Horror remakes often find themselves in treacherous territory. On one hand, they must honor the legacy of the original work; on the other, they need to bring something fresh and relevant to contemporary audiences. Chuck Russell’s Witchboard—a reimagining of the 1986 cult horror film—arrives with this exact challenge. With a strong cast led by Madison Iseman, Aaron Dominguez, Melanie Jarnson, Charlie Tahan, and Jamie Campbell Bower, and a premise steeped in gothic lore, it promises atmospheric thrills. Unfortunately, despite moments of ambition and flashes of visual flair, the film falls into the common pitfalls of modern supernatural horror: an overreliance on clichés, narrative bloat, and uneven execution that undercuts its potential.
What results is a film that sits squarely in the middle: stylish, sometimes chilling, and boasting intriguing mythological underpinnings, but also frustratingly inconsistent, with storytelling choices that often stifle rather than enhance its scares.

A Promising Foundation:
Witchboard is a story about a young couple whose lives unravel when they encounter a powerful spirit board linked to a dark past. The board, crafted centuries earlier by a persecuted witch, becomes the gateway to a chain of eerie events that entangle the couple in a web of possession, betrayal, and occult power struggles.
On paper, this is a fantastic foundation. Russell wisely expands on the lore, transporting the board’s origins to 17th-century France and tying it to a witch whose persecution led to catastrophic consequences for her village. The New Orleans setting is equally inspired. The French Quarter—with its history of mysticism, voodoo, and gothic architecture—provides an evocative backdrop that could have elevated the supernatural elements.
However, while the film’s bones are strong, the execution never fully capitalizes on the setting or mythology. Too often, the story feels like it is juggling too many ideas at once—witch hunts, cults, generational curses, addiction recovery, and romantic drama—without fusing them into a cohesive whole.
Performances: The Film’s Strongest Element:
The cast, thankfully, gives the material more weight than it might otherwise deserve. Madison Iseman delivers a layered performance as Emily, a woman grappling not only with external supernatural forces but also her own personal demons. She brings a vulnerability that grounds the character, making her descent into the board’s grip both tragic and believable.
Aaron Dominguez, as Christian, balances concern and skepticism with a quiet strength. His chemistry with Iseman feels genuine, which helps anchor the more outrageous supernatural occurrences in something resembling reality.
Melanie Jarnson, playing Brooke, provides an intellectual counterbalance. As an antiquities expert, her character functions as a voice of reason and exposition, though the script sometimes reduces her role to little more than a plot device.
The standout, however, is Jamie Campbell Bower. His portrayal of Alexander Babtiste is magnetic, combining charm, menace, and an eerie sense of devotion to occult power. Bower brings a theatrical intensity that occasionally tips into camp, but it works in a film like this, where villainy is meant to feel both seductive and unsettling.
Atmosphere Over Substance:
Russell, who cut his teeth directing horror favorites like A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, demonstrates he still has an eye for atmospheric visuals. Witchboard often looks great: candlelit séances, shadowy corners of New Orleans, and feverish hallucination sequences create an aura of dread. The film also makes smart use of practical effects in places, giving certain moments a tactile eeriness that CGI-heavy horror often lacks.
But atmosphere can only take a film so far. While the imagery is moody and immersive, the scares themselves rarely land. Too often, the film leans on the well-worn tropes of sudden jump scares and distorted ghostly figures, rather than building suspense through character-driven tension. This lack of restraint ultimately dilutes the impact of scenes that could have been terrifying if allowed to simmer.
Narrative Bloat and Uneven Pacing:
One of the film’s biggest hurdles is its pacing. At nearly two hours, Witchboard overstays its welcome. The first act effectively sets the stage with a slow-burn mystery surrounding the board. Yet, instead of tightening the focus as the story progresses, Russell layers on subplot after subplot—Emily’s recovery from addiction, conflicts between Christian and Brooke, the introduction of a modern coven, ancestral bloodlines, and even Vatican involvement.
Individually, these ideas are compelling. Together, they feel scattershot, as if the film is desperate to expand its mythology without considering how each thread impacts the core story. The result is a narrative that sags in the middle and rushes its climactic moments, leaving both the emotional stakes and the horror underdeveloped.
Themes of Addiction and Legacy:
Where Witchboard does shine is in its subtext. Emily’s battle with addiction provides a thematic parallel to her entanglement with the board. Both are forces that promise control or relief but ultimately consume her autonomy. While the metaphor is not always subtle, it adds depth to her struggle and makes her arc more compelling than the standard “possessed protagonist” trope.
Similarly, the film’s exploration of legacy—through both family bloodlines and historical persecution—adds dimension. The sins of the past haunting the present is a well-trodden horror theme, but here it feels particularly resonant, even if the film doesn’t always stick the landing.
Style Over Substance:
Russell clearly wants Witchboard to be more than a straightforward remake; he envisions it as a stylish, sprawling gothic tale with historical roots and modern sensibilities. Yet, this ambition often works against the film. The more Witchboard attempts to distinguish itself from its 1986 predecessor, the more it drowns in excess lore and convoluted plotting.
Still, the film avoids complete failure thanks to its strong cast, atmospheric visuals, and occasional bursts of effective horror. Even if the scares don’t linger, the sense of doom and dread is palpable in certain sequences, particularly those tied to the board’s origins.
Overall:
Witchboard is not a disaster, but it is also far from a triumph. It falls into that frustrating middle ground where flashes of brilliance are overshadowed by inconsistent storytelling and overindulgence. For fans of supernatural horror, it offers enough style and mood to warrant a watch, particularly for those interested in gothic lore and occult narratives. Yet, for those seeking tightly woven scares or a lean, effective horror experience, it will likely disappoint.
Chuck Russell’s remake is a glossy, ambitious, but uneven entry into the world of horror remakes. It honors its predecessor in spirit while aiming to carve out a new identity, but its execution leaves it stranded between nostalgia and innovation. With tighter pacing and a sharper focus, Witchboard could have been a worthy revival. As it stands, it is a watchable but underwhelming supernatural tale.

