Salem Witch Trials (2002)

One of the worst movies I've ever seen

Load of rubbish!!

Good concept, poorly executed.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

"A masterful work..."? Who wrote that? Kirstie Alley in a masterful work about the Salem witch trials. Got to be worth a watch. I bailed after an hour and 25 minutes of my life that I bitterly regret wasting on this. If I hadn't had a pizza delivered and had my hands full, I might have had the will to turn it off.I've tried to bear in mind that it's 32 years old but that's really no excuse.The acting is truly awful. Accents that put Dick Van Dyke as the chimney sweep in Mary Poppins in a good light. Terrible cinematography, sets like a 1950s B movie. Plot devices and direction on the same level as a local am dram production.Sorry, but I can't find a single redeeming thing to say about this. The one star I've given was for Kirstie Alley's acting which was pretty good.

First and foremost, this is a well-told, historically accurate tale, with the title telling the entire plot. This masterful work accurately details the current consensus of what exactly occurred to prompt the colonial witch-trials, to spread the witch-fears to surrounding communities, what factor halted these trials, these heinous tortures, these executions, and the shallow, self-righteous politics involved. A remarkable performance by all involved, with Kirstie Alley, as Ann Putnam, leading the way, supported by Peter Ustinov, as Reverend William Stroughton, and Shirley MacLaine, as the pious Rebecca Nurse. Excellent. Nothing more need be said.--footnote-- If you are aware of Salem history, then my above entry contains spoilers, simply because of the accuracy of the film.

Although this version has a few serious historical flaws, "Salem Witch Trials" is a relatively entertaining story. I agree that Part I was slow but I chalked that up to historical/cultural background that made Part II more believable. Two things that bothered me: (a) the trials appeared to be judged by two men from beginning to end when, in reality, a panel of several men was sent to try the accused, and (b) the scene of Rebecca Nurse in prison asserting New Age philosophy seemed out of character for this pious Puritan woman. Still, the overall story was accurate and believable. I found this version to be more historically accurate (if less entertaining) than "The Crucible," simply because "The Crucible" relied on the premise of an affair between two major characters that most likely did not happen. (In reality, she was only eleven while he was in his sixties.)Another thing that bothered me in both versions was the absence of Tituba's husband, John Indian. He played a relatively major role in the original trials.

Having read the play, "The Crucible" and being a fan of the play, this movie is a pure travesty. I think if the director of this movie was to watch the movie "The Crucible" he would have learned what to do and not to do in this movie.I was just wondering, where was the character that came to Salem, that specialist in witchcraft? I can't remember his name, but he was one of the coolest characters in the book, and he should have been in this movie. He is the guy that starts believing that the girls are just faking it.I think the acting of the girls "afflicted" by the "witches" did a superb acting job.