Saint Maud

Name: Saint Maud
Genre: Drama, Mystery, Horror
Released: January 29, 2021
Duration: 84 min
Rating: 83
Cast: Carl Prekopp, Faith Edwards, Jel Djelal, Jennifer Ehle, Lily Frazer

2021

METASCORE

Universal acclaim based on 35 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 109 Ratings

See All

7.1

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7.1	Your Score
7.1	User Score Generally favorable reviews based on 109 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Saint Maud

Now Playing: Saint Maud

Movie Details & Credits

A24 | Release Date: January 29, 2021 | R

Starring: Carl Prekopp, Faith Edwards, Jel Djelal, Jennifer Ehle, Lily Frazer, Lily Knight, Marcus Hutton, Morfydd Clark, Noa Bodner, Rosie Sansom, Takatsuna Mukai, Turlough Convery

Summary: Maud, a newly devout hospice nurse, becomes obsessed with saving her dying patient’s soul — but sinister forces, and her own sinful past, threaten to put an end to her holy calling.

Director: Rose Glass

Genre(s): Drama, Mystery, Horror

Rating: R

Runtime: 84 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

100

Katie Walsh

Jan 28, 2021

In only an hour and 24 minutes, Glass has crafted a film rich in history, reference, psychology, spirituality, style and even some gore, but it never overstays its welcome, recognizing that less is more. Read full review

100

Dana Stevens

Jan 27, 2021

Glass has set herself a high bar to clear in one’s first feature: tackling hard-to-film ideas about faith, psychic trauma, and mental illness. Yet rather than seeming abstract or preachy, Saint Maud is visceral, sensuous, and tactile. Read full review

Ryan Larson

Saint Maud is a fantastic and gripping debut from an exciting new talent in the genre. Hoisted by a tight script and dynamic performances, it’s a standout title that deserves its heaps of praise. Read full review

Jonathan Romney

Sep 13, 2019

Featuring a terrific performance from Jennifer Ehle and a bold, quietly nerve-shredding lead from Morfydd Clark, this is a hugely individual, distinctly British piece of genre-tweaking with a strong female focus and clear potential to cross borders between arthouse and upmarket horror sectors. Read full review

David Sims

Jan 29, 2021

The clever script, written by Glass herself, is designed to keep the viewer guessing until the very last minute, and it’s the foundation of the first great horror movie of the year. Read full review

Rob Rector

Feb 27, 2021

Both Glass and Clark provide enough ambiguity throughout (are we witnessing supernatural influence or the active imagination of an unreliable narrator?) to keep us engaged and marking the debut of a powerful new cinematic voice. Read full review

Chuck Bowen

Jan 26, 2021

Rose Glass utilizes a provocative scenario for a vague and deadly serious art exercise. Read full review

SEE ALL 35 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

Panchogul

Feb 4, 2021

A24 es garantía de buenas películas y Saint Maud no es la excepción siendo la única película que de verdad me fascina desde que todo esto del Covid empezara. Es una película de Thriller psicológico con toques siniestros entremezclados con la religión, un oscuro pasado y la desesperadaA24 es garantía de buenas películas y Saint Maud no es la excepción siendo la única película que de verdad me fascina desde que todo esto del Covid empezara. Es una película de Thriller psicológico con toques siniestros entremezclados con la religión, un oscuro pasado y la desesperada redención de la protagonista que está tan cegada en sus creencias al borde de la locura con tal de volver a su tétrico pasado, sin duda es una excelente película para los que disfrutamos las películas de carácter psicológico.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

Bertaut1

Feb 11, 2021

Emotionally ambiguous, thematically complex, aesthetically daring

Is religious fanaticism a form of mental illness? Certainly people such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett would argue it is. However, from the perspective of the fanatic, such fanaticism is often not only logical, it'sEmotionally ambiguous, thematically complex, aesthetically daring

Is religious fanaticism a form of mental illness? Certainly people such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett would argue it is. However, from the perspective of the fanatic, such fanaticism is often not only logical, it's unavoidable. The disparity between what a fanatic believes and what other people believe is the main issue examined in Saint Maud, the stunning debut feature from writer/director Rose Glass. Part-horror, part-psychological thriller, part-character drama, part-ecclesiastical treatise, Saint Maud can be read in a variety of ways – an analysis of the interaction between faith and self; a threnody for the life of a young woman suffering a mental breakdown; a drama about loneliness; a tale of possession; a tragedy about the frailty of the human body. Told mainly (although not entirely) from the perspective of a fanatical Christian, the story makes room for the possibility that, however unlikely, such fanaticism isn't mental illness at all and that God really is communicating with this person. And this magnificently handled ambiguity is the film's trump card.

In a thoroughly depressing English seaside town, Maud (an incredibly physical performance from Morfydd Clark) is a devout recent convert to Roman Catholicism, who believes she might be mankind's saviour, as God has told her He has very special plans for her in the near future. Meanwhile, Maud is working as a private palliative care nurse, and the story begins as she arrives for her first day with Amanda Köhl (the always brilliant Jennifer Ehle); a former dancer now suffering from end-stage spinal lymphoma. She and Maud get on well – Maud admires her zest for life, whilst she wants to help Maud loosen up. However, there are elements of Amanda's life of which Maud does not approve; specifically the frequent visits from Carol (Lily Frazer), Amanda's lover. When catastrophe strikes and a dark secret from Maud's past threatens to resurface, Maud decides to prove to Amanda, God, and everyone else just how far mankind has fallen and just how sanctified she really is.

Although Maud is a hard-line fundamentalist, Glass refuses to dismiss her, arguing instead that such individuals genuinely believe they really are communicating with the Divine – Maud may be mentally ill, but even if that is the case (and the film is in no rush to confirm that it is), then surely she deserves compassion and kindness, so completely has her mind bent reality to support a delusion against which she is powerless.

The relationship between Maud and Amanda forms much of the film's narrative backbone, with neither woman allowed to occupy the moral high-ground. Amanda is profoundly bored with her illness, and she seizes on this strange, ultra-serious young woman who has come to look after her. Amanda is not a villain any more than Maud, but she does regard Maud as a plaything, not with the intention of hurting Maud, but with the intention of amusing herself.

The film's strongest element is its aesthetic design, and crucial to this design is how Glass handles perspective; most (although, crucially, not all) of the film is told from Maud's perspective, so we encounter her visions as she does. So, when she sees a small whirlpool spontaneously appear in a glass of beer, we see the same thing; when a towel placed near a crucifix falls to the ground for no obvious reason, we see it as she does; when God talks to her (in Welsh, no less), we hear His voice just as she does.

Along the same lines, there are the many shots of Maud with windows or lights in the background that create a halo effect and the shot of her walking on the beach, with a thin layer of water covering the sand, which is framed in such a way that it looks like she's walking on water. One particular scene near the end of the film, which I won't go into as it would be a spoiler, is especially important here – what we're seeing couldn't be real, yet the film has given us very little to confirm this reading. Is the scene confirmation that Maud's mind has irreparably snapped, or is it confirmation that she was sane all along? Constructing a scene based on two literally inverse interpretations can't be easy, yet Glass does it so smoothly, you won't even realise the sharp dichotomy until it's all over.

Running only 84 minutes, it's extraordinary how much Glass squeezes into the film; from the arresting performances by Clark and Ehle to the thematic complexity to the extraordinarily well-handled perspectival ambiguity to the haunting aesthetic design. Either a depiction of the mental collapse of a young woman or a study of the supernatural, the film is built on ambiguity. One of the best directorial debuts I've seen in a long time; by half-way through, I was already looking forward to whatever Glass does next. Saint Maud probably won't break any box-office records, but we are going to be hearing a lot more from Rose Glass.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

AmadouIraklidis

Apr 10, 2023

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A great movie.

More than a horror movie, I found it more to be a sad movie, that delved into themes of religion, mental illness, the dregs of society and a cycle of pain. The film can entirely be seen through the lens of mental health, and the superimposition of religion over it.

With a not entirely disclosed past, except to know that she was supposedly more promiscuous. From this information, we know that Maud was already "lost" as she put it, prior to the film starting in earnest. The film begins with a tragedy, where she is unable to save a patient. This is in part because of isolation from her coworkers. We see that what has helped her get through her difficulties and mold herself anew from her old behaviors has been religion, as she is now quite ascetic.
So here, we see Maud is attempting to find a new path, that scrubs away her old path. This is an attempt to live up to standards she has for herself, standards that were not met when she was "lost" or "fallen."

She finds a new job as a private carer, where she oversees a cruel, lonely, empty woman. Maud, believing in the strength of her new found religion, attempts to help the woman, which the woman plays into, though only as a manipulative act. Reflecting a pendulum style of behavior, Maud struggles with boundaries, which explosively ends in her losing her job, following a cruel exhibition by the woman she was caring for. This period reflects the difficulty of adjusting to her new found life. Settling into the rules and rhythyms of religion and her job is a lengthy process, yet she doesn't have that much time. This is reflected as the difficulty of rising from her fallen position. Her mind is shattered from the previous difficulty which shook her intrinsic and extrinsic status. This attempted rise is broken by this and the unfortunate circumstance of her employer. The end result is that she experiences a humiliation, a trigger for mental illness and depression.

Maud then sinks into a depression, feeling aimless, and rejected by god and by society. In the pain that she is experiencing, she seeks comfort in the familiar, the way she was before religion. She is now in a fallen state, the intrinsic status at its lowest level, and her mental state at its most vulnerable.

At this point, she is encountered by an auditory hallucination, of which she has experienced many, off screen in particular. This rejuvenates her will to rise again and follow god. To correct the cognitive dissonance that was her perceived failure in helping the woman she was caring for before she was fired, she returns to the womans house. With the aim of fixing her previous fall. However, once she is there, she confronts the reality that the woman is a lost cause, and beyond that, is a tool of the devil, in her philosophy of nothing mattering and flippant cruelty, which then manifests as a hallucination in Maud's mind of the devil, which she proceeds to kill. The woman manifested as the devil because she represented Maud's previous fall, something so terrible that had to be destroyed.

