- Published on
Well, well, well …
Over the last few months, my email has been inundated with folks encouraging me to check out Ryan Coogler’s box office sensation Sinners (2025). The popular film certainly struck a chord with audiences to the impressive tune of $365M – a phenomenal take for an original Horror property – and continues to win over fans who are just discovering it on home video or streaming. Interestingly enough, one happy reader was even aware that yours truly had previously penned a novel about vampires set at the start of American Prohibition, so he was understandably curious what my two cents on the flick might be. (I’ve mentioned before that I’m a huge nerd about the history of that era, so much so that I allowed the influence to carry over into my extracurricular activities.)
So, it is with great pleasure that I announce that I’ve finally seen it: I took it in last night with a streaming on HBO Max. Because these thoughts are relatively raw and not exactly formed as I generally pen my critiques, I’m really not even going to call this a review exactly. Instead, I’ll just throw up a few observations about what worked for me and what didn’t quite achieve what I think was intended, foregoing my usual writing structure so that this can be a bit more free form.
First up … yes, it’s a very, very, very good picture.
For those of you who don’t know, Sinners tells the story of the SmokeStack Brothers – Smoke and Stack both played by the talented Michael B. Jordan – in their quest to come back to the Deep South with knowledge and skills over what it takes to set up and successful ‘juke joint’ and take over the night life of Clarksdale, Mississippi. In the process of making their dream a reality, they go about bringing together friends and allies – musicians, cooks, servers, etc. – over the course of one twenty-four-hour day. Since all of this takes place in a very compressed period of time, there are a good handful of faces introduced quickly, and – for the most part – writer/director Coogler rather seamlessly accomplishes an awful lot with surprisingly minimal effort.
Over the last few months, my email has been inundated with folks encouraging me to check out Ryan Coogler’s box office sensation Sinners (2025). The popular film certainly struck a chord with audiences to the impressive tune of $365M – a phenomenal take for an original Horror property – and continues to win over fans who are just discovering it on home video or streaming. Interestingly enough, one happy reader was even aware that yours truly had previously penned a novel about vampires set at the start of American Prohibition, so he was understandably curious what my two cents on the flick might be. (I’ve mentioned before that I’m a huge nerd about the history of that era, so much so that I allowed the influence to carry over into my extracurricular activities.)
So, it is with great pleasure that I announce that I’ve finally seen it: I took it in last night with a streaming on HBO Max. Because these thoughts are relatively raw and not exactly formed as I generally pen my critiques, I’m really not even going to call this a review exactly. Instead, I’ll just throw up a few observations about what worked for me and what didn’t quite achieve what I think was intended, foregoing my usual writing structure so that this can be a bit more free form.
First up … yes, it’s a very, very, very good picture.
For those of you who don’t know, Sinners tells the story of the SmokeStack Brothers – Smoke and Stack both played by the talented Michael B. Jordan – in their quest to come back to the Deep South with knowledge and skills over what it takes to set up and successful ‘juke joint’ and take over the night life of Clarksdale, Mississippi. In the process of making their dream a reality, they go about bringing together friends and allies – musicians, cooks, servers, etc. – over the course of one twenty-four-hour day. Since all of this takes place in a very compressed period of time, there are a good handful of faces introduced quickly, and – for the most part – writer/director Coogler rather seamlessly accomplishes an awful lot with surprisingly minimal effort.
Unlike so many others who’ve written about the film, I’m going to argue that more could have been done here to establish this small group of supporting faces. Thankfully, there aren’t a great number, but I’ll still insist that one or two or three have some personal history with the brothers that seemed a bit nebulous. While there’s most likely just enough given to make it workable, I’m always of the mindset that knowing a bit more about these allegiances makes me care more about them: as it stands, there’s one or two deaths that don’t resonate because, frankly, I wasn’t encouraged to know them enough to make that possible. (Again, diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks.)
