Movie Review: Satan's School For Girls
Sep. 22nd, 2025 05:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rogueslayer452I have recently watched two versions of Satan's School for Girls, the original 1973 one and the 2000 remake. I initially saw the 2000 version when it aired (because of Shannen Doherty and Julie Benz), however I only caught the tail end of it and never saw the movie in full. It took some time before finding it, and then I watched the 1973 version to compare. Both which were made-for-television movies, both were produced by Aaron Spelling, and both have their own strengths and weaknesses and unique takes on the story being told.
The premise is about a young woman who, after discovering the mysterious death of her sister and not being convinced it was a mere suicide, goes to investigate at her sister's university to discreetly find out the truth of what happened, and as soon as she arrives strange things start happening.
SATAN'S SCHOOL FOR GIRLS (1973)
The story as presented in the original is pretty straightforward, it's a true gothic mystery complete with prolonged sequences of characters, mainly Elizabeth, walking around in the dark investigating. There's no blood or gore, only hinted violence and the deaths of characters are cleverly done, with the only graphic one being Elizabeth's sister, Martha, in the beginning of showing her hanging body but even that was tame. Being a made-for-television movie of course it would have to be tame, but in comparison to the rest of the movie it is pretty shocking which sets everything in motion as to why Elizabeth would be so determined to figure out what was going on.
What I found interesting about this movie is how it presents a kind of psychological element to it, especially the mislead that was foreshadowed in the beginning in the art class which was nicely handled, and the red-herring with Professor Delacroix possibly being the cause of everything due to his cold aloof behavior which the movie spent a lot of time on as a purposeful misdirect. It also gives a great example of cult leaders, who charismatic and charming and intelligent, you wouldn't think twice about trusting them or following them until it's too late. While the ending does make it obvious that something supernatural was going on, that their professor Dr. Joseph Clampett was actually Satan reincarnated or some other being entirely who believed it to be true, the way it presents the reality of those most vulnerable get wrapped up in dangerous cults and have no problem with dying in favor of that in promise of some kind of reward afterward is quite real. It even demonstrates how isolating it can be, from the location of the academy and how it made it a point that it appears most of the girls had no parents or close relatives to fall back onto.
The movie wraps up rather abruptly and it doesn't really answer much, but I do like ambiguous endings that leaves a lot of questions. Besides, Elizabeth did get her answer: Martha was murdered by a Satanic cult to lure Elizabeth herself to the academy to become the last member of the cult. It's pretty straightforward of a story.
SATAN'S SCHOOL FOR GIRLS (2000)
I caught this rerunning on television years ago. I was mainly drawn to it due to Shannen Doherty and Julie Benz being in it, and anything featuring the occult was going to be something I watched.
The basic premise of the story remains the same, although this updated version attempted to bring in more of the supernatural elements to the forefront rather than it simply be a mystery surrounding a cult. This time there is no professor claiming to be Satan running a cult but rather just a coven of witches who need a fifth member to complete the ritual to make them all immortal servants to Satan who would grant them anything they wished.
Now, this remake definitely added things that weren't in the original, such as the main character, Beth, having magical powers (that suddenly awakened and progressed seemingly overnight) and having a male romantic interest and turning the Satanic cult into simply a coven of witches where the leader was a woman who is the Dean of the university (played by Kate Jackson who portrayed Roberta in the original). While I do like the idea of switching things up in having the coven be woman-centered, the execution wasn't as effective, almost appearing to be The Craft-esque with Charmed-level CGI effects for the magic and animal shapeshifting. It's also not as subtle as the original either, with the girls part of the coven demonstrating their two-faced manipulative tendencies early on instead of simply being revealed to be victims of cult brainwashing at the end. It also did a little mishmash with characters, for example the goth girl being a mixture of Debbie and Delacroix, and the Dean being a mixture of the Headmistress and Clampett. Much like the original though the ending was abrupt, although rather than it being ambiguous it gives off more of a "to be continued" vibe.
Truthfully, it was fine for what it was. I do have a soft-spot for cheesy early 00s movies, especially made-for-television movies such as this, because they were often limited by their resources and it really shows the era of what special effects were of that time. You can tell what they were going for by attempting to add a bit more depth to the story, but in comparing the two you can see that the original does stand out a bit more.
Final Thoughts
After having watching both, I think I prefer the original 1973 movie simply because I liked the cult angle a bit more, plus something about seventies media just hits differently. I understood what the 2000 version was doing by needing to upgrade to current audiences of the time, but I do think it changed a bit too much for a story that was pretty straightforward. It didn't need all that padding to connect the dots of the plot. Had they simply gone for switching up the cult to simply being an all-woman led coven worshipping Satan while keeping everything else, it probably would've been a bit better, in my opinion.
Overall though I actually do like both movies, each have their own distinct way of storytelling in the era they were filmed in, especially for made-for-television movies which doesn't get a lot of budget to begin with so they both worked with the resources they had at the time. Both are kinda cheesy, but I think it's what makes them charming in their own ways. Obviously, I do think the difference between the two is the way the film-making was handled, one was more practical and focused on the mystery aspect while the other was more of the special effects spectacle and kind of leaning more into the witchcraft aspect that was popular at the time -- made even more noticeable by the chosen cast, mainly Shannen Doherty and her role in Charmed to attract viewers, which clearly worked on me at the time.
