Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Good concept, poorly executed.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

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.

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.

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.