Superstition

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.

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.

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.

Spending last night drafting my review of "Lord Of War" (only watched it the night before) and not really getting anywhere, I was distracted by the BBC who occasionally broadcast films that I have never heard of but still persuade me to watch. Sometimes, this can backfire as anyone who watched "The Ghost" will tell you but given that this film had several actors of note, I figured I'd forget about Nicolas Cage (momentarily) and instead focus on this strange mix of supernatural mystery and courtroom drama.

Sienna Guillory plays Julie, a young au pair working in Italy and still traumatised by the death of her mother in a fire when she was 15. Despite this, she works for a middle-aged couple (Derek de Lint and Alice Krige) looking after their infant child but before long, tragedy strikes when the baby is also killed in a fire. Accused of murder, Julie finds herself defended by Antonio Gabrieli (Mark Strong) but soon, it looks like there are far darker motives at heart than petty jealousy.

Despite being described as a "supernatural thriller" by the BBC, this was about as thrilling as watching grass grow. It never really got going and even though the impressive cast do well with a patchy script, you never really believe it because it's clearly bunkum. Take the actors - with the exception of Ms Guillory, every other character is supposed to be Italian but there is no way you'd know that watching it. The most European actor on set is Charlotte Rampling as a strange psychotherapist-slash-nun (some mistake, surely) who gets involved in the case. One other thing I really didn't like was the fact that the script obviously favoured the supernatural approach over a straight-forward murder - close-up shots of ravens, fog floating on the surface of a lake and other stereotypical images gave the game away pretty quickly. Nothing wrong with being "alternative" but at no point was the murder explained beyond some seriously dodgy nonsense about poltergeists and psychic powers. I've seen episodes of "The X Files" that were more of a "supernatural thriller" than this.

Unfortunately the film is filled with a strong cast, most of whom actually perform very well. Guillory is impressive as the tortured teenager and so is Strong, who I've only ever seen in one-off TV dramas on ITV (which is not normally a ringing endorsement of one's acting credentials). Both have adequate support from Francis Barber and a cameo from David Warner but given that everyone is supposed to be Italian, what's the point of these fine British actors being there? In fact, why set it in Italy at all - the film would work just as fine if it were set in Britain. It's symptomatic of a film that has plenty of ideas and heavyweight actors but little cohesion, imagination or enthusiasm. Personally, I'd rather watch something like "The Craft" or something with a bit of life in it. But I'm afraid "Superstition" hasn't much going for it. I knew there was a reason I'd never heard of it...

After looking at the ratings and other user comments for this film on IMDb i was a bit unsure about purchasing this film. But after watching it i have to say that i was greatly, and pleasantly surprised at how good it was. The film was interesting and intriguing all the way through and i thought that all the roles were played very well, especially Mark Strong and Sienna Guillory, whose stunning acting carried the film very well. I also thought the film had a good ending that concluded it well and left me satisfied with all loose ends. Overall, i'd say that this film is a great watch and i thoroughly enjoyed it from beginning to end.