I definitely don't want it to happen considering the current state of media we're in, but I cannot help but wonder what another modern remake of Satan's School for Girls would look like today, just conceptually.
The premise is about a young woman who, after discovering the mysterious death of her sister and not being convinced it was a mere suicide, goes to investigate at her sister's university to discreetly find out the truth of what happened, and as soon as she arrives strange things start happening.
SATAN'S SCHOOL FOR GIRLS (1973)
The story as presented in the original is pretty straightforward, it's a true gothic mystery complete with prolonged sequences of characters, mainly Elizabeth, walking around in the dark investigating. There's no blood or gore, only hinted violence and the deaths of characters are cleverly done, with the only graphic one being Elizabeth's sister, Martha, in the beginning of showing her hanging body but even that was tame. Being a made-for-television movie of course it would have to be tame, but in comparison to the rest of the movie it is pretty shocking which sets everything in motion as to why Elizabeth would be so determined to figure out what was going on.
What I found interesting about this movie is how it presents a kind of psychological element to it, especially the mislead that was foreshadowed in the beginning in the art class which was nicely handled, and the red-herring with Professor Delacroix possibly being the cause of everything due to his cold aloof behavior which the movie spent a lot of time on as a purposeful misdirect. It also gives a great example of cult leaders, who charismatic and charming and intelligent, you wouldn't think twice about trusting them or following them until it's too late. While the ending does make it obvious that something supernatural was going on, that their professor Dr. Joseph Clampett was actually Satan reincarnated or some other being entirely who believed it to be true, the way it presents the reality of those most vulnerable get wrapped up in dangerous cults and have no problem with dying in favor of that in promise of some kind of reward afterward is quite real. It even demonstrates how isolating it can be, from the location of the academy and how it made it a point that it appears most of the girls had no parents or close relatives to fall back onto.
The movie wraps up rather abruptly and it doesn't really answer much, but I do like ambiguous endings that leaves a lot of questions. Besides, Elizabeth did get her answer: Martha was murdered by a Satanic cult to lure Elizabeth herself to the academy to become the last member of the cult. It's pretty straightforward of a story.
SATAN'S SCHOOL FOR GIRLS (2000)
I caught this rerunning on television years ago. I was mainly drawn to it due to Shannen Doherty and Julie Benz being in it, and anything featuring the occult was going to be something I watched.
The basic premise of the story remains the same, although this updated version attempted to bring in more of the supernatural elements to the forefront rather than it simply be a mystery surrounding a cult. This time there is no professor claiming to be Satan running a cult but rather just a coven of witches who need a fifth member to complete the ritual to make them all immortal servants to Satan who would grant them anything they wished.
Now, this remake definitely added things that weren't in the original, such as the main character, Beth, having magical powers (that suddenly awakened and progressed seemingly overnight) and having a male romantic interest and turning the Satanic cult into simply a coven of witches where the leader was a woman who is the Dean of the university (played by Kate Jackson who portrayed Roberta in the original). While I do like the idea of switching things up in having the coven be woman-centered, the execution wasn't as effective, almost appearing to be The Craft-esque with Charmed-level CGI effects for the magic and animal shapeshifting. It's also not as subtle as the original either, with the girls part of the coven demonstrating their two-faced manipulative tendencies early on instead of simply being revealed to be victims of cult brainwashing at the end. It also did a little mishmash with characters, for example the goth girl being a mixture of Debbie and Delacroix, and the Dean being a mixture of the Headmistress and Clampett. Much like the original though the ending was abrupt, although rather than it being ambiguous it gives off more of a "to be continued" vibe.
Truthfully, it was fine for what it was. I do have a soft-spot for cheesy early 00s movies, especially made-for-television movies such as this, because they were often limited by their resources and it really shows the era of what special effects were of that time. You can tell what they were going for by attempting to add a bit more depth to the story, but in comparing the two you can see that the original does stand out a bit more.
Final Thoughts
After having watching both, I think I prefer the original 1973 movie simply because I liked the cult angle a bit more, plus something about seventies media just hits differently. I understood what the 2000 version was doing by needing to upgrade to current audiences of the time, but I do think it changed a bit too much for a story that was pretty straightforward. It didn't need all that padding to connect the dots of the plot. Had they simply gone for switching up the cult to simply being an all-woman led coven worshipping Satan while keeping everything else, it probably would've been a bit better, in my opinion.
Overall though I actually do like both movies, each have their own distinct way of storytelling in the era they were filmed in, especially for made-for-television movies which doesn't get a lot of budget to begin with so they both worked with the resources they had at the time. Both are kinda cheesy, but I think it's what makes them charming in their own ways. Obviously, I do think the difference between the two is the way the film-making was handled, one was more practical and focused on the mystery aspect while the other was more of the special effects spectacle and kind of leaning more into the witchcraft aspect that was popular at the time -- made even more noticeable by the chosen cast, mainly Shannen Doherty and her role in Charmed to attract viewers, which clearly worked on me at the time.
I definitely don't want it to happen considering the current state of media we're in, but I cannot help but wonder what another modern remake of Satan's School for Girls would look like today, just conceptually.
no subject
Date: 2025-09-23 03:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-23 10:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-09-27 10:03 pm (UTC)The 2000s version did tickle my fancy for cheesy made for TV movies and that era of witch stories. However, making it so Beth was the most super special powerful one of all kind of detracted from the tension. I did like the turn with it being the girls you wouldn't suspect being the five.