Blood & Sinners

I love it when movies mix different genres and create a fresh spin on old themes. In this case however the different elements didn't mix well in my opinion: I would describe sinners as a mix between period gangster drama, musical and trashy B-movie horror. This sounds super exciting on paper, but in reality it threw me off completely. I feel like the movie tries to do everything at the same time but doesn't deliver on many of those aspects: It wants to hit the viewer on an emotional level but left me personally completely cold - I didn't care who died or who lived; The movie kinda wants to be scary but the "enemies" in the film feel like a complete joke from the first scene they are shown and it takes away all the tension; It wants to be action-packed and explosive, but the fight scenes are kinda boring and left me wanting to move on to more serious scenes again, even though those serious scenes are kind of a slow burn; The film wants to be funny and even though it made me chuckle a bit it never really took it far enough to justify sacrificing the big threat in the film for laughs.

In conclusion: This movie is too boring and slow to be an entertaining action-comedy and doesn't take the humor and fight scenes far enough to really have an impact. At the same time this movie is far too ridiculous to be a serious scary and emotional movie that reaches you on any kind of emotional level.

I would have liked it, if they would have sacrificed the humor for building a serious threat that feels genuinely scary and terrifying. The cinematography, costumes and music are fantastic but this is just not enough for me to make it a good film, when the story is not hitting. There are single parts of the movie that I absolutely loved and I would have really appreciated those scenes as standalone music videos, but it just doesn't mix well with the rest in my personal opinion.

In addition to my previous criticisms I spotted some typical clichés in the dialogue writing that made me roll my eyes and there were some moments where I found it extremely hard to believe that certain characters survived. I could go in to detail here but I want to keep my review vague to avoid spoilers.

To me watching this movie felt a bit like eating chocolate on a burger - Both elements are nice by themselves but together they don't make for a nice meal.

A film that adds nothing from an artistic and cinematographic point of view.

First part of a deadly boredom, second based on clichés, derivative and poorly used narrative elements.

A less than mediocre blockbuster.

Yet another case of a film exalted by obsolete criticism and an audience poorly educated to the true refinement of the seventh art.

The fact that in May it's considered the best film of the year would make one believe in a mass hallucination but unfortunately the acclaim and success it has had is only the mirror of the times: a lack of truly worthy creativity and an increasingly poor and faded appreciation index.

It feels like The Sinners was directed by two different Cooglers-one responsible for the first half, and another for the second. If I had to rate them separately: the first half is a solid 8, the second a disappointing 4.

The film starts off brilliantly. Set in the Deep South during the 1930s, it plunges us into a world of chain gangs, overt racism, and raw human struggle-all wrapped in the soul of music. The characters are distinctive and memorable, the performances are top-notch, and the world-building is rich and atmospheric. It's a western, a drama, and a musical all at once, and somehow it works. For a while.

Then comes the second half.

This is where things fall apart. The pivot to horror-specifically vampires-feels abrupt and half-hearted. There's barely a story holding it together, and the horror/action sequences barely last 10-15 minutes. They lack any real suspense or memorable set pieces. The execution feels rushed and undercooked, especially after such a powerful setup.

The final 5-7 minutes attempt a bold anti-Klan message, and it's likely this moment of violence and symbolism that won over many critics. But for me, it was too little, too late.

What's most frustrating is the wasted potential. This could've been a truly unique vampire film-rooted in history, rich in theme, driven by character and song. Instead, it leaves you wondering what could've been if the second half had lived up to the promise of the first.

I saw the ratings for this film and I watched really looking forward to watching it. Even the people who work the counters in the cinema assured us of how good it was.

The first half of the film have the makings of an 8/10 film, and it seems like it's going to go that way, especially with such a good cast. But as with most films these days, it takes a turn and gets quite daft in the second half. Somewhat like Dusk til Dawn, but not half as good...But that's just my opinion.

Go watch it, but at least give it an honest review. It's not an 8/10 movie as iMDB has it scored. I scored it a 6, which I think is fair.

Went to see this because I like vampire movies, and Tom Cruise endorsed it. Never saw him endorsing any movies so I got more curious.

Production, costume, make up, visuals are very good.

Story is meh. Standard vampire look and behavior. Another movie implying some faith doesn't work in fighting demons but a voodoo mojo does, nothing new there.

I dislike musicals so its musical parts added nothing for me. The past and future music evoked could have been more abstract, but they were real people in different eras costumes mingling in, kinda ruined the believability of the 1930s vibe for me. Looked like a silly company dinner and dance instead.

Can totally see certain demographic overhyping this. Again, nothing new.

An okay watch overall, fun at times.