User reviews

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.

In the Salem of 1692,a group of witches are burned at the stake.In present-day Salem,the spirit of young witch Ann possesses schoolgirl Loreen Graham during a class trip to the museum.Loreen then enters a cross-temporal battle to stop the evil Reverend Samuel Parris sending another innocent victim to the stake."Burned at the Stake" by Bert I.Gordon is a pretty tame witchcraft horror in the vein of "Crowhaven Farm".There are some huge lapses in logic,the characters appear and disappear with ease and there is really no resolution if witchcraft is being real or not.There is very little blood and absolutely no nudity,so fans of exploitation cinema will be disappointed.6 stakes out of 10.

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.

As a fan of Susan Swift's OTHER and much better known reincarnation movie - 1977's Audrey Rose - I was eager to see The Coming. It took me ages to find a copy of the video, and when I did locate one in a second-hand shop, I had to spend £10 to get it! But I was not disappointed. I thought it to be a highly intelligent and original horror movie, which dealt superbly with the fascinating 17th century Salem witch hunts. As Loreen Graham/Ann Putnam, Susan Swift was brilliant, and I am amazed that the film is barely heard of anywhere in the world. I strongly recommend that you try and see it.

Time travel is a fun concept, and this film gives it a different slant. I got a kick out of Captain Billingham, one of the more down-to-earth characters, who was just not having a good day. Ordinarily, I don't choose to watch horror films, but this is an exception. Good story, excellent acting.

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 ****

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.

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.

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.

The biggest reason I had to see this movie was that it stars Susan Swift, an outstanding and all-too-underappreciated actress. Time travel movies usually don't interest me and neither do movies about witchcraft, but this movie was fascinating and creepy. It didn't rely on outrageous special effects and it didn't focus so heavily on the time travel that the viewer gets lost and confused. This was a really creative movie kept simple and focused with great acting by all.

The first time i saw it i got half of it but i watched and i knew later on it was about a salem witch trials. They focused on the Sara Good's family. SHE is famous for cursing a priest which came true. In the film it depicts her daughter dorcas and her husband the spirit of Ann Putnam Sara's husband comes to the future hunts this girl to redeem her soul. which does happen at the end of the movie. Dorcas is depict as witch at 5years old who is burned at the stake. Which never happen Ann putnam saves her from the flames. the girl is safe she goes to Ann putnam's grave to to see that is not empty but it is at first because she accuse her of witchcraft, and lets her burn to death. Now that ann putnam saves her her spirit is redeemed, and she is not a outcast to society for the salem witch trials.

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

After visiting a special history museum, a teenage girl living in the town of Salem finds herself afflicted with constant interaction with the ghostly spirit of a man from the 1692 Witch Trials trying to save his daughter, and when she learns of the connection she has with the incident tries to stop it from harming her.

This was a rather fun genre effort. Among the more likable factors here is the highly enjoyable setup that takes place in the first half here which mixes together the flashback in the past and the early setup in the present. The exploitation of the events at the past trials, including obvious lies and hammy acting to try to present the baseless accusations as fact in a council made of those too stupid to believe the obvious because of the cry of witchcraft uttered instead, posts a very dark and cruel perspective of the time-period however accurate it really is. The revelations made about that in the present, involve the reveal of the two characters conspiring for an increase in religious services offers a fantastic starting point for the fun with this one. As well, there's also quite a lot to like here with the films' move into the present day featuring the scenes of the curse coming true. From the initial encounter in the history museum where he first confronts her to the accident at the gravesite and finally the confrontation in the house where the first clues about his supernatural basis are enough of a starting point to get rather fun encounters in the last half where everything comes together. Realizing that the connection isn't a possession but a reincarnation allows the film to generate some highly enjoyable and chilling work involving how the curse comes to be lifted and undoing the wrongs of the past that had been the focal point for the vast majority of the film. These are the films' highly impressive marks that hold it up for the most part. There are a few minor issues to be had with this one. Among the most obvious and egregious features here are the historical inaccuracies that take place in the actual trials. It starts off immediately as the opening scene of the villager being crushed to death was never under that condition so these scenes are hilariously inaccurate and off-putting. Most of the scenes in the courtroom are just as bad, with false statements and highly improper punishments being handed out to those accused, which makes this feel somewhat jarring, especially for those that tend to be a stickler for those kinds of details. As well, there's also the issue of a rather underwhelming second act here where the film slows down oddly during this part of the film to investigate the time-traveler's claims which somewhat ties this down in the wrong spot. Along with the low-quality prints that make it difficult to see, these are the few issues at play with this one.

Rated R: Language and Violence.

During the gruesome witch trials of 1692 Salem, sinister Reverend Parris (John Peters)and his malign cohort Anne Putnam (Susan Swift) falsely condem an innocent child Dorcus Goode (Jennine Babo)to death, and his foul sorcery continues unbowed into 1980s Salem! This bewitching little B-horror abounding atmospherically with kitchy witchyness is ably orchestrated by none other than the legendary monster maker, Bert I. Gordon.

I massively adore period horror hokum about spooky spellcasters and their evilly epoch spanning sorcery, and, happily, The Coming still delivers the devilish goods! Poor old Audrey Rose is haunted anew in Sci-horror maestro Bert I. Gordon's bewitching occult horror gem The Coming. Strong performances, an atmospheric score, and writer/director Gordon's engaging text keeps this couldron of Satanic panic simmering along nastily! High points for me are sultry Melina's (Beverly Ross) snazzy black witchmaster outfit, the 'slimy, seaweed-looking splat-thing', and Susan Swift's terrific acting. I'm more than familiar with The Coming and I'm quite sure it will cast a beguiling spell upon thee, too!!!