Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

Mabel Munoz Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Prichards12345 Woman Who Came Back is a mild horror movie which manages to be fairly entertaining and has plenty of atmosphere. The story concerns a young woman who finds that an old lady who has sat next to her on a bus may be the ghost of a witch who was executed 300 years earlier. The bus crashes, but the old woman's body cannot be found. Is it possible her spirit now controls our modern day traveller? Nancy Kelly is fine as the young woman who comes to believe she is the reincarnation of a sorceress, and she's ably supported by John Loder and Otto Kruger (previously seen in Dracula's Daughter). There are several memorable scenes here - notably the accidental poisoning of some fish (or is it accidental) and the sequence where a young girl seeking shelter for the night comes to the home of our possible witch, is driven away in fright, and then drifts into a mysterious fever.I enjoyed this film in a mildly diverting way; it holds the attention to the end and even if the "it was all in your mind" trope is dragged out Woman Who Came Back is still worth seeking out if you can find it. In the UK at least it seems to be an extremely obscure little film that doesn't turn up on t.v. at all. Time for a DVD release?

Alex da Silva Nancy Kelly (Lorna) returns to her small town after a 2 year absence. She is on the bus into town when cackling hag Elspeth Dudgeon (Jezebel) gets on and sits next to her. This old lady seems to know Nancy and claims to be 300 years old. The next thing that happens is the bus crashes into a lake and there are no survivors. Except Nancy. What is eerier is that there is no body of the old woman, she has just disappeared and no-one believes Nancy that she even ever existed. Well, she did exist. And Nancy seems to now possess some kind of evil spirit and be in tune with the darker forces of nature. There is a reason as foretold by a curse that tells of the revenge of an innocent woman burnt at the stake after being accused of a witch - she will return after a 300 year period and take over the body of a young woman to exact revenge. Uh-oh, guess who Nancy has just had an encounter with…..This film has great potential and a good beginning but just sort of meanders until a real let-down of an ending that doesn't make sense. Shame. And why is John Loder (Matt) topping the bill in this film? It's Nancy Kelly's film – she's even in the goddam title, folks! There are some nice touches and spooky sequences but the film lacks that "kerpow!" factor, especially with the let-down of an ending. Could have been a strong, spooky witch film. As it is, it's OK as something different to watch.

mark.waltz Great spooky visuals open this story of a small Massachussats town whose past comes back to haunt them in this supernatural thriller. Nancy Kelly is the descendant of the judge who sentenced a bunch of people to death on the suspicion of being witches. She is returning home after having run out on her fiancée (John Loder) and while on the bus, she is joined by a spooky looking old lady (the always wonderful Elspeth Dudgeon) who claims to be a witch from centuries before. The bus suddenly careens off a bridge into the river below and of the dozens killed, only Kelly survives. The town doesn't exactly welcome her back with open arms as her ex-fiancée's sister (Ruth Ford) is mysteriously stalked, Ford's daughter's fish are accidentally poisoned by Kelly (accidently picking up poison instead of fish food), and a mysterious doberman stalks Kelly everywhere she goes. After her nervous housekeeper (the prickly Almira Sessions) quits, rumors of her being a witch start to spread, and Kelly's own behavior begins to make Loder question whether or not this is true. Only the town's reverend (Otto Kruger) has any doubts of what's going on, and even his faith will be tested as well.There's so much potential in this Republic horror movie that is totally a let down with its Scooby Doo like ending. Certainly, there's enough evidence presented in the various character's research of their own town's wretched history to have given the opportunity for this to take on some maudlin twists rather than the let down which happens at the end. In fact, you can see that coming, and what is at first entrancing you with its mystery becomes more obvious towards the end. Elspeth Dudgeon had several similar roles years before in some Warner Brothers mystery that gave the opportunity to create a character for which she would be long remembered, but other than her spooky appearance at the beginning, she is only mentioned afterwords. Certain plot elements give way to the fact that this is going to end in a more satisfying angle, and had somebody like Val Lewton or Tod Browning been behind its creation, it certainly could have gone down that path.How would I have ended it? Certainly, the character that Nancy Kelly is playing seems to be under some sort of curse. Even if Dudgeon's character had not been a witch, her spirit could still have roamed the earth in search of revenge, and with the letter that claimed she would be around for a 300 year period until her death was avenged, it really seemed as if Kelly would be possessed by this bad seed that caused her to do witch-like things and arise the townspeople's suspicions. A "Frankenstein" chase at the end between the townspeople and Kelly under Lewton's camera eye would have ended with her falling over a cliff and when her corpse is discovered revealed to be Dudgeon's long-dead character instead. Like the same year's "The Body Snatcher", that would have given the viewers a thrill in addition to the chill, but what does happen at the end is a chilly reaction to how these writers chose to end a missed opportunity rather than making it into the classic it could have become.

mlraymond The only reason I don't rate this film higher is due to the tidy explanation at the end, that wraps everything up a bit too quickly. A little more time spent on the ending would have made this a near perfect movie, but it's really good anyway, in spite of feeling rushed at the end.Cinematography is excellent, with threatening landscapes and buildings. Even the church looks sinister. Clouds, the moon, wind and rain are all used to create a sense of fear and tension, with the most prosaic settings seeming to hold a burden of the past impinging on the present.Writing and performances are top notch, with all the characters believable individuals. Nancy Kelly gives what is perhaps the best performance of her career as the tormented Lorna Webster. The small town atmosphere is well captured and the child actors seem especially natural and not overly cute.There is something almost indefinable about this movie, an odd feeling of being ahead of its time, in a way that predates Twilight Zone and low budget horror movies from the Sixties. It's too bad this movie isn't better known, because it deserves to be seen by anyone interested in classic horror films. It has an almost dream like quality, as if the viewer were drawn into a nightmare of the leading character. One is kept continually wondering, and it never becomes dull or predictable.Often compared to the films of Val Lewton, this movie is a fascinating film in its own right. Well worth seeing if you can find it.