Sin You Sinners

Sarno's first film reveals him to be a little shaky in the directorial department, but already producing robust, bizarre scenarios dealing with his favourite themes. There's the occultism, ritual and existentialism; early sixties anomie and a desire to escape a mundane world; covetousness, betrayal and guilt; incestuous relations; exploitation of the weak by the cynical and the search for power over others; and an overall hopelessness temporarily breached by lust and abandonment to the supernatural. This one takes place in a sleazier milieu than usual, but features no nudity or sex (and the stripper is in her late forties at least!). The performances, though lacking grace, are done with conviction, and the lead actress bears a striking resemblance to Joanne Whalley Kilmer.

Sin You Sinners (1963)

1/2 (out of 4)

The rather plot-less plot goes something like this: An aging stripper (June Colbourne) goes on a vacation where she's given a jewelry piece that she soon finds out will put a trance on men. The men will immediately fall for her beauty and be willing to do anything she wants.

SIN YOU SINNERS is the earliest surviving film from cult director Joseph W. Sarno who was hired when the original director was either fired or walked off the production. No matter what happened you can't blame the man because I'm not sure too many people would have wanted to have their name on this thing. This is an extremely bad and at times embarrassing picture that appears to have been made by people not wanting to make a movie and not knowing how to make one.

Just about everything with this picture is awful and that includes the performances. The cast members don't appear to care about anything and that includes their acting. Colbourne is way too old for the role and she also appears to not be wanting in the film. There's not a single scene where it seems like she's interested in anything going on. It also doesn't help that she's just not right for the role. She's not the most attractive person in the world so having her play the stripper and one that men desire just wasn't that believable.

The film also suffers from awful cinematography, horrid dialogue and just about anything else that you could think of was pretty bad. SIN YOU SINNERS is a nice exploitation title but there's just nothing entertaining to it.

If anyone in this Sarno proto-porn story hope it would lead to more work, well, it didn't help. This rock bottom budgeted film just turned up on Tubi, yet another streaming video site. Why their programmer picked this film to add to their roster is beyond mere human comprehension. Two of the girls are cute but completely wasted. With tiny HD cameras today, every schmuck is a movie maker, but in 1963, they had to use a film camera and pay processing costs so I have to give Sarno and company some credit. I don't think this movie is even mentioned in the Joe Sarno documentary.

Early Joe Sarno film is little more than a home movie. I think even fans of his later films are going to be hard pressed to sit through this mess of a movie concerning strippers, voodoo and god know what else. To be honest I watched about twenty minutes of this before it became too much and I ended up watching the rest on fast forward, I can sit through most anything but this was an endurance test. Many scenes have little or no dialog, action is often crammed into the corner of a room with some sort of attempt at a set jammed with the cast (as if they were trying to make a living room look like a malt shop). There are longing looks and sense that there is a meaning floating just off the edge of the screen which neither we nor the cast can find. Truth be told this is a movie that you should not attempt to find just let remain lost.

Wow. When this film began, I was amazed at how cheap and crappy the movie was. Seriously...it's rare to see one this bad. Horribly ugly opening credits were followed by a horribly ugly stripper who appeared for no apparent reason. This lady was so unattractive and appeared so old and disinterested that the film could be shown to teenage boys to discourage them from having sex--it's THAT unappealing. I also noticed something that turned out to be the pattern for this film--a lot of sexual situations where the audience THINKS they are about to see featuring rather sad looking ladies but in fact deliver absolutely nothing! When you combine this with the fact that the film is artless, cheap, a terrible print and seems to have no discernible plot, you have the recipe for a film that will please almost no one! Pervs certainly won't like it, bad movie fans will be bored (really, this is incredibly dull) and it's certainly not a family film or one to show your mother-in-law (unless, perhaps she is one of the actresses in the film!).