Benutzerrezensionen

From the tone of these comments you would think this was the worst film ever made (and a few comments say that literally). It wasn't as good as "The Others" and such, but the worst movie ever? Please. It was well shot and the minimalist production design was a welcome break from hyper-stylized films like "Silent Hill". The story did take a long time to develop, but the tension built nicely and it had an Argento feel to me. Not every movie has to be "Transformers", moving at Mach 10 from the first frame. Maybe the more subtle storytelling nature was why everyone reacted so poorly. It certainly didn't beat you over the head with plot points, and did feel like a key scene or two was left out of the final cut (setting up the kittens for example) but overall was a nice, spooky little film. Everyone's opinion is valid if course, and it's nowhere near my favorite film, but I had to defend it for some reason. Maybe it's because there are so many TRULY bad films out there, and I want people to save their venom for the movies that deserve it.

I just finished watching this and after reading some of the brutal reviews and message board comments, I felt that I really should write a 'brief' review.

First off, when all was said and done I didn't really find the film ultimately that satisfying; but, I think I am objective enough to say that mainly it is due to my personal taste and NOT because it is a bad film. I really wish people would be a little more fair when writing about these movies and separate the fact that THEY did not like it with whether or not it indeed was a bad film.

Overall I truly felt that the director worked his @$$ off in this film and put his heart and soul into it. Also, THIS WAS HIS VERY FIRST MOVIE! So, c'mon, compared to the mountain of drivel that passes for Horror these days, graded fairly and comparatively, it was very well made. Very nice cinematography and direction as far as planning out every move meticulously and blending the lighting, sound, stormy atmosphere, etc. He also elicited competent performances from his actors too. BUT... for me personally anyway, here is the clincher... The pacing was WAAAAAAAAY off and the buildup WAY to long and the truly effective bits and visuals WAY too spare and subtle. If he had tightened up the pacing just a little and (I KNOW this next bit is gonna sound REAL Hollywood) livened up the visual scares a little, and would have given us much more visceral Gothic imagery and / or more startling clues (I mean COME ON, just one vague file folder and just about NOTHING else!???) Basically I feel that to make the film FAR more effective he needed to add some SUBSTANTIAL elements to drive it a bit more. I DON'T mean shallow jump scares, etc. (although a few more would have helped a little) Just look at THE master of this kind of film, Guillermo Del Torro. Now, that guy is very subtle too, BUT, and it is a VERY BIG BUT like Mariah Carrey's, he knows how to pace a film and ratchet up TRUE suspense and eerie atmosphere. I honestly think this director here has some excellent insight and quality to his film making, BUT I think he dwelt WAY too much on the drama between the ladies instead of building a better story. It was so melodramatic at so many points I was really thinking that a woman had directed it (NOT meaning at all to be unkind to women directors, etc., but merely that women directors USUALLY tell stories from a much more emotional and dramatic perspective then men do) So, the bottom line is, IF you have the time to kill and you are very, Very, VERY patient, you will see some very good technical film making; but, don't expect TOO much of a punch from the story itself. BTW, I really liked the ending; now THAT is exactly the kind of thing he needed much more of! He just needed a bit more in the way of disturbing imagery, subtle but more evocative of the atmosphere a film like this should have.

For the life of me, I cannot understand the fierce and almost resentful nature of many of the opinions given here. I was fully prepared to see another one of those over-blown affairs that put style over substance and usually bore me to bits after 15 minutes or so of their „Amélie"-type smugness and undeserved self-confidence. In fact. SAINT ANGE is a very careful, very sensitive story of a young woman who struggles with her feelings about her impending motherhood. The ending made perfect sense to me, whether read as a ghost story of sorts or a paranoid fantasy. The actresses are uniformly excellent, particularly Virginie Ledoyen and Lou Doillon, as is Catriona MacColl, who you might still remember from those colorful Fulci extravaganzas from the early eighties. The splendid photography makes good use of the grey and cold blue colours of the orphanage, which is embedded in green and brown tones – Mother Nature. The fantasy ending also introduces a clinical white for good measure. In view of the many cinematic exercises of today that talk their subtexts to death, SAINT ANGE uses a formal elegance that is breath-taking. Actually, I didn't find one single frame that was superfluous. In a way, the film also shares several themes with Laugier's well-received and harrowing MARTYRS, as it is basically another – albeit more tender – tale of a bruised young woman under dire circumstances. The ending of MARTYRS can also be read as a paranoid fantasy, with traces of hope hidden in a complex framework of depressing human depravity. No, I liked SAINT ANGE a lot. And, by the way, Joe Lo Duca – who started with Sam Raimi's THE EVIL DEAD – delivered a haunting and memorable music score. An excellent movie.

