Sanctimony (2000) Poster

(2000)

User Reviews

Review this title
13 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Atrocious, but unintentionally funny in places
b-a-h TNT-627 April 2002
Oh, my goodness. I would have never thought it was possible for me to see a thriller worse than Domestic Disturbance this soon, but here it is. Armed with rotten plot, terrible editing, stilted acting, and headache-inducing 'style' (sorry, I have no other words for it), Sanctimony is the kind of movie that almost forces you to re-evaluate an entire genre; that is, this film is so bad that even the thrillers I condemned as complete failures now seem a little better.

Now, not only Sanctimony is a terrible film in itself, it also succeeds in the difficult task of ripping off better movies and do a pathetic job with it. Right from the main titles -- nothing but a blatant attempt to reproduce the ones from Se7en -- I was under the impression that something didn't smell quite right. As soon as the movie started with a series of corny, wanna-be hip quick-cuts full of gory images and bombastic colors, I knew where that smell was coming from.

It turns out that two policemen, or rather policeman Jim Renart (Michael Paré) and policewoman Dorothy Smith (Jennifer Rubin), are investigating on a murder spree in Vancouver. A serial killer, known as "Monkey Killer" (what a menacing, chilling nickname, uh?) for his working methods, has killed quite a lot of people. You see, this nut apparently works following the proverb "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" and cuts eyes, ears, and tongues out of his victims. So far, six eyes, six ears, and three tongues. In very ingenious fashion, Renart and Smith figure out that the Monkey Killer is probably going to kill other three people... well, because he probably wants to complete the number 666. So suddenly the film focuses on Tom Gerrick (Casper Van Dien), a young, successful, good-looking businessman, with a dreadful temper. And that's where the rip-off of American Psycho kicks in.

So we follow the life of the two police officers and the young psychopath, none of which is interesting in the least, until they finally meet. Along the way to that, a disco where Renart barely misses Gerrick unintentionally offers us one of the funniest scenes in recent memory: Renart goes in the back of the disco club, because... well, just because the script tells us it's a suspect place; then, with one single punch in the stomach, Renard gets rid of a big guard who blocks the path, and the guard is never heard of again? Does this scene strike anyone else as completely unrealistic?

Anyway, after another murder, Gerrick turns in as a witness, but Smith and especially Renart immediately suspect he might be the killer. In typical Basic Instinct fashion, Smith gets some dates with the young businessman, under the assumption that she might discover his true identity.

I won't spoil the ending but it is, quite simply, an embarrassment; there are contradictions, some plot holes, issues that never get resolved, and especially there is one last scene where a brutal mass murder, supposed to be shocking and sad, comes off as such laughably overdone and nonsensical that I frankly can't imagine how anyone could not laugh at it.

At 87 minutes, Sanctimony is really pushing it. You never care about one single character, because they are all so flat (not to mention boring) that you know exactly who is who the first time you meet them. You are never pulled into the story, because the scenes are connected through weak plot devices when not downright unnecessary and out of place. The acting ranges from average (Van Dien) to downright atrocious (Rubin, and most of the supporting cast); the music is abysmal generic techno, and the photography is one of the worst I have ever seen. Of course, like every fiasco of the genre, we are provided with a little bit of gratuitous nudity.

3/10
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Another Uwe Boll "Classic"
rocknrollhs4 November 2005
I went into this movie with low expectations, knowing Uwe Boll's legacy as a film director, and screenplay writer, and I was still disappointed. Uwe Boll finds a way to make each and every movie he is involved in worse and worse. The overall concept wasn't a bad one, a man bored with his life as a stock broker becomes a serial killer. But the problem with the movie is there is no in between, he goes straight from stock broker to serial killer. The film has no-name actors, and I can see why, after watching the movie, I can't see why any actor with a career would want to even be involved in this movie. Anyone who turned it down did their careers a favor. And if you haven't seen it, do yourself a favor and don't.

I give Sanctimony a 3 out of 10
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
a poor rip-off of Seven
jaybob21 December 2001
The only reason I watched this is because of its stars, CASPAR Van Dien, Micheal Pare & Eric Roberts & catherine Oxenburg * & Jeniffer Rubin, All capable actors & have given good performances in the past,. NOT THIS TIME,, a weak serial killer story, You can guess who the killer is in the first scene. Very contrived in all aspects there is nothing to recommend in this disaster, my rating is *1/2 POOR
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dr. Boll please read this
Chicky515027 December 2006
You may not believe this, but when the credits to this movie rolled, I looked for the director's name. When I saw it, I burned it into my memory and I never forgot it. This movie is beyond terrible. It makes Ed Wood's films look like Orsen Welles. At least B movies are entertaining, this was a soul deadening experience. The quality was so bad, I began to wonder who allowed this to happen.