Structurally, Sinners works like a two-act play with the first half putting all of the pieces of this fictional chess board in motion while the second half works to deliver on the whole premise. In fact, I’d go so far as to argue that it’s one of the best instances I’ve seen on film of such a formation as Coogler very clearly approaches them with different aesthetics. All of this set-up is brought to life with some with some daytime cinematography – everything crisp, vibrant, and easily identifiable – while the pay-off of Act II begins with an almost dreamlike sequence underscoring the importance of music to the whole tale. (Pay close attention to it as music is the only consistent thread through all of it … with very good reason.)
Basically, evil intrudes – much in the way that fiendishness does in every classic Horror story – and our protagonists (not necessarily ‘heroes’) are left to fight for their very lives: a small but growing clan of vampires descends upon Smoke & Stack’s homegrown nightclub, forcing the remaining patrons to either flee the scene, wait for sunlight, or take a stand. Though initially the consensus seems to be to wait out these hungry devils, one angry woman decides that isn’t good enough for her; and she invites the horde in for one big chaotic showdown … one that even pits the twin brothers against one another in the process.
Much ado has been written critically about Jordan’s work as the kinda/sorta troubled siblings. Clearly, the actor has the chops to play as many different faces as he wants; yet for me this just didn’t quite work as well as it should have. My biggest complaint is that – because they’re twins – their mannerisms just weren’t different enough from one another for me to always fully appreciate whether I was seeing Smoke or whether I was seeing Stack; and this did get in the way in the second half of my enjoying some of the proceedings. Mind you: it does play out significantly in the big finish – I’ve no problem with their showdown – but Coogler could’ve worked harder at establishing two identities instead of a shared one, and I think this would’ve improved the picture even more.
Structurally, Sinners works like a two-act play with the first half putting all of the pieces of this fictional chess board in motion while the second half works to deliver on the whole premise. In fact, I’d go so far as to argue that it’s one of the best instances I’ve seen on film of such a formation as Coogler very clearly approaches them with different aesthetics. All of this set-up is brought to life with some with some daytime cinematography – everything crisp, vibrant, and easily identifiable – while the pay-off of Act II begins with an almost dreamlike sequence underscoring the importance of music to the whole tale. (Pay close attention to it as music is the only consistent thread through all of it … with very good reason.)
Basically, evil intrudes – much in the way that fiendishness does in every classic Horror story – and our protagonists (not necessarily ‘heroes’) are left to fight for their very lives: a small but growing clan of vampires descends upon Smoke & Stack’s homegrown nightclub, forcing the remaining patrons to either flee the scene, wait for sunlight, or take a stand. Though initially the consensus seems to be to wait out these hungry devils, one angry woman decides that isn’t good enough for her; and she invites the horde in for one big chaotic showdown … one that even pits the twin brothers against one another in the process.
Much ado has been written critically about Jordan’s work as the kinda/sorta troubled siblings. Clearly, the actor has the chops to play as many different faces as he wants; yet for me this just didn’t quite work as well as it should have. My biggest complaint is that – because they’re twins – their mannerisms just weren’t different enough from one another for me to always fully appreciate whether I was seeing Smoke or whether I was seeing Stack; and this did get in the way in the second half of my enjoying some of the proceedings. Mind you: it does play out significantly in the big finish – I’ve no problem with their showdown – but Coogler could’ve worked harder at establishing two identities instead of a shared one, and I think this would’ve improved the picture even more.
Stylistically, Sinners isn’t so much a Horror film as most audiences have come to know the genre. At just under two hours and twenty minutes, it’s vastly longer than traditional releases – not a complaint, just an observation – and I could understand why some might show up wondering what’s so horrific about the film. The true terror doesn’t begin until well into the first half, and – even then – the really bloody and gratuitous splendor many come to expect waits until midway in the second half to unfurl. Consequently, it occasionally feels uneven – as a Horror film – because there is a great degree of emphasis on construction. It takes time for this to really come up to speed; once it does, it’s grand, yes, but I’m thinking casual fans might feel a bit lost in the beginning.
Curiously, I actually found myself liking more of Sinners when it wasn’t about vampires and their dark shenanigans. Coogler’s attention to detail at his story’s dramatic elements – along with bringing to life a somewhat dark period and place in the Deep South – is really damn impressive. It’s reported that all of this cost $90M, and – dare I say – this budget was incredibly well spent in achieving the look of the 1930’s with cars, buildings, set dressings, and the like. The era literally pops off the screen in spots, and I was gobsmacked over how incredible all of it translated visually. Hats off to the craftsmen and women here as they achieved something unbelievable.
Now, once the flick turns from a somewhat period piece into Horror, Sinners gets a bit rough. As I’ve mentioned, there’s this single sequence – a kinda/sorta dreamlike fusion between the now, the past, and the future – which feels more like a bloated yet artistic television commercial than it does an actual part of the feature. While I understand this is exactly the kind of thing critics, academics, and art aficionados love about storytelling, I always find them a bit intrusive, a bit distracting, chiefly because they are more about technique than anything else. What others found particular immersive broke the spell of an otherwise compelling film. It’s good, yes, maybe even great, but I couldn’t put aside the distracting quality of it, so much so that I actually went back and watched it twice before continuing. It left me wanting to know more, but it also jerked me out of the momentary spell of film-watching.
Additionally, I’ve a major bone to pick with the eventual faceoff between what turns out to be the good guys and the bad guys. In this final confrontation, the truth is our leads are vastly (VASTLY) outnumbered, and yet – for reasons that make no narrative sense – the vampires don’t exactly seize that advantage. Only a handful of bloodsuckers really go into the barn in that last reel, and this dumbfounding strategy pretty much allows for the heroes to hold out much longer than they likely should have. It smacks of a screenwriter’s convention – one structured in such a way as to allow for only those events desired to take place – so it doesn’t seem authentic in any way. Realizing I’m likely in the majority on that front, I’ll just leave it as it stands.
Curiously, I actually found myself liking more of Sinners when it wasn’t about vampires and their dark shenanigans. Coogler’s attention to detail at his story’s dramatic elements – along with bringing to life a somewhat dark period and place in the Deep South – is really damn impressive. It’s reported that all of this cost $90M, and – dare I say – this budget was incredibly well spent in achieving the look of the 1930’s with cars, buildings, set dressings, and the like. The era literally pops off the screen in spots, and I was gobsmacked over how incredible all of it translated visually. Hats off to the craftsmen and women here as they achieved something unbelievable.
Now, once the flick turns from a somewhat period piece into Horror, Sinners gets a bit rough. As I’ve mentioned, there’s this single sequence – a kinda/sorta dreamlike fusion between the now, the past, and the future – which feels more like a bloated yet artistic television commercial than it does an actual part of the feature. While I understand this is exactly the kind of thing critics, academics, and art aficionados love about storytelling, I always find them a bit intrusive, a bit distracting, chiefly because they are more about technique than anything else. What others found particular immersive broke the spell of an otherwise compelling film. It’s good, yes, maybe even great, but I couldn’t put aside the distracting quality of it, so much so that I actually went back and watched it twice before continuing. It left me wanting to know more, but it also jerked me out of the momentary spell of film-watching.
Additionally, I’ve a major bone to pick with the eventual faceoff between what turns out to be the good guys and the bad guys. In this final confrontation, the truth is our leads are vastly (VASTLY) outnumbered, and yet – for reasons that make no narrative sense – the vampires don’t exactly seize that advantage. Only a handful of bloodsuckers really go into the barn in that last reel, and this dumbfounding strategy pretty much allows for the heroes to hold out much longer than they likely should have. It smacks of a screenwriter’s convention – one structured in such a way as to allow for only those events desired to take place – so it doesn’t seem authentic in any way. Realizing I’m likely in the majority on that front, I’ll just leave it as it stands.