Witchboard Review: A Glossy Yet Uneven Reimagining

Acting – 6.5/10

Cinematography/Visual Effects – 6/10

Plot/Screenplay – 4/10

Setting/Theme – 5/10

Watchability – 6/10

Rewatchability – 4/10

Summary
With a strong cast led by Madison Iseman, Aaron Dominguez, Melanie Jarnson, Charlie Tahan, and Jamie Campbell Bower, and a premise steeped in gothic lore, it promises atmospheric thrills. Unfortunately, despite moments of ambition and flashes of visual flair, the film falls into the common pitfalls of modern supernatural horror: an overreliance on clichés, narrative bloat, and uneven execution that undercuts its potential.

Pros

Chuck Russell crafts moody, gothic imagery that fits the New Orleans setting and the witch-lore backdrop
Madison Iseman anchors the story with a layered portrayal of Emily, balancing vulnerability and strength
Themes of addiction and legacy enrich the narrative, even when execution falters

Cons

Too many subplots (addiction, covens, ancestral bloodlines, Vatican involvement) clutter the story
A slow-burning first act gives way to a saggy middle and rushed climax
Reliance on jump scares and familiar horror imagery undercuts tension

span,
.wp-review-1009594.wp-review-percentage-type .review-list li > span {
position: absolute;
top: 18px;
left: 25px;
color: #fff;
font-size: 14px;
line-height: 1;
}
.wp-review-1009594 .review-title,
.wp-review-1009594 .review-list li,
.wp-review-1009594 .review-list li:last-child {
border: none;
}
.wp-review-1009594 .review-links {
padding: 30px 30px 20px 30px;
width: 100%;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-total-wrapper .review-result-wrapper .review-result i,
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-total-wrapper .review-result-wrapper i {
color: #fff;
opacity: 0.7;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-total-wrapper .review-result-wrapper .review-result i { opacity: 1; }
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-pros-cons {
clear: both;
padding: 0;
border-bottom: 1px solid
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-pros-cons > div > div {
padding: 10px 30px;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-pros-cons .review-pros,
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-pros-cons .review-cons {
padding: 0;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-pros-cons .review-pros .mb-5 {
background: #000000;
padding: 10px 20px 10px 30px;
color: #fff;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-pros-cons .review-cons .mb-5 {
background: #c8dde6;
padding: 10px 20px 10px 30px;
color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.45);
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-pros-cons .review-pros ul {
padding: 10px 0 30px;
margin: 0;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-pros-cons .review-pros .mb-5 + p {
padding: 10px 30px 30px 30px;
margin: 0;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-pros-cons .review-cons ul {
padding: 10px 0 30px;
margin: 0;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-pros-cons .review-cons .mb-5 + p {
padding: 10px 30px 30px 30px;
margin: 0;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .mb-5 {
text-transform: uppercase;
letter-spacing: 1px;
}
.wp-review-1009594 .user-review-area {
padding: 12px 30px;
border-bottom: 1px solid;
}
.wp-review-1009594 .wp-review-user-rating .review-result-wrapper .review-result {
letter-spacing: -1.85px;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-title {
border: none;
font-weight: 700;
padding: 12px 30px;
background: #f5f8f8;
letter-spacing: 1px;
border-bottom: 1px solid #c8dde6;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-total-wrapper {
margin: 30px 30px 30px;
color: #fff;
text-align: center;
background: #dd3333;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-total-wrapper .review-total-box h5 {
margin-bottom: 12px;
color: inherit;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper.wp-review-circle-type .review-total-wrapper > .review-total-box {
display: block;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper.wp-review-circle-type .review-total-wrapper > .review-total-box > div { display: none; }
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper.wp-review-circle-type .review-total-wrapper {
background: transparent;
color: inherit;
padding: 30px;
margin: 0;
min-height: 186px;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper.wp-review-circle-type .review-total-wrapper .review-circle.review-total {
margin: 0 auto;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper.wp-review-circle-type .user-total-wrapper .user-review-title {
border: 0;