I hear Uwe Boll runs fourteen miles a day. This is because wherever his movies are viewed, the people must run him out of town with flame and pitchfork. The script was terrible, the lighting was like that of a high school football game, and the cinematography was just above the quality of Roger Patterson's Bigfoot video. The acting was executed by people too ashamed of the production to say their lines with any credibility. In the end was a film Alan Smithee wouldn't have put his name on. I learned that day to avoid any movie by this man despite the circumstances. From what I hear, this is not a bad thing to do.
18 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This Sucks
ValerieJeanB23 October 2003
My friend & I rented this movie and within the first 5 mins we had no idea what was going on. It felt like it should have been over within the first 15 mins. It was a terrible movie, my little brother could have been a better actor than some of the ones in the movie, and the plot (if you can call it that) was full of holes. Never would I recommend this movie to my worst enemy, yet anybody I actually like.
14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Moderately Entertaining
bskwirut19 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILERS I watched this movie on HBO at 3AM, and you know what kind of movies are on at that time.

First, though, the filmography and one user's comments list the Van Dien character's name as 'Tom Gerrick'. Actually, the character was named Tom Turner.

I was puzzled trying to figure out Turner's motivations, and conclude that he displayed total insanity.

*SPOILERS* For his early murders, he hid his crimes. Then he went mad? Why did he destroy his brokerage firm by knowingly buying shaky securities? Why did he kill the detective when her partner knew he was with her? Why did he kill the talk show host ON CAMERA? Why did he drop the magazines from his guns at the restaurant? Why did he kill strangers in the restaurant?

The movie didn't make a lot of sense, but at 3AM there isn't much choice.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Possible Spoilers
dksg2 July 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Oh, my. Oh, this is a *really* bad movie. The acting is absolutely atrocious, the script is god-awful, and the photography is simply dreadful.

What does make this movie stand out, however, is that you never once care about a single soul-- good guy or bad guy, living, dying or dead-- in the entire 87 minutes. "Oh, s/he died? Huh... Figured they would" was the best reaction I could muster after each murder. Characters are so black-or-white that with the volume turned off, you could still figure out who was who. While the cast's voices had an odd monotone quality throughout, their faces give the impression that you're looking at an old silent movie with a lot of eyebrow waggling, exaggerated frowns and "pensive looks". Each character is a humorless, passionless, one-dimensional one-trick pony; once they fulfill whatever their particular role in this fiasco demanded their creation, they are summarily dismissed.

It vaguely made me think of what would happen if Thomas Borch Nielsen (director/writer of "Skyggen", American title: "Webmaster") decided to do a low-budget version of "American Psycho" and got kind of distracted along the way.

This isn't a particularly gruesome movie; the cold, passionless cast ensures that. It isn't an offensive movie; the director plays it so safe that no one could possibly find it so. It is, simply and after all, a bad movie.

Avoid it. We were not so fortunate and actually paid to watch this bomb on Pay-per-View. As part of my penance, I'm writing this review.

Enough said.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Are you all Crazy!
sol121812 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILER*** Something like a cross between "American Psycho" which was released just six months earlier and "Se7an" the film "Sanctimony" has to do with this serial killer stalking the streets of Vancouver Canada cutting out body parts, eyes tongues and ears, of his murdered victims. There's no mystery who this psycho killer is since were introduced to him stock market whiz Tom Gerrick, Casper Van Dien, as soon as he makes his appearance on screen.

Successful beyond words in everything that he does Tom is now interested in spicing up his boring life by killing people and getting away with his crimes. The only problem for Tom is that he feels that the local police are not quite up to the task to catch him in being worthy opponents so he makes it easy on them by murdering and cutting out the tongue of a 16 year old hooker and himself reporting the crime to the police. This has Vancouver homicide policeman Jim Renart, Michael Pare, and his woman partner Dorothy Smith, Jenny Rubin, interview Tom as in him being the person who first discovered her body. With all the evidence that Tom is not the innocent person that he makes himself out to be he'll still let go due to the work his high price lawyer.

