The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

When Ms. Myra Savage (Stanley) self-professes that she is a professional medium, it does make me chuckle is there any definitive method to determine the word "professional" in this line of business in this cynical world? But Myra's believes her gift, but paradoxically in order to establish her reputation, she hatches a scheme of kidnapping a rich kid Amanda (Donner), and so she can her "gift" to correctly predict the whereabout of the kid and the ransom, to stage a sensation for her benefit.But it is a risky plan, as the parents of Amanda doesn't know Myra, she must pro-actively visit them and lure their attention, which will inconveniently raise the suspicion from the police (which is a sure thing after the kidnap has occurred), so a further police investigation is inevitable. Also it is an implausible plan, one may wonder even if she pulls off the subterfuge, how she can sustain her reputation after that? Keep rigging everything in advance? I fail to foresee what this one-time deal can really boost her career? As it is under one condition, she is a sham. But is she?Also kidnapping requires field work, so she must manipulate her weak-minded husband Billy (Attenborough) to carry out more physically-taxing procedures, including kidnapping, receiving ransom and transferring the hostage. This vintage black-and-white drama from Bryan Forbes hinges heavily on the play-off between Stanley and Attenborough, both are superb and tellingly affecting, although we can never morally take their stand, the scenes of their interactions register a sublime psychological mind-game of control and defence between a married couple. Stanley is righteously honoured with an Oscar nomination, Myra is shown simultaneously as a perpetrator with cold-hearted conviction and a victim of her own delusional obsession of their stillborn baby. Her so-called gift is the only connection (whether imaginary or uncannily tangible) to him which she clings to devotedly. A tour-de- force from Ms. Stanley, whose screen roles are rather scarce and here, it is a performance of a lifetime, she is resolute, calm, crafty and projects her towering presence with pitch- perfect note, until the ending, that ending which powerfully strengths the emotional impact by giving Stanley a show-stopping vent of truth and also masterfully veils the fact whether it is a guilt-driven confession or in a more eerie interpretation, she really reconnects with her dead child and gains her gift but at the same time, beans also been spilled so that she can never get away with her crime, simply brilliant! Attenborough, with a fake nose (which seems to be an odd option), didn't get enough credits for his equally excellent performance, he is the one audience is rooting for, his has doubt in their scheme from the very first, and he is compliant but we know when things reach the threshold, he is the game-changer can alter the entire plan, because he is not a psychopath, Attenborough instills great credibility into Billy, equips him with a humane touch which subtly subverts Myra's indefatigable madness. In cliques mainly composed with male chauvinists, we can see how easily his poignant acting can be easily snubbed. The truth is, occasionally the film's one-dimensional and predictable storyline tends to be a shade bland, and the procedural account of getting the random is too archaic to believe (a deliberate mockery of the police force?); but the performances are gravitating enough to ensnare viewers into a compelling human tragedy with its expressive chiaroscuro, a must- see for everyone.

A seance leader (Kim Stanley) convinces her husband (Richard Attenborough) to kidnap the daughter (Judith Donner) of a wealthy family. Stanley's goal is to "borrow" the daughter in order to use her as a means of gaining fame as a "medium" by convincing everyone that she would have found the daughter through her superior psychic abilities. Needless to say, it doesn't quite work out. The movie's plot is excellent and the director, composer, and cinematographer, not to mention the art director and the film editor, more than achieve cinematic nirvana in bringing it to the screen. The highest marks would go to the two main actors, Attenborough and Stanley, who portray both their relationship and themselves within it as if they themselves were these characters. Stanley's character is the dominant one in the relationship, but her plan to kidnap the girl illustrates her dangerous instability. Attenborough's character may be even worse off for its pathetic submission to the insults and bizarre logic of his wife, acts of which the film captures throughout, to its inevitable end.

There is some discussion on the message boards as to whether the girl was killed or not.I want to believe that the girl was left alive by Billy. He did seem to indicate to the police in the séance that she was alright. And if she was dead, why would he go to so much trouble to place the girl wrapped warmly in a blanket where the scouts could find her? Would he not have just buried her in a shallow grave during the dead of night? That is what is great about the ending though. It wouldn't take much of a leap to think that Billy had gone through with the killing and had, as a result, lost all touch with reality and was in denial of what he had done, thus treating her as though she was still alive. In the final scene before the police arrived, Myra certainly looked and acted as though the killing had happened.Endings like this is what makes for a great movie that will be discussed forever. I guess that I just really want to believe that Billy came to his senses before it was too late. Great acting by the two leads and the rest of the cast as well!

Myra Savage is a struggling psychic, who along with her weak-willed husband, Billy, kidnap the young daughter of wealthy parents. The plan is to extort money from the fretting parents and then for Myra to help the parents find the child with her psychic ability, thus improving her standing in the psychic field. But as the story unfolds, Myra grows ever more close to the edge of insanity, could the still born death of the Savage's own child be the critical issue?Seance On A Wet Afternoon is something of a hidden/forgotten British treasure, not only because of its eerie atmospherics, but also because it contains a quite incredible acting performance from Kim Stanley as the troubled Myra Savage. Stanley was nominated for an Academy Award but lost out to Julie Andrews for Mary Poppins, I wonder just how many people even remember Stanley's film? Tho chiefly marketed as a crime picture, this piece actually feels more like an offshoot of the horror genre, it's a genuinely creepy picture that has unease lurking in every marvellous black and white corner. Boosted by an excellently understated turn from Richard Attenborough (also producer here) as Billy Savage, directed with exceptional skill from Bryan Forbes (Whistle Down the Wind), and with a plinking creepy score from maestro John Barry, this adaptation of Mark McShane's novel comes highly recommended for those that like a great psychological character study. Oh and of course for those that know brilliant acting when they see it! 8/10