This was a British picture that I had long wanted to see so when I went to my local library and found this there, I quickly checked it out. Kim Stanley and Richard Attenborough are perfectly chilling as the séance wife Myra and reluctant kidnapper Billy. Judith Donner, in her only role, brings a subtle naturalness as the child Amanda who they "borrow" from a wealthy couple. Also good were Mark Eden and Nanette Newman, who's married to the film's director Bryan Forbes, as the child's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Clayton. John Barry's score brings various shades in many chase scenes and some quietly chilling ones involving Myra and Billy. And Forbes brings measured tension in many point-of-view shots. The suspense involves psychological emotions that cut to the bone and brings a compellingly British flavor to the concluding scenes. So for all that, I highly recommend Seance on a Wet Afternoon.

While I think Leonard Maltin was a little generous in giving this movie 4 stars (his highest rating),it was a very good and difficult to predict movie about two amateur kidnappers. It seems their motives are unusual in that they want to kidnap a girl so that one of them (the mrs.) can con everyone into believing she has psychic powers when she reveals both where the child and the money are hidden--or at least that's the plan. However, due to two personality factors (the hubby doesn't have the guts or inclination for crime and the wife is kind of nuts),their plans start to go awry.

Excellent acting and scripting make this well worth your time and it's nice to see a movie with minimal budget and not exactly big name stars come off so well.

FYI--since my original review, I have seen a Japanese remake, of sorts, called SEANCE. It's as good as SEANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON but is also different enough that I recommend you also try watching it as well. While very similar, it diverges into the supernatural and ends much differently.

The title certainly does grab the attention. It was also hard not to want to see it with such a great idea for a story, knowing of trusted reviewers that think highly of it and that lead actress Kim Stanley's performance was nominated for an Oscar (many here saying that it should have gone to her) in a good year for film in a not bad (though not one of the best that year) category. Richard Attenborough was always watchable and John Barry was to me one of the best and most distinctive film composers of the second half of the twentieth century.

Found 'Seance on a Wet Afternoon' a very good film, can totally see why the critical reception was so overwhelmingly strongly and why it's remembered so fondly here. It's not quite perfect and it was slightly frustrating that it was so close to great and settled for a strong very good instead. But Stanley's performance, an example of a lead performance being even better than the film, was wholly deserving of all the acclaim she got and she would have been a more than worthy winner for the Oscar. To me though Julie Andrews for 'Mary Poppins' was a worthy winner, it was a splendid performance and the film is one of the best of its genre.

'Seance on a Wet Afternoon' is a bit of a slow starter and it is occasionally on the far-fetched side.

Also found the ending somewhat anti-climactic, which sucked out a lot of the tension seen in the build up.

However, the photography has a real eeriness to it, well actually the whole film looks very atmospheric. Barry's haunting and typically melodious score in his distinctive style works very well and despite how the description sounded it does fit within the film and goes for the emotional core. Bryan Forbes' direction is atmosphere-filled, managing to create a chilling sense of dread the creepier Myra gets and at times a sombre mood that does gel.

Moreover, the script is very thoughtful, not going over the top and the feeling of uncertainty that 'Seance on a Wet Aftertoon' is full of intensifies all the time. The story starts a little too slow, but the atmosphere (am aware that this is being used a lot here but it's hard not to and it's appropriate) created, the increasingly uncertain suspense and emotion helps make it riveting. As do the performances. Attenborough seldom was this effective at telling so much when saying little, but it is Stanley that one remembers for a long time in a quite frightening performance. Definitely deserving of the nomination and would hve been a worthy win.

In conclusion, very good and nearly great. 8/10