Superstition (2001)

Just a quick one to say some of the previous reviewers didn't seem to quite get the full meaning of the plot or script, they might leave you with the impression this film is one of those films where strange things happen without reason and not much makes sense, it isn't, it's actually pretty tight with few inconsistencies, the ending was spot on and satisfying, if a little rushed and predictable. It is debatable if this really could be classed as a horror, it's really more about the characters as the supernatural element is played down, there's no vagueness that some unknown force is at work though as suggested by a previous reviewer, one scene confirms it beyond doubt but I wont give anything away, The acting was very good throughout, especially from Mark Strong, also good to see Charlotte Rampling and David warner turn in good performances.

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...

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.

Had quite high hopes for this film after I'd read the synopsis. I think I was pleased with the end product though it did have it's occasional flaws. I wasn't sure about the lead female at first (Julie) as I wasn't warming to her character in those opening scenes with the baby. Still, to her credit, I grew to believe in her character more and liked the way her story developed through the film. The 'parents' I found a bit shallow and despite their tragedy I didn't really care much about what had happened to them. Charlotte Rampling was a joy towatch (as ever) and I loved the warmth she brought and the credibility she gave to the defence case! Mark Strong was perfect as Gabreli. The relationship built between him Julie and even Mother Frances kept you watching; while his screen presence was enjoyable and strong (no pun intended! lol).I gave it 8/10........for being a film that kept my intrigue from seeing the trailer, and didn't end up being a typical "let's get the witch, oh no, she a cute kid really" type film.