“The Sorcerers” is the second of three films directed by Michael Reeves, who died shortly after making the third (“Witchfinder General”). This film stars Boris Karloff, Ian Ogilvy, and Catherine Lacey, and involves an elderly hypnotist who develops a device allowing remote control of another person’s mind, controlling that person’s actions even from a distance. Wanting to test the device, the hypnotist lures a young man to his flat promising him an exciting experience and uses the machine on him. Karloff plays the hypnotist Montserrat, while Catherine Lacey is his wife, and Ian Ogilvy is the hapless subject of their experiment. Trouble ensues when Mrs Montserrat finds controlling another human being and experiencing sensations through them to be addictive and exciting, and pressures the young man to more extreme actions, while her husband is powerless to stop her.

Reeves’ direction is inexperienced but getting better all the time. He apparently had a lot of ideas of what he wanted but not much idea of how to go about it. This led to the movie going over budget as the director insisted on many repeat shots until the elderly and unwell Boris Karloff was demanding how much longer they would be filming. It is this that makes “The Sorcerers” quite uneven, as the film makers were forced to cut corners in order to finish the film. The depiction of swinging London of the sixties is of interest, though apparently the director really disliked the London scene. He channels this through the character of Roscoe (Ogilvy) who calls the club they are at a ‘den of iniquity’ and complains about how bored he is. Roscoe’s decision to ditch his girlfriend onto a mutual friend as he is ‘bored’ indicates he is something of a shallow personality even before he runs into the Montserrats. His friend even comments on ‘artistic temperament’ as he walks off, indicating it’s not the first time he has acted like this. It is not surprising that he goes with Montserrat on the vague promise of excitement, without insisting on more precise information. The direction involves distorted views as the character is under hypnosis and psychedelic colours and images. There are some issues typical of movies of the time, such as neither of the girls who are murdered fight hard enough. I cannot believe a girl would go off down a dark alley with a man she only slightly knows. Then when she realises she is under threat, she backs up a bit but doesn’t really try to run. She is carrying a bag, and I was waiting for her to hit him with it, and she doesn’t. It’s a flaw I have seen in other movies of this period.

Boris Karloff was a great actor and shows it here, even though this is far from his best work. Despite his age and infirmity at the time he still has a commanding presence, even though through most of the film he is in the apartment and only interacting with his wife. I liked the fact that the character doesn’t want anything bad with his invention – he believes he can offer elderly and disabled people a chance for enjoyment by experiencing excitement through someone else’s mind. There is an almost charming level of naivete in his attitude, as the dangers inherent in the process are obvious, even before his wife gets ideas of her own. Both Karloff and Lacey have a difficult job in this film, as they are supposed to depict their experiencing of Roscoe’s activities while sitting at their kitchen table, with nothing but their expressions to go on. This would be a difficult ask for any actor, and I don’t think it always works. But they certainly give it their best shot and it is convincing enough.

Catherine Lacey plays Mrs Montserrat, and at the start of the film they seem to be a very happy couple. She is obviously a technically capable person herself, as it is made clear she has helped him perfect the invention. However, once Mrs Montserrat gets a taste of excitement through Roscoe, it goes to her head. There has been some criticism that the character’s change from normal to crazy is way too quick. This may in part be due to the hurried way the film was finished – possibly they intended to build up this aspect more slowly. However, Lacey is wonderful in her unhinged portrayal of the character’s excitement and her own escalating ideas about what she would like to experience – theft, violence, murder. When she realises she has more control over Roscoe than her husband and he says he will stop her, she very quickly turns on him. Again, maybe this is too quick and easy. However, they live in poverty, and this is apparently due to some unspecified scandal he experienced years back. Maybe she has harboured resentment all this time, even subconsciously. Now she feels in a position of power, she isn’t going to let anything stop her. Lacey’s intensity is very good.  

There is an aspect of this couple that is really glaringly apparent – in spite of Montserrat’s attested benign intention for his invention, he does not disclose to Roscoe what he intends to do. He tells him lies in order to lure him to the apartment, and uses the device on him without his consent. His wife talks about actions without consequence, ignoring the fact that Roscoe could conceivably face consequences for her decisions. Montserrat tells her it’s wrong, but at no point does he point out that Roscoe will face the consequences. When Montserrat realises the only way to stop it, again he does not express any remorse for their victim. Roscoe will never be vindicated, and even his friends will believe he went mad and murdered two women.

Ian Ogilvy performs well as the aimless young man who falls foul of the Montserrats. There is an aspect of this that suggests a very interesting question – if hypnosis cannot make a person do anything they don’t want to do, does that mean Roscoe is actually on some level a willing participant? The film never mentions this aspect of hypnosis, and it probably is not intended to be a part of Roscoe’s character, but I can’t help but thinking it would make it so much more interesting if it was. Ogilvy also has a tough job – to depict that change from when he is himself to when he is being controlled. In my opinion his success is variable.

“The Sorcerers” is a good example of the developing talent of a young director. Who knows what movies he might have made had he not died so young. It’s not a great movie, buit it is a good one in my opinion. Reeves seemed not to go for happy endings, and this does not end well for any of the characters. It is an interesting idea, with a flawed but ultimately entertaining execution.