Is Necromancy Worth Watching?
Answer: Maybe not, Necromancy is likely a skip if you enjoy Horror movies.
It features a runtime of 82 minutes and offers a standard storyline that appeals to mature audiences.

Verdict:Necromancy is a confirmed FLOP based on our analysis of audience ratings and box office momentum.
With a rating of 4.4/10, it has delivered a mixed experience for fans of the Horror genre.
Answer: Maybe not, Necromancy is likely a skip if you enjoy Horror movies.
It features a runtime of 82 minutes and offers a standard storyline that appeals to mature audiences.
Last updated: January 18, 2026
Released in the dynamic cinematic landscape of 1972, Necromancy emerges as a significant entry in the Horror domain. The narrative core of the film focuses on a sophisticated exploration of After Lori suffers a stillbirth, her husband Frank obtains a job with a northern California toy company. Unlike standard genre fare, Necromancy attempts to deconstruct traditional tropes, offering a conventional take on its central themes.
The success of any Horror is often anchored by its ensemble, and Necromancy features a noteworthy lineup led by Orson Welles . Supported by the likes of Pamela Franklin and Lee Purcell , the performances bring a palpable realism to the scripted words.
Performance Analysis: While the cast delivers competent and professional performances, they are occasionally hampered by a script that leans into familiar archetypes.
In summary, our editorial assessment of Necromancy (1972) is negative. With an audience rating of 4.4/10, it stands as a highly recommended experience for genre enthusiasts.
Quick Plot Summary: Necromancy is a Horror film that crafts an atmosphere of dread and suspense, using psychological terror and visual scares. This summary provides a scannable look at the movie's central conflict and narrative structure.
Ending Breakdown: Necromancy attempts to tie together its various plot elements. The finale presents its approach to horror resolution.
The conclusion addresses the core thematic questions, offering viewers material for post-viewing discussion.
The final moments of Necromancy reflect the filmmakers' creative choices, offering an ending that aligns with the film's tone and style.
Consider Watching If:







Amazon Video
Amazon VideoAnalyzing the audience sentiment, IMDb rating of 4.4/10, and global collection metrics, Necromancy stands as a challenging project for the creators. It remains an essential piece of the 1972 cinematic year.
Necromancy is considered a flop based on audience ratings of 4.4/10 and lower collections.
Based on the low rating of 4.4/10, Necromancy may not be worth watching unless you are a die-hard fan.
Necromancy may be available for rent or purchase on digital platforms like Apple TV, Google Play, or Amazon Prime Video. Specific streaming availability can vary by country.
_**Occult-oriented flick starring Pamela Franklin and Orson Welles**_ A young couple from Los Angeles (Pamela Franklin & Michael Ontkean) gets an offer they can’t refuse and move to a town several hours up north. But why does the dubious mogul of the exclusive community (Orson Welles) want them so bad? Something sinister is going on. "Necromancy" was made in 1970, but not released until 1972 (although copyrighted 1971). It combines elements of “Carnival of Souls” (1962), “Rosemary’s Baby” (1968) and “The Devil Rides Out” (1968); plus it would influence the future “Satan’s School for Girls” (1973). In some ways it’s better than those films and in others worse. For one thing, the editing is sometimes off-kilter or inconsistent, especially in the first half, which I don’t know if it was done intentionally or if it’s simply sloppy filmmaking. A good example is the girl’s lighthearted disposition in the car after just being involved in an accident and witnessing firsthand an unconscious person burning alive. Due to Welles’ involvement, the flick was reissued in 1983 under the title “The Witching” with added scenes of full frontal nudity during a ritual featuring Brinke Stevens, plus other changes and a tacked-on ending. I’ve seen Pamela Franklin in about six films and she easily looks her best here with a full brunette mane. She was 20 during shooting and would meet her near-future husband on set, the young doctor played by Harvey Jason. They remain married today, over fifty years later. Pamela didn’t speak well of working with Welles, who obviously took the gig for easy cash (and tries unsuccessfully to hide behind a prosthetic nose and fake beard). She said he was dismissive of other actors, summing up her feelings with: “He was not a nice person.” By contrast, she worked with Marlon Brando two years earlier on “The Night of the Following Day” and said he treated everyone equal. Director Bert I. Gordon (known for 1965’s entertaining “Village of the Giants”) was concerned that he’d have serious issues with Welles when his secretary informed him that he didn’t work before 10:00 or after 4:00. So Gordon assuaged Welles with a decadent chef and all his preferred foods & drinks; thus the imposing thespian was quite agreeable, yet this didn’t eliminate Pamela’s criticisms. The flick scores well in the feminine department. Besides Franklin in her prime, there’s Lee Purcell, who was 23 during shooting, and petite redhead Sue Bernard, best known for her role as the winsome bikini girl in “Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!” (1965). The movie runs 1 hour, 23 minutes, and was shot at Los Gatos, California, which is about 35 miles southeast of San Francisco; as well as Samuel Goldwyn Studios in Hollywood. GRADE: B-/C+
This analysis is compiled by our editorial experts using multi-source verification and audience sentiment data for maximum accuracy.