TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Winifred The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

MartinHafer 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.

Leofwine_draca 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.

lost-in-limbo 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.

JHC3 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.