"House of Voices," the first feature film by Pascal Laugier, contains many of the elements that made his 2008 cult-classic "Martyrs" so great. Both films start off in a predictable, genre-specific way -- then gradually reveal darker, stranger, subterranean layers that defy our expectations. Of the two films, "House" is lighter fare, while "Martyrs" is far bloodier and much, much more disturbing.

"House of Voices," begins as a slow-build Gothic ghost-story, in the vein of 2007's "The Orphanage" or 2001's "The Others." "House" works quite well on this level, featuring engaging female performances, a slowly-unravelling mystery, some handsome cinematography, a lush dramatic score, and some moments of genuine dread. But then, in its final act, the film takes a sharp and surprising turn toward the surreal. I could describe what happens in these scenes, but what really makes them work is the way they're filmed -- the simple strange visual power of these moments. Suffice to say, while you might have a general idea where the plot of this movie is headed, you will probably not foresee exactly how it arrives there.

The final scenes of this movie plumb some nightmarish depths, departing stylistically from the subtle Gothic-horror which came before, and entering far stranger territory. Don't worry; it all adds up. This isn't one of those horror films which leads you on, only to end with such strangeness that you have no hope of understanding what the movie was about. No, everything here makes sense in terms of the film's plot. It's just that the film's sudden stylistic change is jarring and surreal, evoking the kinds of unexpected shifts we might experience in our deepest nightmares.

For me, this movie worked quite well. I see some others here have given it bad reviews. I gather that's because they don't know how to tell a thoughtful, well-made film from worthless pap like the "Saw" franchise. This certainly isn't the best movie I've ever seen, but it's a very fine, thoughtful, moderately scary film with a bizarre final act that might haunt you afterward.

If you like this film, and you have a strong stomach, I'd certainly recommend Laugier's "Martyrs." It plays the same stylistic tricks as this film, but much more intensely, and to greater effect. Word of warning, though: It is a far more disturbing film than "House of Voices."

The film delivers for it's intent. Never was it billed as a Not to be a jump and scare ghost story, nor violently bloody. it nevertheless does have all of the ghost story premises intact, a large vacant orphanage secured away in the french alps, plenty of long corridors and winding staircases, and hidden rooms, this film is shot beautifully, and I really liked Joe LoDuca's score (LoDuca having worked with Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell and Rob Tapert on the Evil Dead films and the Xena and Hercules TV shows) The film is what it is, a nice creepy and atmospheric film to watch on a Sunday afternoon drinking a cup of coffee, and the lead actress Virgine Ledoyn is really nice on the eyes. OK, maybe that's why I gave it a 7 out of 10, but the film's subject matter of missing and/or "scary children" along with the ***SPOILER ALERT*** hidden pregnancy of the lead character, really enhances the viewers investment. Runs a little too long, but as I said, the cinematography is exquisite, so the time passes pleasantly

OK, I agree with most of the comments here but really the music of Joseph Lo Duca was not so bad. It was I think the best part of this banal movie.

But for everything else? Absolute merde, as you French say. True, people here also fell asleep or walked out of the movie, which happens all the time with all the bad movies, even with 'special events' movies with the director and actors present, Italians are not shy to walk out or snore loud if they believe the movie is bad. We care of course but we are more honest about our feelings.

When this movie ended, I had to go home and watch some real movies in my DVD collection just to cleanse myself of the disaster that is called "Saint Ange" and also it seemed much much longer than it's running time. It was more like watching a 3 hour movie probably because nothing was happening in the plot and I kept looking at my watch and waiting for the finale which is also hopeless and stupid but not surprising considering the rest of this movie was just as miserable.

This is a film that made me question the existence of IMDb user comments. Seeing that it was the same director as Martyrs I decided to seek this film out, but then considered not bothering when I saw how generally bad the reviews here and elsewhere were. I'm really glad I ignored them and did watch it in the end.

The problem with House of Voices is that it asks the audience to do a bit of the work. The story and the meaning behind it are not immediately obvious, there is an element of the film that is open to interpretation. It requires a bit of patience and an audience willing to think about what they're watching. For some people, the majority it seems, this clearly drains any potential enjoyment from the film. For me, and for a few others who have posted reviews here, it's not a problem at all, it's what makes the film so good.

Aside from that there is a lot more to recommend here. The film looks beautiful, the performances are fantastic and there are some very effective scares generated with the help of a suitably creepy atmosphere. It is also truly unpredictable at times - something often missing from the modern horror film.

Overall this is a bold, well-produced and interesting film that should be seen by anyone bored of films made to a formula.

