Saint Ange

"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."

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.

Saint Ange starts pretty amazing and sets you in the movie's gloomy mood immediately but the truth is that the movie is bad. The settings for the movie are indeed very good and with a solid storyline and correct flow the movie would have been a great one. The shots, colors, lighting and close ups are truly amazing but it's a shame that the movie starts to bore you after halfway, also there are lots of things that don't really make sense leaving you confused and in the end it's somewhat unbearable so you pray for it to end finally. My 3 rating is only because the film's photography is truly brilliant otherwise i would have sticked to 1.

OK, so the film isn't great, but it surely ain't awful either. It is reminiscent of other films, The Innocents and The Others to name but two, but there's no harm in that. There's very few films today that could be called truly original these days. Originality doesn't matter, it's the telling of the story that matters, and like the aforementioned, this film moves at a slow pace, admittedly too slow at times but it does deliver a certain creepiness and suspense. Where this film falls down for some (taking into consideration the comments already left) is that it doesn't end with an explanation. But so what? Like The Innocents you are left to come up with your own conclusions and I for one like it when the facts aren't spelled out to me in cinematic semaphore. Ambiguity is all but lost under the onslaught of mind-numbing American releases that offer nothing but 90 minutes of entertainment and then nothing. Saint Ange is a film you can chew on for days afterwards. It's very well shot, capably acted and offers a few shivers along the way. Not nearly as bad as people would have you believe.