Saint Ange

I understand why some people decided to give this movie a low rating, but I do not believe this movie deserves a low rating. If you were looking for a "horror" film in the slasher, in-your-face, gory, bloody sense, then I can see how you were disappointed. But if that is your only definition of a scary movie, I don't think you should be reviewing movies. This movie had many good qualities, and I believe many people could enjoy it if they gave it a chance. Foreign horror movies have a very different approach, and if you can get on board with that, I think you will like this. If Saw IV is your idea of quality horror, don't bother.

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.

I don't usually watch horror movies, but this one had such a good look to it that I thought it might turn out to be a "thinking person's" movie like THE HAUNTING or THE UNINVITED. As it went along, I started thinking more of TURN OF THE SCREW, because there were implications that the visions Anna was having were due to her unexplained previous abuse and her mysterious pregnancy...and she was making others believe in the visions (like the nanny in TURN OF THE SCREW). But how does that account for the boy's death at the beginning? The last third of the movie is a complete letdown because of the introduction of fantasy elements beyond the limits of the movie up to that point. (The elevator is the first clue that we're going off track.) I can't believe how many IMDb posters actually seem to believe that the subterranean scenes are somehow "real." There is no evidence that anything sinister was ever done to the children who came to Saint-Ange during WWII. There are SO many interesting ways this movie could have played out...too bad they chose a dud ending. However, I have to say that Joseph LoDuca (Xena) did a marvelous score, which has to sustain a huge amount of silent action. This is definitely a movie to watch with a fast forward button.

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

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.