Have you seen Martyrs (2008) by Pascal Laugier, because you definitely should, but also because he directed this film too.

The Orphanage (2007) obviously took a few cues from here.

I'm only writing this review to save people time.

If you enjoy Pascal Laugier/Guillermo del Toro type movies then you have every reason to check this one out.

Wikipedia also says something I find very interesting about Laugier. Apparently he "was set to direct the remake of Hellraiser but was later taken off the project due to creative differences with the producers; Laugier wanted his film to be very serious and explore gay S&M culture, whereas the producers wanted the film to be more commercial and appeal to a teen audience." Wow, too bad, that would have been brilliant. Instead, they chose to make a Hellraiser for kids who enjoy watching the VMAs. Lol

Where should I begin? I know, the script, which is where the writer-director should have begun when he started this piece of crap! There is no story, the plot is weak, and the ending is frustrating because the director Pascal Laugier has no idea what he is doing.

The first five minutes are the best part of the movie, and everything else goes downhill quickly from there. Technically, it's not a bad movie. But everything else is so awful. I would have given this movie a zero, but 1 is the lowest score available on IMDb.

Even the worst Hollywood movies have more of a storyline than "Saint-Ange" and what in the world happened to Virginie Ledoyen? Why is she doing crappy horror movies like this? "The Beach" looks like a masterpiece compared to the trash of "Saint-Ange" !

If you want to see a good horror movie with better acting and directing and plot, go see "Haute Tension" by Alexandre Aja. He's a talented French director who knows what he is doing.

Pascal Laugier should go back to directing making-of videos for Christophe Gans. It's where he belongs.

First off, this is supposed to come out as a treat for fans of Fulci's The Beyond (it even features the return of its star Catriona MacColl) and his other gloomy films. So it's got nice locations (romanian studios), pretty minimal as the whole movie takes place in a great mansion supposed to be a WWII orphanage, its narrowing woods and cellars. Cast is pretty top notch with kinky Virginie Ledoyen (L'Eau Froide, La Cérémonie, La fille seule - her only good movies in my opinion - The Beach) and wacko Lou Doillon (Jane Birkin's daughter - one of the most irritating actress to come out of french cinema lately, but physically disturbing and therefore probably appropriate for this movie!).

Beautiful photography, gloomy atmosphere, weird and nasty children (kinda reminiscent of the evil ones in Cronenberg's The Brood, but not really either), derelict locations, potential scream queens, this movie shows good production values but sadly remains pretty lazy storywise. I won't describe the story too much, but after a pretty classy/classic (easy) hour of ghost induced story, the movie goes wacko and tries to become a bit disturbing. Unfortunately, even if the scenery and filming shows you some very weird and dare I say effective clinical & morbid images (the only part giving the movie a little of its own personality), those images bears no real depth and fall flat in utter stupidity! So even though I admire the plastic quality of the last half hour, I remain highly skeptical in its capacity to convey an interesting story falling back on its feet without relying on weirdness because the lazy writer(s?) have no real vision of the story as a whole. Also, the twist revelation about the cats killer's identity is really lame. Sadly, another example of France incapacity to produce thoughtful and provocative fantasy...

Think a mixture of Furie's "The Entity", Robert Wise's "The Haunting" with Fulci's "The Beyond" and Chris Cunningham's clinical imagery.

Just one's opinion.

4/10

When I watch a movie, I like to be entertained. When I watch a horror movie, I like to be scared. With "Saint Ange" I got nothing, I only got bored and mad at myself for wasting my money and time! Every person in the theater with me was also very upset. I counted maybe five people walked out, and everybody whistled in disgust when the movie ended. I think they tried to ask for their money back. I stayed because I did not want to waste my money, but now I think I should have walked out too!

What to say of the acting? Well there is no dialogue really, and the only dialogue that was there was very poor and stupid, even in translation. The actresses in this movie are usually good in other movies but they were very bad in this one, because of the terrible script, the silly dialogue and the awful director. I almost wished they were killed off in the beginning, so they would not have to go through the rest of this boring movie the way the audience was forced to.

What to say of the story? Nada! It's a big zero! It tries to copy "The Others" ("Les Otros") by Amenábar but this "Saint Ange" is just too awful it is not even worthy to compare it. With Amenábar, you get a good story, good thrills, good acting, good movie. With this Laugieri, you get nothing but a silly, boring, bad movie with nothing memorable. It is full of clichés and predictability's.

There is one scene where the director tries to scare you but it only makes you laugh. That is when you know you are watching a really bad movie: it is when you are not scared in the places you are supposed to be scared, and instead you laugh or whistle. I was not moved at all in this movie and neither will you.

