I peccatori

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.

Don't buy into the hype. Sinners is a slightly above average film that has been blown massively out of proportion. Its current rating of an 8.1/10 is absurdly high. It's not THAT good.

I'll start with the positives. First of all, I thought the acting was absolutely amazing. It was a really fantastic performance from the entire cast. I also thought the music was great; l'm not typically much of a blues guy, but l enjoyed what I heard.

As for the negatives, the biggest problem I had is that the film accomplished nothing. It finished and I was just like.....ok? What am I to make of this? It's categorized as Drama and Supernatural Horror, and while it is technically both of those, I wasn't impressed in either area. Suspense--a major part of both of those genres--was basically nonexistent. The 'normal' part of the plot (the stuff without the supernatural junk) was actually solid. It had a nice little twist in it, which the ending went back on. I just wish there was more of that.

Overall, it wasn't a bad movie, but it's not one I'd recommend. The best way to sum it up is this: it's a dime a dozen horror flick that's made watchable by a really good cast and great cinematography.

Final score of 6/10.

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.

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.

Sinners impresses early with its stunning cinematography and solid performances. The film sets a moody, atmospheric tone and builds tension with a deliberate, slow-burn approach that hints at something truly impactful. Unfortunately, that promise is never fulfilled. When the vampires finally appear, the film takes a sharp downturn. Their behavior is nonsensical, lacking any real menace or intelligence, and they end up feeling more like a parody than a threat. It's a baffling creative choice that undermines everything the first half works so hard to build. Despite its strong technical elements, the film stumbles badly at the finish line. A stylish misfire-watchable, but disappointing. 6 out of 10.