shaggy dog story; (3) a schizoid attitude toward the countess herself ~ ambiguity is all very well, but to switch sides several times in the course of one story just makes the storyteller appear 'flakey'; (4) a sub-plot about two spying monks which ... well, which beggared description in its absurdity; (5) visual imagery and editing which frequently resembled pop videos; (6) so on and so forth.

Straight up waste of time

[Tabbyface · 1/10 · 26 February 2014]

This movie was just a huge mess. It was 2 hours and 15 minutes of absolute nonsense. Scenes were barely strung together by back and forth banter that didn't even progress the plot. It was made out to be more of of a history film, but I didn't feel like I was even learning anything. I went in with high expectations of more blood and gore but instead got this long, drawn out movie that I found myself rolling my eyes at more often than not. It seemed that it was edited and compiled by a blind man that had no concept of timing or plot points. Even if this movie did give me anything I wanted it was still garbage for what it was trying to be. For all the time and money spent on filming this you would think it would be at least passable but it wasn't, It wasn't at all. I feel like if I filmed myself using the snapped DVD to cut my wrists and drain out all my blood, it will make a better movie then this.