With him being bored to death in being right all the time Tom now really sticks his neck out in ,like in the movie "Se7en", egging on the police to arrest him by kidnapping the cop in charge of the hooker's murder Jim Renart's wife Susan, Catherine Oxenberg, and leaving her hanging outside her apartment window with a noose tied around her neck. This would have Susan's unsuspecting husband open the door thus pulling the lever, or turning the door knob, that will drop her in mid air breaking her pretty neck and killing her!

The film also has an unrelated snuff film sequence where a young women is brutally murdered on video tape at this extreme fight club in the city with policeman Renalt present not more then a few yards away from the murder scene and never having a clue to what's happening. If that wasn't enough we have Tom invited to this major TV talk show to tell the audience, in the studio and watching on TV, the secret of his amazing "success" in and out of the stock market. Tom noticeably losing his cool in the mindless questions he's being asked suddenly flips out, after giving a long rambling and mindless speech on the human condition, and to the complete shock of everyone watching slices the throat of the talk show host Nat Deveaux just because he was going to a station brake!

***SPOILERS*** Tom again loses it when he finds out that his killing in the market, that he expected to make millions on, was going down the tubes together with his stock portfolio then for reasons known only to himself, who by then had gone completely insane, heads for his ex fiancée's Eve's (Tanja Reichert), whom he just broke up with the night before, wedding ceremony with a new soon to be husband and without as much as saying a word guns her down and all the guests invited there! By now there was no way for the writer director Uwe Boll to salvage this turkey of a movie so it was up to Officer Renart to mercifully end it and save those of us watching as well as those in the movie any more undo suffering.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Hold... the phone....
thedarkjackal10117 March 2008
Did Uwe Boll seriously just rip off the basic idea and dialogue from Se7en?! Why is it so fekking difficult for this douchebag to be original?! He even mentioned in an interview with Gametrailers that he chooses stuff like games to make into movies because the characters, plots, backstories and so on are already there and ready for him to screw with.

Guess it isn't too much of a stretch for him to rip off another movie entirely...

I mean, seriously, what the hell...? Here's something I made in Uwe's 'honor'...

http://zuucka.deviantart.com/art/Uwe-Boll-is-a-Douchebag-70369862
1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A strange one
takato052425 March 2021
Not much to say here. The moment I saw Casper was the main character, hell that he was even in it, I knew it was gonna be awful. The movie itself wasn't the worst, but the story was badly written. And it kept creating question after question as to why things were happening, but those questions are never answered. You could tell this was definitely a 90s/early 2000s movie.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cold blooded killer goes even MORE crazy.
dahstra7 August 2004
Although this wasn't a bad thriller, I felt there wasn't enough background for the characters to really get us in touch with them. Pare is a homicide detective on the trail of serial killer Van Dien. Pare seems to be in the middle of a mid life crises while tracking down Van Dien. Pare's wife, Oxenberg did a great job appearing genuine and vulnerable in her part. It takes a bit of concentration to figure out WHY Casper's character (the killer) would just snap completely and give up his killing spree, when he was no where near being caught. Without going into scene detail, here's my theory. Van Dien's character, already a vein and cruel individual who enjoys dominating, torturing and killing others, became even MORE disillusioned with American society. He encounters Pare as the witness who "found" a murdered girl. Obviousely Van Dien wanted to be found. Here is where you expect the killer to really start toying with the police for the fun of it. Instead, it's like he became bored with his own killing game and any statement or satisfaction that was to be gained by his killing. He just snaps and goes for broke in his killing. I got the feeling near the end that he entered an even darker place (if that's possible), hopelessness. There was gore and violence of course, but it was not over done. A bizarre thriller that is certainly worth a watch for lovers of the genre.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Kind of freaky if you ask me!
joeygirl720004 July 2001
Sanctimony is a movie that is not rated here the US but it is kind of scary. I think this, well, kids shouldn't see it alone thats for sure. I guess it was ok, just scary! Casper Van Dien was excellent, he is a very good actor who can play horrific characters real good! I would give Sanctimony a 7!
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bad, Bad, Bad. Possible Spoilers.
trajedy995 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Was this a rip off of "American Psycho" or was I just imagining things? Despite the fact that I quite like Michael Pare, this film was bad, bad, bad. Save your time and your money - watch "Bone Daddy" instead. PS A detective chasing bad guys in a VW Beetle, PULEEZ.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed