19 year old babysitter aupair Julie is accused of murder when the bed of the sheltered baby inflames. Is seems as if Julie possesses rare telepathic skills, that she cannot control. Her youn... Read all19 year old babysitter aupair Julie is accused of murder when the bed of the sheltered baby inflames. Is seems as if Julie possesses rare telepathic skills, that she cannot control. Her young lawyer fights for her in court and against the public opinion in Italy, who take her for... Read all19 year old babysitter aupair Julie is accused of murder when the bed of the sheltered baby inflames. Is seems as if Julie possesses rare telepathic skills, that she cannot control. Her young lawyer fights for her in court and against the public opinion in Italy, who take her for a witch.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 2 nominations total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
This movie is not really good, because: 1. The scenario is weakness. 2. There is to much flash back which make me bored and confused. 3. One part and the other part sometime doesn't have clear relationship. 4. The ending is not finished yet, which make me hate this film. 5. Fool female main character which people usually don't like because too weak. 6. Very stupid create film about fire if even the main character problem is not known well.
Another thing that doesn't get any sort of proper development is the relationship between the girl and her lawyer. It seems clear a mutual attraction is developing, and the flashbacks (definitely far too many!) he is having of his deceased wife suggest he is struggling to let go of his grief and start a new life, possibly with the girl he is defending, but that's only hinted at very weakly. While Mark Strong manages to add some personality to the lawyer character, the lukewarm performance by the actress playing the girl doesn't give any real clues about her feelings for him. The hints of romance could have turned out all the better for being underplayed, but the acting is not convincing enough even for that.
Finally, the inconsistencies in the plot. I don't expect a lot of realism from a story that exploits some undefined "paranormal" occurrences, but the film can't make up its mind between a pragmatic and a supernatural interpretation. Again, that ambiguity could have been a winning factor, if it had been real, purposeful ambiguity rather than flaws in the plot and character development. During the trial, a dubious expert on the paranormal is brought in to try and support a "fires start around her because she's upset" line of defense that incidentally leads nowhere. How likely is it that any court would accept that as a valid testimony? Charlotte Rampling's character, the nun who was introduced as psychiatrist (why? it's never explained), seems to have no precise role in the story either, except as improvised grief counselor for the defending lawyer.
Even more glaringly inconsistent bits: in Italy a case for murder would never have a trial by jury. The most hilarious logic-defying bit has to be the shot of a double-decker red bus in the English countryside.
This film is a half-baked production that can't even properly explore its main theme - the supersitions about witchcraft could have been brought in a lot more forcefully, whether to debunk them or reinforce them or leave a well-crafted ambiguity, but the script doesn't do any of that, it just starts down all of those paths at the same time without convincingly following any of them. It's a pity, because the original real story this is based on was definitely fascinating material.
The film shows basically the same plot with stunning Sienna Guillory as the au-pair girl Julie with supernatural powers. Mark Strong plays her lawyer Antonio who has to fight mainly against prejudices and the fundamental superstition of the people and the media. Director Kenneth Hope hasn't produced a copy of the doomy "Exorcist" and "Omen" horror movies, but rather a silent psycho drama with great actings by Guillory, Strong, Charlotte Rampling, Alice Kringe and David Warner. There is no happy end, a thrilling court room drama sequence and there are also some very surreal and disturbing dream sequences.
If you relate "Superstition" to the horror movie genre, it's one of the best contemporary European genre productions apart from the boring popcorn horror movie remakes and teenie slasher trash of the current Hollywood productions.
Me, a simple guy who loves to see movies, can ENJOY them without having to criticize anything, Just "Sit and Watch". Can say I liked the movie... or I didn't... And that's enough.
For everyone belonging to this group, let me tell you, SUPERSTITION is a good movie, with that European feeling... Artistic, interesting, where you actually can use your imagination and be engaged with the story.
The intervention of David Warner (one of my favorite Actors) is a blessing to the cast. The leading roles are very well done and the supporting actors too.
Perhaps the use of a more "Hollywood-Style-use-of-Songs" are something that crashed on my brain, but nothing too serious.
Movies in which a big part of them are spent on the Court room are something many will like from this one, since that's because a paranormal event, the better.
The publicity tries to involve something more "Satanic", but that's wrong... paranormal has nothing to do with it.
Don't try to find something like "The Exorcist"... This one might be considered as: "The X-Files meets Carrie"
As I always say, NEVER back up any critic unless you have seen the movie. A decent effort well done.
.
Did you know
- TriviaThe casting of William Dix as a juror is a nod to playing a victim of a similar character in Confession à un cadavre (1965).
- How long is Superstition?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Суеверие
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime
- 1h 33m(93 min)
- Color
- Sound mix