I had to take some time in composing this Saint Maud review. The first night the film was available on Epix, I signed right up for my free trial and jumped through the numerous hoops to get the app working. It was me, a dark room, and Saint Maud. The movie ranked high on the list of every movie reviewer and list-compiler who had ever laid eyes on the thing. They all loved it. I worried that I would not, and now I worry I won’t be able to adequately describe living with the movie for several days.
The story seems plain on the surface. A young woman comes to the home of a dying dancer to administer palliative care. For those of you lucky enough to be unfamiliar with the term, palliative care is what they call it when all hope is lost. It is the “we are making them comfortable” phase of illness. There is no way back, and the grave looms. The dying woman is Amanda, played with grace by Jennifer Ehle, who has appeared in films from The King’s Speech to Contagion. Here, she is a former dancer, now coping with the cancer that will kill her, but not without some wild nights and visits from old friends.
This is frowned upon by the film’s central figure, Maud, who is deeply religious. She aims not only to treat her charge’s physical pain but to heal her soul, as well. Maud is possessed of a very real, very powerful faith. It’s the kind of faith that has her on her back, clawing ecstatically at her face, an orgasmic spiritual bliss that overcomes her. It is this impenetrable faith she intends to offer as a gift to Amanda.
But as the movie unfolds, we realize that there is more to Saint Maud than some simple battle of good versus evil. We grow to understand that Maud has secrets of her own, and that she might not be the agent of goodness she purports to be. Is the force at work in Maud truly evil, or is it even more horrific than some supernatural threat?
This is the fine line Saint Maud dances on, and I wouldn’t be responsible if I revealed its secrets. What I will say is that there are fine arguments against Saint Maud being a horror film at all. I honestly don’t find these sorts of categorizations useful, but I understand the point made and I don’t disagree that this perhaps falls more neatly under a psychological thriller label, and you may infer from that what you will about your potential enjoyment of this movie.
And yet, Saint Maud horrifies me. It is a painfully sad tale, anchored by a star-making performance from Morfydd Clark, who you could not be blamed for not remembering from Pride & Prejudice & Zombies. As an actor, Clark goes places, and it is terrific stuff to watch onscreen. Coupled with the backstory we get in fragments about this character, it will be difficult to forget the journey of Maud through this film. We get a few glimpses at the underlying truths of things in Saint Maud that haunt the viewer, though I do worry that these few moments of clarity might not be enough to sway folks who find these kinds of character study films to be a little too somber and slow-paced. Not enough gristle on the bone for horror fans looking for a fun Saturday night.
First-time feature director Rose Glass turns in a shockingly confident and intricate movie on her first attempt, which is good news for the rest of us – she will be a name to remember moving forward. Saint Maud is challenging and quiet and sly and horrific, and all these beats work so well, it’s almost a surety this ends up somewhere on my end of year lists. For now, I’ll warn only the gorehounds that Saint Maud might not be for you. For everyone else, Saint Maud is a creepy, sneaky, sorrowful movie that will linger in the psyche. Saint Maud gets four orgasmic holy visions out of five.
Be sure to subscribe to Legion Podcasts for more reviews like this!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download