Pecadores

Let me just say it straight: the beginning of this film was absolutely brilliant. No joke. From the very first scene, I was fully in. The way it was shot, the mood, the pacing - it all hit hard. You could tell the filmmakers knew exactly what they were doing. Everything looked and sounded top-tier. It had that high-quality feel you only get when people really care about what they're making.

The intro pulled me in fast. I didn't even check my phone once, which says a lot. The atmosphere was intense, and every scene felt like it mattered. The camera work was clean, the lighting was on point, and the sound design added a ton of tension. It honestly felt like a masterclass in how to start a movie right.

The way they built everything up was impressive. There was a solid rhythm to how the story moved, and you could tell a lot of time and thought went into the setup. The characters were introduced smoothly, and the world they created felt real and believable. I was fully locked in.

But then it hit a wall.

About two-thirds into the movie, things started to slip. And by the time the ending rolled around, it was clear: they had either run out of time, budget, or energy - maybe all three. The final act felt completely rushed. It was like they just wanted to wrap things up as fast as possible. There was barely any payoff for all the buildup we got earlier. Big questions were left unanswered, and moments that should've hit hard just kind of... didn't.

The ending felt lazy. Not in a "we didn't care at all" way, but more like "we didn't plan this part out properly." You could see the difference in effort. The quality dropped, the pacing sped up too much, and characters that had been developed early on were suddenly just background noise. It honestly felt like a different movie by the time it ended - and not in a good way.

It's frustrating, because the film had the potential to be great. The opening made me think I was watching one of the best films of the year. But a great start doesn't matter if you don't finish strong. And this film didn't. It faded out instead of going out with impact.

That said, I'm not saying don't watch it. There's still a lot to like here - especially the first half. If you're into movies with strong direction, nice visuals, and a gripping start, you'll probably enjoy most of it. But if you're the type who needs a solid, satisfying ending to feel like it was worth your time, this one might leave you disappointed.

Bottom line: amazing start, weak finish. A film that grabs your attention early, but lets go too soon. It deserved better. I'd give it a 7 or maybe a 8 out of 10, mostly because of how strong the first half is. But yeah - if they had nailed the ending, we'd be talking 9 or even 9.5 easily.

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.

The plot for this movie is pretty much lifted from Dusk to Dawn. You introduce a handful of characters and get them all to a single location where they are then attacked by vampires. Sinners is much slower, more of a William Faulkner version of a vampire movie. The production design and cinematography are excellent. The cast is very good. The music is good. Everything about this production top notch.

However, I struggled to get through this. There were many long scenes where the dialogue became cumbersome. It felt like the whole movie was a slow burn moving toward a rousing climax of horror, but when they got there it was underwhelming. It never delivered the scares or the sense of danger.

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.