Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

mjw2305 Loosely based on a true story, Superstition is the tale of a British Au-Pair working in Italy, accused of using Witchcraft and Firestarting, after some fatal, fire related incidents. We then follow the story of her battle through the courts and her fight for innocence.The film has some decent acting and some quite disturbing scenes, but is largely forgettable and brings nothing new to the genre.It's OK if your desperate to see it, but if you have any doubt don't bother, it's probably not worth the effort.5/10For some decent Supernatural thrills, Try Sixth Sense, Stir of Echoes, What Lies Beneath or even Gothika, before you try this.

bitterstranger 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.

perilla 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.

lia00027 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.