Naive-fox

Picture a theatre play. Some solid period drama with good production value, great wardrobe and decent actors, and a competent hand running the show behind the curtain. They are doing a great job balancing racial segregation, lust for power and community ties topics in their otherwise pretty much run-of -the-mill storyboard.

Now picture another play really close to the first one. They're performing some generic, cheesy horror story that seems to tick all of its subgenre's tropes. By chance, it is produced by the same people and for some reason they had as high hopes for this one, so its production value is level with the other play, so at least the spectators are having a good time.

Mid act, the actors from both plays get on the same stage and start improvising together. It is awkward at first, like two strangers that meet each other for the first time, trying to spark some conversation through small talk, unsure of what each other's deal is. Eventually horror gets the higher ground, as it takes actors less effort to work together with the lighter material. It even improves the quality of the second play a notch, but it is a story so hard rooted on the genre's overtrite concepts that, other than seeing the actors having fun together with this lighter and goofy atmosphere, there's not much more to gain from it.

'Sinners' should have better focused on its horror storyline. Not because it was the winning horse, just because its end goal was clearly a fancier -but ultimately clumsier- early 20th century 'From Dusk Till Dawn'. But the opening hour setting up a completely different -even if superior- tale, both in tone and content, that goes nowhere and feels so disconnected, just drags the overall mood and makes the remaining of the film feel alien and forced.