Saint Ange

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.

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.

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.

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.