Blood & Sinners

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 honestly don't get the hype around Sinners (2025)-it feels like an overrated film. The visuals are stunning from start to finish, and the soundtrack is well done, even if not every song appealed to me personally. Jack O'Connell delivers a solid performance and is definitely the highlight of the movie.

That said, the pacing is a major issue. The film starts strong, but halfway through, it loses direction-I often found myself questioning the relevance of certain scenes. The twists aren't impressive either; most of the plot is predictable, and you can pretty much figure out what's going to happen just by watching the trailer.

Overall, Sinners isn't a bad movie, but it's definitely overhyped. It has its moments, but it doesn't deserve the praise it's getting.

First half of the movie was very good. Great character set up. Second half of the movie the plot progressed very quickly with nothing particularly interesting happening. Not much of a story line involved and movie ended abruptly. The acting was great, Michael B Jordan did a wonderful job playing smock and stack and some of the supporting characters were great as well. The movie was filmed perfectly. Music was obviously great as well. Plot and storyline did not move the needle for me. Post credit scene was cool!

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.

SINNERS I I Succinctly shot and with a credible performance from Michael B. Jordan is all that really highlights the overrated Sinners - which is essentially a vampire horror movie disguised as the most important political agenda of the year. Ryan Coogler has no issue in crafting a visually feasting spectacle but the screenplay is just boring - not interesting or thought provoking or revolutionary - it's just a snooze. Let's be very clear if this film was about white vampires - it would have been instantly forgotten.