Burned at the Stake

This film begins in 1692 with the Salem witch trials. Ann Putnam is a young girl who has accused several people of witchcraft. This scene is actually based on real events and characters and the real life Putnam was a young girl who ultimately accused 62 people of witchcraft! At first, folks believed her rants and several folks were put to death or imprisoned but after a while it became apparent that Ann was just a nasty piece of work!

The scene then switches to the present. Loreen Graham (also Susan Swift) is on a class field trip to Salem and soon weird stuff starts happening all around Loreen. A guy dressed in stereotypical Puritan garb chases after her and he keeps appearing and reappearing. And, the girls' teacher is killed right before their eyes in a weird 'accident'! Eventually, this same Puritan guy appears IN Loreen's home and he's shot several times...with no effect whatsoever! The police arrive and handcuff the guy (which is odd in light of the bullets) and tossed him in jail...and there the man out of time languishes!! Later in the film, Loreen starts acting like Ann...as if she is somehow becoming this hellishly awful person.

Considering the film was directed by Bert I. Gordon, I automatically assumed it would be crap. After all, he's responsible for crap such as "Empire of the Ants", "Food of the Gods" and "Picture Mommy Dead"...and quite few other genuinely bad films. But despite this and a rather low overall score of 4.3, it's pretty good for what it is...and has several interesting twists that help it stand apart from dozens of other Satanism films (a VERY popular genre in the 70s and early 80s). Overall, a tad silly but quite entertaining for this sort of thing.

FYI--The Salem Witch Museum portrayed in this film is an actual museum which brings the trials to life. I visited there myself many many years ago.

I find it amazing that people can actually find something good to say about this movie. Susan Swift, some of you might remember, starred in another movie where she was a reincarnated soul. That movie was Audrey Rose and had Anthony Hopkins playing the father of her past self. In this movie, she is the reincarnated Ann Putnam, the notorious young woman who started the Salem Witch Trials with her accusations against people in her community.

Susan plays Sarah Putman the same way she played Audrey Rose. She uses the same expressions and same loud screams. I disliked Audrey Rose, and I dislike this movie even more.

This is, definitely, a low budget film. No name stars here. And I, again, hate the performance of Susan Swift.

There have been MANY movies that incorporate the horrors of the Salem Witch Trials. This has to be one of the worst! A true waste of time.

Quite an imaginative concept (though it feels like its borrowing ideas from other films) is variably compiled, even with its cheap aurora it's commendably executed by director Bert I. Gordon. What starts off straight-forward and atmospheric transcends into silly plot devices, especially when it's focusing on the occurrences in the modern period. The muddled narrative does moves back and forth between 1692 when the Salem witch trails where performed and the present time. How this is connected is used through witchcraft, reincarnation and time travel. The latter aspect is vaguely touched upon, but it remains an interesting twist. While its offbeat, you couldn't help but think of such films like "The Exorcist", "Blood on Satan's Claw", "Witchfinder General" and "Audrey Rose", in which Susan Swift also played a similar role in. Swift gives an illustratively emotive performance (but I got to say the whining did become annoying during stages) when she is asked to play two characters. The scenes which it has her as the reincarnation of Ann Putman; The girl who falsely accused around twenty people of witchcraft and was under influence of the despicable Reverend Parris (an unnerving John Peters) wanting to install fear are eerily staged. Astute performances from the rest the cast with Guy Stockwell (the level-headed doctor), Tisha Sterling, David Rounds, Albert Salmi and Beverly Ross. During moments Gordon looks like his stuck between wanting to go out by exploiting the matter with some exaggerated shocks and gaudy icky make-up FX, but still he never over does it with some well-rounded psychological and composed dramatics that are lingeringly haunting. Capable direction keeps it resourceful with its smooth pacing and hypnotic location work of Salem Massachusetts, although some of the night time sequences where hard to make out what was happening. A modest little witchcraft film.

I honestly had no idea that the Notorious B.I.G. (Bert I. Gordon the director; not the murdered rapper) was still active in the 80's! I always presumed the deliciously inept "Empire of the Ants" stood as his last masterful accomplishment in the horror genre, but that was before my dirty little hands stumbled upon an ancient and dusty VHS copy of "The Coming", a totally obscure and unheard of witchery-movie that actually turned out a more or less pleasant surprise! What starts out as a seemingly atmospheric tale of late Dark Ages soon takes a silly turn when a villager of year 1692 inexplicably becomes transferred to present day Salum, Massachusetts and promptly attacks a girl in the history museum. For you see, this particular girl is the reincarnation of Ann Putman who was a bona fide evil girl in 1692 and falsely accused over twenty people of practicing witchcraft which led to their executions at the state. The man who attacked Loreen lost his wife and daughter this and wants his overdue revenge. But poor and three centuries older Loreen is just an innocent schoolgirl, … or is she? "Burned at the Stake" unfolds like a mixture between "The Exorcist" and "Witchfinder General" with a tad bit of "The Time Machine" thrown in for good measure. Way to go, Bert! The plot becomes sillier and more senseless with every new twist but at least it never transcends into complete boredom, like too often the case in other contemporary witchcraft movies like "The Dunwich Horror" and "The Devonsville Terror". The film jumps back and forth between the events in present day and flashbacks of 1692; which keeps it rather amusing and fast-paced. The Ann Putman girl is quite a fascinating character, reminiscent of the Abigail Williams character in the more commonly known stage play "The Crucible" (also depicted by Winona Ryder in the 1996 motion picture). There are a couple of cool death sequences, like the teacher in the graveyard or the journalist in the library, that are committed by the ghost of malignant reverend who made a pact with Ann Putman and perhaps even the Devil himself. The film gets pretty spastic and completely absurd near the end, but overall there's some good cheesy fun to be had. Plus, the least you can say about Bert I. Gordon is that he definitely build up some directorial competences over the years.

On the whole horror films are not known for attention to detail. But when entire plot devices are based on complete historical fiction it's just sad. First of all the title of the film: Burned at the stake, this would not have been so bad if it was not set in Salem, Massachusetts. Accused witches were sometimes burned at the stake, this is true. But none of the 19-22 people who died during the Salem witch trials were burned at the stake. Almost all were hanged and one was pressed to death. Hanged isn't necessarily the best title but it would have been a more accurate one. The other huge inaccurate that I have a problem with is Sarah Good's husband. First of all the man was an uncaring husband and father, this is a historical fact. He did not defend his wife or his daughter during their trials in fact he gave evidence against them. Dorcas was 4 years old when she was accused and she was accused after her mother but before her mother was executed. Dorcas was convicted of witchcraft but never executed, instead she spent months in jail. After the panic was over in Salem and Dorcas and the other imprisoned accused were released there are numerous records of Dorcas's father petitioning the government for reparation money claiming that the months of imprisonment had rendered his daughter useless to him. Where's the caring father here? If you can see past the false history that this entire film is based on then I'm sure it's an okay horror film