LongTimeMovieLover

There is so much going on in this movie, but it is difficult to explain the act and scene context without spoilers.

Here'a tip: Watch the movie not as a horror, but as a philosophical study in self, vanity, self-loathing, the role of beauty in society, substance over form, and self-destruction for form over substance.

The movie transmutes itself much in the way of the protagonist, from reality to absurdity.

I was not a fan of Quaid in this film, sort of a male Effie character, over-the-top; otherwise, a great job from the actors.

There are scene cuts and scene transitions and social context that give cause to pause the reality, but the point of the movie is all about transmutations and robbing Peter to pay Paul.

If you're watching a horror flick, it will approach you accordingly, but if you're watching a work of personal and social philosophy and psychology, it will also approach you accordingly. And, truth be told, the latter is more horrific.

The franchise is always going to be a good night out for the kids, particularly on a large screen. Other than that, it can wait for a streaming release.

The acting is shallow for the most part, there's a lot of fluff that does not drive the plot, which is sort of a qualified MacGuffin (the exact causation for the story could be anything). Johansson was particularly flat, which I ultimately blame on the direction (although admittedly, I'm not really a fan).

The attempt at character development was quite bad and ineffective, so it just wasted time. There was the standard vegan cow and dino reptile hunt scenes that are now overdone and perhaps tired. So, there was nothing really new of substance. Nothing particularly clever for a more sophisticated audience.

Therefore, if you have a date or family event with the kids, great. It will hold up for that purpose; otherwise, perhaps try something else. Generally forgettable and far, far, less than the original JP or JW1.

What makes Sinners particularly a good movie is that it takes its time with the story, and never gets over-the-top with the horror. It stays restrained to a cultural horror flick. What makes this movie different is that the period culture (1932 Mississippi) is its own story.

If you're scared of the dark, this movie is not "too bad" as the genre goes. Maybe a 5 out of 10 for scary. It's not the scary that makes the movie so good, it's the entire story presentation. The period culture and the antagonists feed upon each other, in a good way. (Yeah, I know.)

Also, just a note that the story begins at a point that allows for prequel(s). There are certain initial facts that "just are" but we don't know how they got there. That is, there's a backstory about a lot of people and situations that could not be explained in time permitted. Again, this is not a negative, actually it was well-done, and keeps the context alive. (Yeah,...)

Generally, in a Dusk To Dawnish framework, the first half is much of a period piece, and it is not politically correct or constrained like a Disney flick. It does what it means to do. It doesn't care if different races are sitting next to each other in the theater, with (Whites Only) bathroom labels.

Two twin brothers (Jordon) come back to town with some money (non-backstory) and want to do some business with a music club. But when you're too good with the music, you bridge time and space and dimensions and open doors, perhaps the wrong ones, and the concept is really well expressed by excellent direction.

Some "infected" people want to come into the music joint to have some "dinner," and the whole thing goes awry. There's not really nonsense comic relief, but the story does not tension it that way to need it. The fight ball rolls down the middle.

This is a great movie for a date night out. It's an interesting story, it's not over the top horror, and just enough mystery, music, sex. Etc....

This was well-written and well-directed. Great period costumes and culture. Depending upon the competition, it could even win an Oscar for set or direction, which would be unusual for the genre, but it was very well expressed.

This is what I would call a carefully disciplined expression. It does not stray around. It tells the story it wants to tell without ever exceeding its space. A well done implementation.

The rating is a solid 8, perhaps even getting to an 8.5. For me, when you start getting to 9s and 10s, you need to be getting to masterpiece range, and usually with some philosophically deep meaning or life-lesson. This is not getting there on that general movie basis for me. However, for people who might constrain the review standards differently (including the novel use of the wonderful culture of MI in 1932), I would not dispute them on justifying a higher rating.

This movie is a great movie to get people back to the movies on a date night out. That's a wonderful thing for the society and the industry.