Superstition

I'm not a critic and I believe THEY JUST CAN'T ENJOY ANY MOVIE. If you persevere you can find errors even on the CLOUDS!

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.

.

The only good thing about this film is the presence of well known acting legends like Charlotte Rampling and less famous actors whose average to good talents cannot rescue a rather poor script. The whole thing feels more like an afternoon TV series than a proper film. The plot is messy and inconclusive. Fires happen around the girl - we are given different suggestions on how to interpret that, but none of those are actually explored at all. Is it deliberate arson, was she acting out of jealousy, was it paranormal activity, or was she in denial? We don't know. The contradictory conclusion of the trial doesn't explain a thing either.

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.

I really don't like with the woman whom is the main character in this film. Usually we like the female main character, but I really think that she is stupid, and very suck. She can't do anything without his lawyer help, and she's acting like crazy people.

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.

I'm sure I remember the case of the teenage fire-starter but was it necessary to sanitize the storyline with so much obvious fiction and lack of attention to the central role.

While the acting from Mark Strong and Francis Barber as the defence and prosecution lawyers in this British made thriller were adequate, I frequently felt I was watching a low budget movie stretched by obvious financial constraints that severely held back the potential this movie could have achieved.

I normally like Sienna Guillory who 'played down' several years to portray a nervously troubled teenager who has a complex association with fires., but this time around I wasn't convinced. Playing Julia McCullough a sensuous teenager with a limited education and the inept ability to grasp what appears to be happening around her, Sienna is a 19 year English Nanny who is subconciously obsessed with the fire that killed her mother four years previous and the blame she apportions herself with her mother's death. She moves to Italy and works as a Nanny for a middle aged couple with a small son. Unreasonable attention from the menopausal husband towards Julia which is never properly explored causes anxious concern with the once troubled teenager and fires mysteriously start in the family home, the second of which kills the baby and Sienna Guillory's character is accused of murder and arson. After a bumpy start with a totally token sex scene between consenting adults, namely the Italian couple, the film shifts into a courtroom drama with a series of flashbacks and weird links that pull the various characters together. At times Sienna Guillory's acting as the irritating Julia McCullough could be construed as wooden, the pregnant pauses and definitive passion loss when passion was most needed are blatantly ineffective. While Strong and Barber played the whole scenario like another well rehearsed British TV play with predictable effect the rest of the cast were strangely bewildered for the best part looking like they had turned up for two or three totally different productions. In fairness Guillory does on a few occasions attempt to rise above the mundane script by attempting to characterise her role, only to fall back again in the following scene. The sultry pout and little girl lost routine just kept coming back which stripped the potential this character was crying out to offer. Maybe it was all about the script, hard for an actor to act when there isn't a part to play. Having seen Sienna play well in other films, maybe it was all about the direction.

How the once most desirable Femme Fatale Charlotte Rampling has lasted and in her her early 60's still looks so wonderful defies logic and in a role void of make up too, but as a 'Shrink' who doubles as a 'Mother Superior' wearing designer lingerie under a frumpy cardigan was all to US TV for me. Recruited to support the defending lawyer in figuring out how 'Julia' ticked the sexy Francophile lacked her normal presence. I was itching for a burst of Ms Rampling topless in a Nazi uniform and a pair of trouser braces covering her latter day modesty, even if it meant enduring another flashback.

Window dressing with one time audience pulling actors which also included a cameo role by the normally excellent David Warner suggested the Producers needed names to prop up a film they didn't really have much faith in. Frequently confusing, the photography suffered from an overdose of soft focus, too many flashbacks and and not enough of the slow lingering close ups needed to establish the troubled mind and supernaturally vexed soul of Julia Too many times I had to ask myself was I really watching a paranormal extravaganza or a subliminal PR exercise for the Italian Lakes. as the photography and locations kept drifting away.

If a story is good and you secure a great scriptwriter, a brilliant director will follow. Unfortunately this film had none of these ingredients. Budgets would have been better spent exploring the reasons behind the complexity of the central role. Having a little more faith in Sienna Guillory's emotional potential would have made this film a lot better for everyone, actors included.

Best bits: Sienna Guillory's pout (in small doses) The first time I have seen a Red Double Decker Bus driving down an English Country Lane in 40 years.

Worst Bits: The screenplay.

This is one of those foreign movies that gets my attention because the characters are mysterious and the setting is the way i like it: European.

The story is intriguing and the ending confirms all suspicions the viewer can have and ends in a deja-vu sort of way, which I guess not a lot of people like because they're used to the Hollywood crap with happy endings and guy keeping the girl after all, well this is not the case, and it is refreshing that these kind of movies are still being made. Even if people still don't understand it, it's something that's nice to the eyes and to the ears.

A mature movie deserves a mature audience, if anyone else differs with my opinion, then there's nothing I can do or even want to do.