Burned at the Stake (1981)

Powerful

A lot of fun.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

While hardly for all tastes, THE COMING is an interesting and thoughtful possession/reincarnation horror film which gets complicated when a time-travel element is introduced. There aren't nearly enough films made these days about the witch-hunts of centuries past anyway, so any that do get made must have something going for them. Directed, somewhat surprisingly, by '50s monster-maker Bert I. Gordon, this breathes a breath of fresh air into a genre which, at the time, was being besieged by masked killers and inane teenagers dicing with death. I'm pleased to say that there isn't a single teen to be found anywhere in this movie! The film is not brilliant, with the low-budget often showing in the poor quality of the production, and many scenes take place in the dark which often makes it difficult to see what's going on (or maybe it's just the quality of the tape I saw...).One of the things I liked most about this film was the acting, which was surprisingly good for a no-budget genre. Nobody is brilliant, but the film is packed with affectionate, obscure characters and nobody puts a foot wrong either. Susan Swift, a child actress who resembles and recalls ALICE SWEET ALICE's Paula Sheppard, mixing the same childhood innocence with an adult evil to scary effect. Although Swift is often hysterically over the top and her incessant whiny crying is enough to make the viewer join in, she's a lot better than many other child actresses I could mention. Albert Salmi is underused as the town Sheriff but nonetheless creates a warm and gently amusing character, the likes of which have almost died out these days in films.Also deserving of praise are David Rounds, playing a confused time traveller who puts in an appreciated understated performance and John Peters, playing the inherently evil Reverend, a great "boo! hiss!" type villain. Tisha Sterling shows promise but is wasted in a nothing role as Swift's perplexed mother. The film focuses on plot and atmosphere rather than action and in-your-face horror, although there are a couple of tacked-on gore sequences which look like they belong in a different film. I guess Gordon couldn't resist inserting a couple of his patented cheap but cheerful special effects into the film, including a briefly-seen spider demon which enters a cadaver, but these are used sparingly and to good effect.The film is full of flashbacks and most of it is set at night, which was enough to confuse this viewer. However, the cast of quirky characters and odd situations, the smattering of gore and the fairly original plot was enough to make me enjoy this movie, even if it is a little slow-going in spots. And hell, in a week in which I've watched the triple distilled evil of NINJA HUNT, THE MUTANT KID, and, to top it off (and nearly me in the process), the godawful TROLL 2, anything with an ounce of sense or intelligence would look good to me.

Susan Swift is an appealing youngster, a flower child transplanted to the 1980s (like a young Susan Dey), but she doesn't quite have the vocal range for a demanding dramatic lead and she tends to whine; still, she's rather sweet and has bright eyes and a pretty smile. In "The Coming" (as it was called when briefly released to theaters), Swift may be the reincarnation of a Salem witch. The low-budget flick has a very limited imagination, borrowing ideas from so many other pictures that I gave up on it with about 15 minutes to go. It starts out strong and has some camp appeal. Obviously, there are more serious films that deal with the Salem witch trials that deserve to be seen over this one; however, as junk movies go, it isn't too terrible. The Boston locales are a definite plus, and the supporting cast is amusingly hammy. *1/2 from ****

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

In the seemingly endless quest to find well made, well acted horror films, it is all-too-rare to find one that even comes remotely close to hitting the mark. Needless to say, I was very pleasantly surprised when I stumbled across "Burned at the Stake" on a U.S. cable network while I was flipping channels. The premise is reasonably simple. In 1692, young Ann Putnam (Swift) is the most vocal witness against alleged witches, leveling baseless charges against anyone who earns her displeasure. Manipulating her for his own ends is Reverend Parris (Peters) who also serves as the court's guide on matters pertaining to witchcraft and Satanism. Things get complicated when Ann starts accusing members of the Goode family of witchcraft. Salem (of 1980 or so), Loreen Graham (also played by Swift) begins having unusual visions shortly before she visits the Salem Witch Museum. A strange man in seventeenth century garb tries to accost her there and the building. He continues to stalk her while strange phenomena begin to involve her more and more. Soon, it appears that she is becoming possessed by the spirit of Ann Putnam. Unfortunately, further description gets rather involved and would give too much away. Though the film is not action-oriented and would likely be of little interest to many viewers, the performances are good and the seventeenth century dialogue used in the film's many flashbacks sounds very convincing. The production values are solid with the possible exception of some of the special effects. In a side-note, the film's technical advisor was Laurie Cabot, Salem's official witch. Viewers who appreciate a well-made, atmospheric, but understated horror film may appreciate this. The writer/director, Bert I. Gordon, has had a long career in horror and science fiction filmmaking and is best known for his work on a number of "big bug" films and similar works years earlier.