From there, Maud feels she has atoned and corrected her wrongs, and to complete her journey, she proceeds to light herself on fire. This reflects the mental satisfaction and relief she received from her perceived solving of her cognitive dissonance. Here, she is both rising to the heavens as an angel in her mind, and burning miserably in the view of the public.

So, to provide the mental health skeleton.
Maud begins as a lost woman, with weak, vulnerable, and damaged psyche
She turns to religion to help her rise up from painful, fallen position of misery
She is tramautized and humiliated, stripping her mental fortitude to keep rising, bringing her back to square one
She lingers here, reliving the original struggles which she cannot stomach, literally and figuratively, living through
She decides to resolve her cognitive disonance of sinking into her previous life with the new path she wants to follow
Having done so, she ends her life where there can be no more painful falls— she can be at peace.

The religious overlay is as follows
Maud is living an ungodly life, and is ashamed of it
She turns to a godly life suddenly and completely
She is confronted by the forces of evil and turned away from god again
She hears from god, and resolves to defeat the forces of evil for good
She ends the story, able to spend the rest of her life with god.

It was excellently layered.

What made the film so sad was the sensation that what Maud needed was help, yet there was only one person who attempted, mildly, to provide it. Throughout the entire film, the confused young girl with delusions and a weakened mental state, she is confronted with flippant, demeaning people, rejection, and pain. A lot of pain.

And it is impossible to watch it and not think that, had there not been some caring shown towards her, things could have turned out differently for her.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

BarrowBeacon

Nov 2, 2021

Stylistically great, but I didn't fully connect with it thematically. Still, a good watch.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

JLuis_001

Feb 5, 2021

Part of me feels that my opinion of this film should be mixed with some hypocrisy on my part.
I always say don't judge based on expectations, but mine were huge, and this story unfortunately didn't surprise me in the least.
Religious fanaticism is nothing new, especially in film, but IPart of me feels that my opinion of this film should be mixed with some hypocrisy on my part.
I always say don't judge based on expectations, but mine were huge, and this story unfortunately didn't surprise me in the least.

Religious fanaticism is nothing new, especially in film, but I admit that I find it interesting with the horror mixture. But and although I'm aware that this is a filmmaking debut; Saint Maud resorts to simplistic errors in its eagerness to create a provocative aura that in my opinion fails to conjure.

The atmosphere is very good, I liked that a lot, but there's very little to rescue in terms of the protagonist's journey, because from very early on, the story suggests that there will be no ascent for her, but only a downward spiral. Therefore considering the narrative is supposed to be supported by suspense, there's very little of it that feels crucial.
Its own glacial pace gets in its own way a lot, and causes the tension to melt away.

The best attributes are the atmosphere and its outstanding tone, and of course the music. The lead actress felt kinda detached. There's certainly well-executed horror in some rewarding passages, but as I said, the story stops itself from exploiting to the fullest and taking advantage of its best qualities, and when the ending comes, it's violent, but it cannot inevitably feel late.

I liked Saint Maud, although perhaps in my review it doesn't seem like that, but as I said, I had certain preconceptions of what it would deliver, and although I'm judging the end result, I cannot manage to put aside part of my disappointment.
But that's just about me, so I can actually recommend it.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

Brent_Marchant

May 28, 2021

As an atmospheric psycho-spiritual thriller, writer-director Rose Glass's debut feature ambitiously attempts to tell a chilling cautionary tale about the dangers religion run amok as seen through the mind of a pious yet troubled palliative care nurse. After a carefully constructed openingAs an atmospheric psycho-spiritual thriller, writer-director Rose Glass's debut feature ambitiously attempts to tell a chilling cautionary tale about the dangers religion run amok as seen through the mind of a pious yet troubled palliative care nurse. After a carefully constructed opening act, however, the film never seems quite sure where it wants to go from there, flailing about in a sea of exotic imagery and left-field plot developments that don't quite mesh. Fine performances by Morfydd Clark and Jennifer Ehle, along with superb cinematography, intriguing (though underdeveloped) references to the theology of William Blake, and a menacingly ominous soundtrack, make for intriguing and visually dazzling (albeit sometimes puzzling) viewing, although that combination never quite culminates in the payoff that its buildup seems to promise. In the end, the gravity of the material here would appear to be beyond the grasp of a first-time feature filmmaker, despite the potential revealed in a number of aspects of the production. Better luck next time out.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

imthenoob

May 26, 2021

Right off the bat, I will say that it's an 84-minute movie that could easily have been cut to an hour. There are lengthy scenes that do nothing but play out trivial actions that do nothing for the plot, to establish characters or feature dialogue. You could skip chunks of this movie at aRight off the bat, I will say that it's an 84-minute movie that could easily have been cut to an hour. There are lengthy scenes that do nothing but play out trivial actions that do nothing for the plot, to establish characters or feature dialogue. You could skip chunks of this movie at a time and still not miss anything. The pacing is slow, The entire final act is a nightmare to sit through, and by the end of it all, it simply isn't worth it.… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

SEE ALL 24 REVIEWS