Review of Sanctimony

Introduction

Usually review disks come to us in the standard retail packaging, but sometimes they don’t. Sometimes all we get is a bare jewel case and a disk. Sanctimony is one of those mystery disks. I had never heard of the film, or the director Uwe Boll before. Thus, I approached the film with no expectations whatsoever and I have to say that I was – mostly - pleasantly surprised.

Sanctimony is (presumably) a low budget film made by a German director at one of the smaller studios, Regent. It is billed as a serial killer thriller, in the mould of se7en. This isn’t really accurate. In many ways it is closer to American Psycho.

The cast is low budget, staples of straight-to-video or TV movies, like Catherine Oxenberg, Casper Van Dien, Michael Pare and Eric Roberts. So, realistically, you aren’t going to watch it for the cast. So why should you?

On paper, at least, the plot is unlikely to grab you. A serial killer (called the Monkey Maker) is on the loose and he/she seems to be following the Hear-No-Evil/See-No-Evil/Speak-No-Evil template by removing variously eyes, ears and tongues. Michael Pare is the detective and family man in charge of the case who can’t get a lead. Catherine Oxenberg plays his long suffering, and pregnant, wife. Eric Roberts is the tolerant boss and mentor. The case is going nowhere until slick businessman Casper Van Dien finds another body.

Even though the plot seems pretty thin, there are a number of reasons why you should give this some attention. Read on ...

Video

Video transfer is anamorphic 1.85:1 and is generally average. The picture is occasionally grainy and generally a bit soft. That said, it is nothing that would detract from the film.

Visually, the film is interesting. Director (Uwe Boll) and director of photography (Mathias Neumann) have done wonders with what was probably a tiny budget. The film was shot with Vancouver standing in for a faceless American city and they do their best with the location. Exterior shots are appropriately gloomy and menacing. Interior shots, like the nightclub, are often given surreal lighting to heighten the sense of unease.

In addition, cinematic tricks like slow motion and a jerky/blurry effect during stalking scenes are used to good effect to heighten the mood. Sometimes, these tricks fall flat but, more often than not, they work extremely well.

Audio

From a disk point of view, the soundtrack is nothing special: straight DD 2.0 Stereo. That’s a shame because I would have liked to seen what could have been achieved if the creatives behind the film had been given the budget for a full 5.1 soundtrack. As with the video, director, composer and sound engineers do their very best with what must have been a minuscule budget.

Both soundtrack and ambient effects do their best to create an air of menace. Maybe unease is a better word. Despite the fact that this is a cheap flick, with often risible acting, you’re more disturbed than you should be. The edgy cinematography plays a big part and so does the sound mix.

For what it is, very good.

Features

Extra features are thin on the ground but, given the fact that this is a low budget film, this is understandable.

First you get the trailer which is fairly dull and gives away a few key plot points. I suggest you don’t watch it before you watch the film. And, to be honest, once you’ve seen the film there is no reason to watch the trailer.

The remainder of the extras are text based. You get a pretty interesting piece on the making of the film and a good detailed treatment of the careers of the (third-rate) cast. Textually the cast pieces are as good as you could expect. There’s just one small problem: the text scrolls automatically. If it moves too fast for you, tough.

Finally, the menus are actually rather good. They are well animated, with appropriate graphics and eerie soundbites. Good stuff. The menus set the mood the film a treat; shame about the lacklustre extras.

Conclusion

To be honest, once I saw the cast list, I though “straight to video schlock” and I wasn’t totally wrong. The cast is generally pretty mediocre. None of the cast are the best actors in the world, and Catherine Oxenberg must be in the running for world’s worst. Still most of the attention falls on Pare and Van Dien. Pare does OK; he’s starting to look and act like Tom Berenger. Van Dien is a vacuous pretty-boy and that works to his advantage in this role.

The plot is so-so but it has a few sparks of inspiration and grips tighter than you would expect and delivers a quite a few shocks along the way. I don’t want to give you any details because that’ll spoil it.

Uwe Boll is German and there is a significant German influence behind the camera. The film often feels more like a German arthouse film than an American movie. It is more edgy than I would have expected and thanks to good cinematography and sound design creates a mood of real unease and occasionally genuine tension. Mood is developed exceptionally well within a limited budget.

Based on my reading of the film and comments in the Making Of feature, the intention was to create something more than just a killer flick. The film is intended to be a comment on American society, modern society in general, and the meaningless lives than many of us lead. It has partly succeeded and does make some valid points, if a little heavy-handedly.

Having watched and enjoyed it, I feel that there is a really good film here; it just wasn’t made. With a script polish, a better cast and a bigger budget, this could have been excellent. As it stands, it will be a little seen curiosity but it deserves better.

As I said, I enjoyed it and you might too. I couldn’t recommend you buy the disk but if you get the chance to rent it, it is worth a look