margin-top: 0;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper.wp-review-circle-type .user-review-area {
padding: 12px 30px;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-percentage .review-result-wrapper,
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-percentage .review-result,
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-point .review-result-wrapper,
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-point .review-result {
box-shadow: inset 0px 0px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.1);
height: 32px;
margin-bottom: 0;
background: #ddc1c1;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-total-wrapper .review-total-box {
padding: 0 30px;
line-height: 1.5;
text-align: center;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-total-wrapper .review-total-box small {
margin-top: 10px;
text-align: center;
font-weight: normal;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper.wp-review-point-type .review-total-wrapper .review-total-box,
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper.wp-review-percentage-type .review-total-wrapper .review-total-box {
width: 100%;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-star.review-total {
color: #fff;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .user-review-title {
padding: 10px 30px;
color: inherit;
border-bottom: 1px solid #c8dde6;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .user-total-wrapper .user-review-title {
display: inline-block;
color: #000000;
padding: 0;
margin-top: 5px;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .reviewed-item {
padding: 30px;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-list {
overflow: hidden;
padding: 20px 15px 20px 15px;
border-bottom: 1px solid #c8dde6;
}
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper.wp-review-thumbs-type .review-list li { width: 100% }
.wp-review-1009594 .review-embed-code { padding: 10px 30px 30px; }
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper,
.wp-review-1009594 .review-title,
.wp-review-1009594 .review-list li,
.wp-review-1009594 .review-list li:last-child,
.wp-review-1009594 .user-review-area,
.wp-review-1009594 .reviewed-item,
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-desc,
.wp-review-1009594 .review-links,
.wp-review-1009594 .wpr-user-features-rating,
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-pros-cons {
border-color: #c8dde6;
}
.wp-review-1009594 .wpr-rating-accept-btn {
background: #dd3333;
background: linear-gradient(to top, #c62d2d 0%, #dd3333 100%);
border-radius: 50px;
border: 1px solid #c62d2d;
margin: 10px 30px;
width: -moz-calc(100% – 60px);
width: -webkit-calc(100% – 60px);
width: -o-calc(100% – 60px);
width: calc(100% – 60px);
}
@media screen and (max-width:480px) {
.wp-review-1009594.wp-review-star-type .review-list li:before { top: 30px; }
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-title,
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .reviewed-item,
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-list li,
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-desc,
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .user-review-area,
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-embed-code,
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .user-review-title { padding: 15px; }
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-pros-cons > div > div { padding: 15px; padding-top: 0; }
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-list { padding: 0; }
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-list li { width: 100%; }
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .ui-tabs-nav { padding: 0 15px; }
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-links { padding: 15px 15px 5px; }
.wp-review-1009594.wp-review-point-type .review-list li > span,
.wp-review-1009594.wp-review-percentage-type .review-list li > span { top: 15px; }
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper.wp-review-circle-type .user-review-area { padding: 10px 15px; }
.wp-review-1009594.review-wrapper .review-total-wrapper { width: 100%; margin: 0 0 15px; }
}
]]>

Acting

Cinematography/Visual Effects

Plot/Screenplay

Setting/Theme

Watchability

Rewatchability

Summary: Chuck Russell’s remake is a glossy, ambitious, but uneven entry into the world of horror remakes. It honors its predecessor in spirit while aiming to carve out a new identity, but its execution leaves it stranded between nostalgia and innovation. With tighter pacing and a sharper focus, Witchboard could have been a worthy revival. As it stands, it is a watchable but underwhelming supernatural tale.

2.8

Glossy Yet Uneven