I give this movie zero stars because it is really the worst movie I have seen in a very long time.

I saw this 2 months ago and I do not remember seeing anything so terrible in a long while.

It seems a lot of people found this movie confusing. I thought it was explained OK but like some one here said, the explanation for a pointless story becomes nul. So in the end, you are left in your seat wondering how to retrieve the time you unwisely spent watching this movie.

The only redeemable part of this movie is the set decoration. I like the haunted house, even though it obviously looks like a movie set and also looks very typical of all the haunted houses in other horror movies.

The acting was lamentable. Ledoyen and Doillon are B grade French actresses who are suited for this B movie. The actresses who played the older maid and the schoolmistress were the only ones who could act convincingly.

The directing was terrible. I got the impression that this director cheats a lot, not just with all his "borrowing" from other movies but also with his bad script. I can't defend any "subtlety" this movie had because there really was none.

I also spotted several technical mistakes, but the biggest mistake of all in "Saint Ange" was the movie itself and the fact that it was even made. I prefer to watch Asian horror films which are smarter and better made, because honestly even the worst and corniest of Asian films is much better than this French film.

I watched this film in my class of French Cinema "Fantastique" and I found it an interesting movie. Like all films which have some more depth than the standard Hollywood-film you have to engage your brain a little bit to appreciate it. Thinking about the different interpretations possible (which my teacher helped me with) definitely adds to the experience.

I wouldn't say that the movie is scary, but there are some scenes of suspense. Since I usually engage myself a lot in the movies I watch, I found the situation of the main character very unjust.

Otherwise, the photography is just wonderful, and the film is worth watching just because of this!

I cant believe some of the comments i've read on here about this film! It was very slow paced and wasn't very scary or disturbing, but the cinematography was beautiful, as were the sets and the music, although the music didn't go with some scenes and took away the films eerie atmosphere. If you enjoy supernatural films such as "The others" then this may not be as good but is still worth watching because it is slow and creepy and it does build up to some spooky scenes. The acting was OK, nothing special, but watchable. I would give this film a chance, i found other peoples bad comments very misleading, they may not have enjoyed the film, but, although not brilliant, is not as bad as they make it out to be.

I only watched this movie because the trailer looked interesting. This movie just came out here in Spain last week and I am sure it will be gone before next weekend.

While I was watching, I thought this must be a joke. A movie can not possibly be this bad! Sorry but yes, a movie can be this bad. The joke was on me and the other two people inside the theatre with me because it only got worser as the movie continued. And the ending was the stupidest ending I have seen in all of cinema.

This is the worst movie of the year. The plot was ridiculous, the music was too much and the acting was not good either. Lou Doilon was not bad, she was the most like her character. But I noticed that when Virginie Ledoyan cries, sometimes she looks like she is constipated, sometimes she looks like she is laughing.

This movie is a big disappointment, but I will be generous and give it 1 star out of 10.

Seriously, what's wrong with you? this movie is so underrated, it has OK acting, Lovely music... and a plot which at some point certainly makes you wonder what just happened, BUT.. it's NECESSARY in order to accomplish the movie's goal, some of you need to understand that inside the genre of horror it doesn't always take a blood bath or a faceless and brainless killer who strangely teleports all around cutting everyone's head off and has more lives than a cat to actually be scared, that formula just DOESN'T work anymore with some of us.

Before you watch a movie, you have to know what's coming, I mean, if you're going to watch like a Fantasy film, you cannot therefore be like.. 'Wtf?! that's not real, I'm wasting my time.. that's so out of reality!' This isn't the type of horror where you can expect massive murder or an specific situation that says 'HERE'S WHERE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SCARED' Nope, this is a psychological thrill where you take an important roll on developing the characters and the stuff that takes place, since certain situations can vary a lot depending on how the viewer analyzes it.. and that goes right from the start to the very ending on this movie.

So, to sum up I gave this film a 10 because it's extremely under rated and it needs to go up a little, I wouldn't say it's a master piece either, but it would pretty much deserve at least a 7.

Another movies you could like if this one was OK to you? Might want to have a look to Silent hill, Jacob's ladder, The others.

This film is hard to review.

I loved the cinematography. It's beautiful and for the small budget I think they did an awesome job.

The story is very interesting. It's a bit hard to understand while you watch it but if you let it linger in your mind for a bit (and check out some of the forums here :)) you will hopefully see that it is a well crafted piece of work. It's sad that people who don't understand the story or who just think its boring gets to vote. You wouldn't give a film 10/10 just because you understand everything in a film straight away? So why give this film 1/10? It's just sad and ignorant.

