BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Cardinal Biggles This is SOOOOO 1960s. Stark monochrome, visually crafted; intelligent, suspenseful dialogue, a modestly paced intense build up of the characters and plot, clever musical accents; the psychological twists, the interaction of the characters - the dark sociopath, the compliant and ineffective hen-pecked husband accomplice. Marvellous. This is a modest budget film, yet very intense, very sinister with all sorts of taboos explored in the medium (pardon the pun) of a séance. No CGI, no mega explosions every five minutes, no car chases or corny catch phrases, and definitely no expensive sets. Just a house in Wimbledon, a seedy lounge set and a penurious David Attenborough reduced to running a motorbike and sidecar for their mastermind crime..... complete with old duffer motorbike helmet and gauntlets Great performances. These characters are the stuff that serial killers are made of, and they scared the sh*t out of me!

PrometheusTree64 This is perhaps the best film of its type, a low-key, macabre classic too few have seen.Kim Stanley (who tends to remind me of her pal, Geraldine Page) gives a bravura and highly-textured performance here as a psychic medium, who may or may not have legitimate powers but elects to go about publicly proving them by deceitful methods by having her husband kidnap a little girl from a prominent London family, hold her captive, and then "find" her.This is an acting tour de force as well as a fab mood-piece, with an appropriately eerie score by John Barry, the film and London itself wrapped in an unnerving Cold War chill.

Paris55 I agree with the comment provided by author djlink, Alexandria, VA regarding the Oscars. Unfortunately for Kim Stanley in "Seance on a Wet Afternoon" Julie Andrews won the Oscar not for her performance in Mary Poppins BUT for the controversy over Andrews not getting the part in the movie "My Fair Lady". Andrews created the part on Broadway. When the movie was cast, the producers chose Audrey Hepburn, for name recognition. Many in Hollywood industry and the Academy were not thrilled over the slight and thought that was a major mistake, therefore giving Andrews the Oscar for Mary Poppins, no matter who else was nominated and their performance. This happens much too often and in recent years as of 2011. The Oscars are more political now than they were back in the 1960s.

Peter Piper This is one of my favourite films of the 1960s. The black-and-white widescreen format induces nostalgia in those of us who were movie-going at that time. The plot: a woman who believes herself to be a 'psychic' (superb performance by Kim Stanley) talks her downtrodden husband (great performance by Richard Attenborough) into kidnapping a schoolgirl so she can reveal her powers to the world by 'finding' the girl. The atmosphere of the film is creepy and the music by John Barry seems slightly at odds with it at times, but this is a minor quibble; 'Seance' is a fine piece of work. As far as British DVD releases are concerned, the Network 2006 edition has good picture quality but lousy sound (the dialogue is far too quiet and the music and effects are too loud). The Carlton 2004 edition had better sound plus optional subtitles in English for hard of hearing, but the picture is grainier and not as good.