Sir Jorge: Ah, another horror film reviewer! I’ll add you to my blogroll pronto. Thanks for stopping by!

Thanks again, Mark, for bringing this film to our attention

That is so cool! I’m glad that I was able to review a movie that actually interested someone enough to go out and buy it. And that your wife liked it too is just icing on the cake!

You are exactly right about stage actors having a hard time adjusting their actions so they translate well onto film. When I describe a film as “stagy,” that’s exactly what I’m referring to.

As for your other observations: I, too, considered the dog as a possibility when the book ended up in the fireplace. But then I thought, that’s a pretty odd thing for a dog to do, especially without singeing its face. I also thought it preposterous that a dog would swim underwater, find its way into a submerged bus, tear out the bus driver’s throat, and then drag the old woman to shore. But I suppose it could be considered a possibility.

Speaking of the dog, one thing that struck me as funny was that it kept showing up in Lorna’s house! I know it’s hard to keep insects out, and even rodents sometimes, but you would think it would be fairly easy to keep a full grown dog from entering your house whenever it wanted.

But the important thing is that you and your wife got a full 68 minutes of entertainment from a film you may have otherwise passed up. That alone makes my work on this page worthwhile.

Thanks for sharing!

That is so cool! I’m glad that I was able to review a movie that actually interested someone enough to go out and buy it. And that your wife liked it too is just icing on the cake!

You are exactly right about stage actors having a hard time adjusting their actions so they translate well onto film. When I describe a film as “stagy,” that’s exactly what I’m referring to.

As for your other observations: I, too, considered the dog as a possibility when the book ended up in the fireplace. But then I thought, that’s a pretty odd thing for a dog to do, especially without singeing its face. I also thought it preposterous that a dog would swim underwater, find its way into a submerged bus, tear out the bus driver’s throat, and then drag the old woman to shore. But I suppose it could be considered a possibility.

Speaking of the dog, one thing that struck me as funny was that it kept showing up in Lorna’s house! I know it’s hard to keep insects out, and even rodents sometimes, but you would think it would be fairly easy to keep a full grown dog from entering your house whenever it wanted.

But the important thing is that you and your wife got a full 68 minutes of entertainment from a film you may have otherwise passed up. That alone makes my work on this page worthwhile.

Thanks for sharing!

As you point out, Nancy Kelly isn’t as over the top in this movie as in The Bad Seed,” but still pushes the line. In her defense, she was a stage actress and probably tended to overact a bit more than someone who only performed on the “silver screen.” From what I understand, stage actors were trained to exaggerate their motions and voices, so that the people in the back rows can see and hear their performance on the stage. While this isn’t necessary in a motion picture, it is probably a hard habit to break. This type of acting is more noticeable in the films of the early 30s, where most actors were trained for the stage.

Over all, we found “The Woman Who Came Back” to be an interesting film. There were a few moments where it brought out an unintended chuckle or two, but the story kept our interest. Although there seem to be several coincidences, (i.e. the bus accident occurs at the exact site of the witch’s burning and the date just happens to be the 300th anniversary of the burning) they aren’t beyond believability. The mystery of how the book got in the fireplace was probably the act of the old woman’s dog, since the little girl’s doll, which was mauled by the dog, was found the same room. The dog was also suspect of the mutilation of the bus driver’s throat, making it a hazard to the community. However the old woman recognizing Lorna on the bus and her possesion of a colonal English pound remains a mystery. Also, I found it odd that Matt didn’t act surprised when Lorna opened the flower box only to find the flowers black and withered. (If that had happened to me, I would have been on the phone to the florist in a second.) The story is an interesting study of life in a small town, where rumors run rampant, especially with a community that has a history engulfed with superstition. It appeared to be a story as much about the powers of superstition as the powers of the supernatural and, as it turned out, superstition proved to be the winner in the end.

Even with the storybook ending, my wife and I both agreed that this was a very entertaining 68 minutes.

This movie, by the way, is certainly not on the same caliber as the three you mention in your opening paragraph. I would like to get your take on it, though, so let me know when you add it to your library.

What’s most frustrating about “The Woman Who Came Back” is that it starts off with such “integrity.” When the film falls flat at its conclusion, I felt like I had been taken in by a con artist. They literally try to explain it all away in the last few minutes of the movie, but their explanations only leave a lot more questions. I don’t get the sense this was done intentionally. That is, I don’t think ambiguity was what they were looking for, and the finale comes off as rather awkward and abrupt.

The difference between this movie and “House on Haunted Hill” (also a favorite of mine) is that with a William Castle production we expect a healthy dose of schlock. It doesn’t really get in the way of enjoying the film. When “The Woman Who Came Back” begins, we don’t get that sense of schlocky entertainment. We feel we are being served something with substance. So when we get the “happily ever after” ending, we feel cheated. Or at least I do.

Still, the movie has enough merit that I wouldn’t discourage anyone from watching it. I think, with a little tweaking, it could have been a minor classic, if there is such a thing.

It’s not unusual for film makers to lead the viewer to believe that supernatural forces are responsible for certain occurrences and then “cop out” at the end to reveal a rational explanation. My all-time favorite haunted house movie, “House on Haunted Hill” staring Vincent Price, resorts to confessing that flesh and blood persons, rather than real specters, created all the strange happenings. Although Elisha Cook Jr. does leave that one bit of doubt as he breaks the “fourth wall” and speaks directly to the audience.

“The Woman Who Came Back” sounds like an interesting film and is one video I hope to add to my own library very soon.