The issue I had with the film was that it was very slow and I couldn't help myself from watching the clock a few times. With a faster pace and a few more disturbing images this could easily have been a 8/10.

I saw it two hours ago. I went on the forum just to check out some of the confusion that was in my mind. Maybe if I would have waited a day or two I might have figured most of the stuff out for myself. But I think the film is meant to have you make up your own mind of what really happened. And that is what I really like about films like this.

6/10 only for the slow pace.

See it with an open mind and hopefully you'll enjoy it.

Because we have directors who think they can make movies and try to copy American films but they fail miserably, just like Pascal Laugier with Saint-Ange.

If you are going to reference Italian horror directors that is OK, as long as you have a story. Yes you can be good with the technical parts of the film, but what good is that if there is no story to back it up? No good, which is exactly what this film is, a real piece of bull****!

I admit that Lou Doillon was not bad in the movie because honestly I am used to seeing her in bad films anyway. Virginie Ledoyen deserves better, the poor thing, why in the world is she stuck working with this lousy good-for-nothing director? She should return to Jacquot and Assayas, who are two intelligent French directors who KNOW how to make GOOD movies with REAL stories.

This impostor Pascal Laugier is just a former security guard who was an assistant to director and producer Christophe Gans (Le Pacte de loups) and did him favors which is how he got this job in the first place. He is a pseudo-director and even a worse writer. A 2 year old kid would have done a better job writing the script of this movie, which honestly does not exist because the plot makes no sense. Even Laugier himself admits to not knowing what is the ending, and I am not surprised at all because he is incompetent!

I am very sad for the state of French cinema if our new directors include talentless, brain-dead copycats like Laugier. If you are going to reference other films and even brag about it, at least try to do a good job copying them, please. Do not be a pretentious movie geek and try to make a movie that is not even there at the script level!

This Laugier even insulted other French film makers and comedy actors like Eric & Ramzy, when he should really look in the mirror first if he wants to see a bad film maker. Because at least the movies of Eric & Ramzy have a plot, are entertaining and make a lot of money! Saint-Ange has none of the above! It is boring, stupid and a big box-office flop!

The producers are also to blame for allowing this movie to get made. They probably think that because horror movies are en vogue right now that they can do a piece of crap and make enough money. Wrong!!!! Yes indeed you made a piece of crap but you did not make as much money as the American movies! This is what happens when you are motivated by pure greed and no sense of artistry or respect for the cinema. Next time, save some money and let your grandmother direct the movie, because she would probably do a better job than the idiot you hired for Saint-Ange.

But there is still hope for French cinema. I have not yet seen the films of Alexandre Aja but all my friends tell me that he is one million times better than this Laugier, and so is another French director Florent Emilio Siri who is talented and rising.

I am not surprised that this movie has not yet been released anywhere else outside Europe. What for? It is simply no good ! So what will happen is that all the countries that bought the rights will just let it go direct-to-video or to cable to break even on their costs.

I would advise you not even to spend one euro (or dollar) to rent this movie. Use your money to rent another good movie, like The Others or anything really, because any movie is better than Saint-Ange!

Rating : one-half star out of ten (one-half star for the movie's decor)

The result is something that resembles "Saint Ange" which is indeed so dreadful that it makes me feel shame and embarrassment for Ms. Ledoyen, Ms. Doillon and the other actors in this disgusting film.

I must say, I watched it because I appreciated the work of the actress that played Anna. She usually makes smart choices in her movies, but she clearly made the worst decision of her career by doing this movie. A bloke who saw this DVD with me joked that Ms. Ledoyen must have been hypnotized, cursed or even hexed to agree to making this movie. I didn't find it very funny at first but given the unfavourable downturn her career has taken after she made this movie, I'm starting to think it might be true.

I appreciate movies like "The Others" or stories like Turn of the Screw which somebody else had mentioned, but trust me, "Saint Ange" is nowhere near their level or category, not even close. "Saint Ange" is a low budget movie that does not even deserve to be seen in a 2 a.m. Friday night frightfest on the telly, much less on DVD or in theatres. That said, the budget makes no matter, because I have seen movies made for even less money that are far better than this awful movie. The problem with "Saint Ange" lies with the director who clearly is in over his head and is not fit for the job at hand. He quite obviously lacks the skill and talent needed to make a real movie.

If you fancy seeing a rehash of every horror scene, every haunted house thriller trick, and demented and sick scenes of innocent children in unpleasant situations, then this would be a movie for you to see. Otherwise, if you are a person of any good taste, morals or decency and appreciate true cinema and good stories, I would advise you to skip this at your local rental store or shopping centre and see another movie instead.