Burned at the Stake

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.

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.

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.

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.

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