Interestingly enough, the vampires of Sinners are – ahem – surprisingly talented. Instead of using the screen’s long-established ability to merely look mesmerizing to potential victims and ‘glamor’ them into submission, they use words and – even more importantly – music to seduce anyone in earshot of the spells. Coogler fashions an intoxicating mix in several key sequences, disarming his audience in unison with his Nosferatu charming those whose blood they seek to drink; and I think it’s this elegance that elevates what would otherwise be some very predictable occurrences. There’s singing. There’s poetry. There’s even a bit of dancing. These are not the skills that Horror fans have long expected from Count Dracula, and this fact alone makes Sinners something worth watching. Some might find it a bit funny – I honestly laughed at one bit, and I can see the folks behind Scary Movie inevitably having a field day with one vignette – but there’s no denying its majesty.
Where I do have a pretty significant issue with the film involves that big finish. As I’m trying to avoid any major spoilers (there’s a pretty significant one involving the brothers), this might be hard to follow, but I’ll still give it a go.
Eventually, all of the brouhaha boils down to the lead vampire Remmick (Jack O’Connell) trying to convince Sammie (Miles Caton) to willingly join his clan because of the young man’s musical artistry. (Trust me: it’ll all make sense when and if you watch it.) There’s no escaping the fact that Remmick will have the man’s soul – at all costs – if possible, but he holds out a kinda/sorta fleeting hope that the bluesman recognizes the value of his craft being immortal, so this brief showdown has more than the usual significance. However, Smoke shows up in the nick of time with a wooden stake in his hands and pierces the vampire through the heart from the back; and this spells certain doom for the entire clan that’s joined in some kind of symbiotic relationship, giving them all pain before the sun rises and reduces everyone to ash.
Where I take issue with this is actually quite simple: how in the Holy Hell did Smoke manage to cross from the barn, through all of those vampires, and up to Remmick’s back without anyone intercepting him? Granted, it wasn’t a long way from the barn; but that is where we last saw him. Between the barn and the lake where Remmick and Sammie were joined in combat, there was a small horde of the undead … and yet Smoke had no difficulty whatsoever apparently in crossing through this small army and delivering the death blow to the chief villain.
In a sane universe, this couldn’t have happened.
But … in the movies?
Well, this is the kind of gaffe some movies endure between they’re constructed to be entertainment. They don’t always make sense, but they’ll never sacrifice the scene with the loss of spectacle.
Recommended.
-- EZ
Where I do have a pretty significant issue with the film involves that big finish. As I’m trying to avoid any major spoilers (there’s a pretty significant one involving the brothers), this might be hard to follow, but I’ll still give it a go.
Eventually, all of the brouhaha boils down to the lead vampire Remmick (Jack O’Connell) trying to convince Sammie (Miles Caton) to willingly join his clan because of the young man’s musical artistry. (Trust me: it’ll all make sense when and if you watch it.) There’s no escaping the fact that Remmick will have the man’s soul – at all costs – if possible, but he holds out a kinda/sorta fleeting hope that the bluesman recognizes the value of his craft being immortal, so this brief showdown has more than the usual significance. However, Smoke shows up in the nick of time with a wooden stake in his hands and pierces the vampire through the heart from the back; and this spells certain doom for the entire clan that’s joined in some kind of symbiotic relationship, giving them all pain before the sun rises and reduces everyone to ash.
Where I take issue with this is actually quite simple: how in the Holy Hell did Smoke manage to cross from the barn, through all of those vampires, and up to Remmick’s back without anyone intercepting him? Granted, it wasn’t a long way from the barn; but that is where we last saw him. Between the barn and the lake where Remmick and Sammie were joined in combat, there was a small horde of the undead … and yet Smoke had no difficulty whatsoever apparently in crossing through this small army and delivering the death blow to the chief villain.
In a sane universe, this couldn’t have happened.
But … in the movies?
Well, this is the kind of gaffe some movies endure between they’re constructed to be entertainment. They don’t always make sense, but they’ll never sacrifice the scene with the loss of spectacle.
Recommended.
-- EZ
0 Comments