Aug 15

Throw another witch on the fire. Time to conjure a new wife!Click for larger image

Good Show Sir Comments: The original movie title “Burn Wife Burn” didn’t focus group well.

You might remember this from here.

Actually, that cover IS a classical work of art!I would touch it without protective gloves.I've seen worse. Far, far, worse.Interesting, but I would still read it in public.Middlng: Neither awful nor awfully goodWould not like to be seen reading that!Awful... just awful...That belongs in a gold-lame picture frame!Gah... my eyes are burning! Feels so good!Good Show Sir! (Average: 6.57 out of 10)

Tagged with:

21 Responses to “Conjure Wife”

  1. Francis Boyle Says:

    This exercise routine* will bring you closer together as a couple

    *Graveyards only required if you are both really into that sort of thing or if he is extremely tolerant of your Twilight obsession.

    Horror, who said horror?

  2. THX 1138 Says:

    “Room for one more?”

  3. Dead Stuff With Big Teeth Says:

    There is no way that those feet could ever be attached to that torso!

    Although points for the composition, he’s a right gentleman to offer to carry his lady friend over rough terrain when she’s only heels to wear.

  4. Tom Noir Says:

    “Conjure Wife?” In my day we just called ’em Russian mail-order brides!!

  5. JuanPaul Says:

    @dswbt Well, he is bringing her to the cemetery. Severe spinal trauma might explain a lot.

  6. Dead Stuff With Big Teeth Says:

    @Tom: no, it’s the imperative form of the verb:

    “You WILL conjure wife! Your wife WILL turn into witch! And then witch WILL burn! BURN WITCH BURN!” etc.

  7. Bibliomancer Says:

    The sequel Float Witch Float was a flop

  8. Tat Wood Says:

    That’s supposed to be Peter Wyngarde? It looks like Lonnie Donegan.

  9. fred Says:

    Christopher Lee rocks this cover.

  10. B. Chiclitz Says:

    If you take a screen shot of this cover and turn it upside down she looks like Supergirl flying through the air carrying him on her back. A more interesting scene, in my opinion, and one better suited to the expression on her face as well as the position of those feet.

  11. A.R.Yngve Says:

    Now that is one messy and convoluted title text. Publishers should settle for ONE title.
    Imagine a similar mess with a more recent title:

    “Stephen King’s classic story of horror IT now made into a major motion picture DEATHCLOWN starring blah blah blah…”

  12. Bibliomancer Says:

    Hey A.R., welcome back!

  13. GSS ex-noob Says:

    This is a good book which doesn’t deserve such bad covers.

    It’s not really horror, even.

    Weird how the wife’s face is almost photo-realistic, and the guy is so obviously a quick painting, very flat.

    BC is correct, it looks much better upside down. Doesn’t quite make the feet fit, but closer.

  14. B. Chiclitz Says:

    @GSSx-n—Supergirl never quite managed to figure out the feet thing while flying.

  15. Dead Stuff With Big Teeth Says:

    Following BC and xnoob, I resorted to flipping my laptop upside-down. But I’m glad I did. The lack of contrast between the sky and graveyard makes it look rather like Supergirl is flying past an erupting volcano.

  16. A.R.Yngve Says:

    I guess the editor ran out of page space — otherwise he wold have just kept adding more production notes from the film’s press release:

    “An Amicus Production shot in Pinewood Studios and released through United Universal Pictures by Roger Corman and relased on the following cinemas in the UK: Rialto, Cineworld, Filmhouse” […]

  17. Anna T. Says:

    There’s something seriously off about that woman’s anatomy. Where’s her left hand gone? Why does she look like she’s flying/freefalling? Why do the upper and lower halves of her body appear to be disconnected and unrelated?

    So, so many questions.

  18. B. Chiclitz Says:

    @Anna T.—No problem! Just flip it upside down and all, well not quite all, will make sense.

  19. Hammy Says:

    …and here’s the song that should have been the title theme for the movie – never mind that the song is a decade or so newer than the movie….

  20. GSS ex-noob Says:

    We certainly can tell what the artist was interested in; the woman’s face and chest are lovingly, realistically detailed, and the rest of it’s a mess of gray.

  21. A.R.Yngve Says:

    Note the small copy “Complete and unabridged.”
    It occurs a lot on 1950s releases — why? Is the implication that readers were often ripped off by “Reader’s Digest” shortened versions?

Leave a Reply